Posted on 04/24/2012 2:09:15 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
WASHINGTON -- On the eve of the Supreme Court’s hearing of the Arizona immigration law, a top Democrat vowed to take congressional action if the high court upholds the state’s tough-on-immigration statute.
The proposal from Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) would surely extend the immigration debate and touch off a states’ rights fight with strong opinions on either side. Should the court uphold Arizona’s SB 1070, Schumer said his proposal would prohibit states from enacting or enforcing their own immigration law penalties unless they are working in concert with the federal government.
“I believe it is simply too damaging to our economy, and too dangerous to our democracy, to have 50 different states doing 50 different things with regard to immigration policy,” Schumer said during opening remarks at a hearing Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Climb back in your slime pit Up-Chuck Schumer.
I just saw an Arizona state senator call Chuckie a chicken and said he will never insist on it coming to a vote because it would mean the loss of 10 senators in swing states.
He lambasted Schumer
B U M P
It matters what gets passed and signed.
The the GOP House would not pass such a law...even IF Chuckie was able to break a filibuster in the Senate.
“Schumer said his proposal would prohibit states ... “
Another damned yankee who forgets the federal government was created by the states, not vice versa.
“If the SC says it is valid, would they not require an amendment to the Constitution to override it?”
Not necessarily. Congress passing a law slapping down a SCOTUS opinion would lead to what we call a “Constitutional crisis,” that is if anyone bothered to care. They’d need Obama on their side at least.
It’s happened before, what with Andy Jackson daring judges to enforce their ruling and South Carolina’s infamous nullification threat. People tend to view the former as bluster and the latter as treason. SCOTUS’ prestige as the final arbiter of the Constitution has only grown since then. Even among those who disagree with most of its decisions.
For my part, I am happy to let SCOTUS have final official say for practical purposes. Leave final final say to those who supposedly retain sovereignty, that is the people. Judicial power has probably become too entrenched to snatch back Constitutional stewardship by now. Heck, Bush the Younger wouldn’t even presume to veto a law that might be struck down by SCOTUS eventually.
It’s not as if final say is theirs by right or law, however. They have ultimate judicial authority, but judges can be wrong. Incorrect decisions are just as illegal unconstitutional laws. What do you do when SCOTUS doesn’t follow the Constitution, as they have (according to me) in too many cases to list? (Oh, okay, I’ll list a few in no particular order: Kelo, Helvering, Roe, Calder, Wickard, Dred Scott, Plessy, Butler, Home Building and Loan, Carolene Products, Bollinger, Penn Central, McConell, Buckley, Korematsu, Bennis, Miller.) Under the current balance of power, you wait until you get a different SCOTUS or you ammend the Constitution. It doesn’t have to be that way, as it’s only a compromise. Whensoever people lose the faith they’ve built up in SCOTUS as the ultimate arbitrator, that could change.
I do not pretend to be a legal scholar, but could something like this be seen as a bill of attainder? And thus unconstitutional? Not that it has stopped them before...
Arizona, enforcing the Federal law the Federal government won’t enforce.
This nonsense won’t get that far. I doubt it’ll ever make it out of committee and then the dims will be afraid to bring it to the floor for a vote anyway. This is just the usual leftie pandering by Chuckles the AssClown!
“the federal government was created by the states, not vice versa”
Yes, and anyone who thinks they did so by sacrificing authority over their own borders is an idiot.
“could something like this be seen as a bill of attainder?”
No, bills of attainder single out individuals and groups for punishment without due process. I’m pretty sure such a group could not be the entire state of Arizona. The law itself would be what’s singled out for “punishment,” if you can do such a thing as punish a law.
Laws mean nothing to these people.
More reason to GET THEM OUT!
Did anybody else notice the phrase “repeal the Scotus decision”. I don’t think there is a mechanism outlined in the Constitution to “repeal Scotus decisions). I don’t even think a Constitutional amendment counts as a repeal as it really just sets up a new measuring stick.
Only parts of NY keep electing him. The rest of us think he is an embarrassing jackass.
schmuck
We need to make SF, Chicago and NYC, be their own state.
That way we only have 2 senators to deal with.
Chuckey’s base consists mostly of New York’s criminal classes and school teachers ~
Joe Biden, “STAND UP CHUCK, EVERY BODY GIVE A HAND FOR CHUCK, OH, SORRY CHUCK.”
“I don’t think there is a mechanism outlined in the Constitution to ‘repeal Scotus decisions’”
There’s no mechanism outlined for SCOTUS to strike down laws, either. It depends on what people are willing to accept, and what becomes habit. I don’t think we’re going to get public acceptance of Congressional oversight of SCOTUS opinions anytime soon.
Do it, Schmuckey! The more losing issues you push the more seats the Pubbies will take in the House and Senate. While you’re at it go hard on gun control too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.