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 ...
Schmuckie needs to tend to his knitting and get NYS straightened out.
Shut up Chuck.
It really scares me that NY keeps re-electing this ass-clown.
The AZ law makes it illegal to be an illegal immigrant in the state of AZ.
That’s a “threat to democracy”?
shumer can stick it up his a@@.
This one’s liable to bite Chuckie in the azz and it couldn’t happen to a nicer POS.
I’m sure it wouldn’t dawn on the likes of Schumer that the reason states pass these laws is because of willful malfeasance on the part of the federal government.
My sentiments exactly!
Typical grandstanding. Chuckie knows said bill would never get our of the Senate, and certainly not the House. Just playing to his base with meaningless gestures.
Chucky’s dreaming about all the cameras that will be in front of him on this issue.
Since Arizona’s law is a duplicate of the federal immigration law, that could be problematical, ChuckYou.
If the SC says it is valid, would they not require an amendment to the Constitution to override it?
That is NY State. Schumer is a PR whore. The most dangerous place to be is between him and a TV camera. Because he is a PR whore though, he's also very shallow and won't really do the work necessary on such a controversial issue like this AZ law.
Oh, please do, Sen. Schumer, please make state sovereignty an issue this election cycle. As wishy washy and mushy as the presumptive Republican nominee is on various issues, the only one he's been pretty steady on in that issue; he has to be, in order to defend Romenycare at all.
The SC will be deciding if the AZ law is within the constraints of existing federal statutes. Current federal law already specifically allows state and local law enforcement to assist in and perform certain immigration-associated functions.
If SCOTUS upholds the AZ law, congress could repeal those statutes with another law.
“50 different states doing 50 different things”
While the federals do one thing: Nothing.
One more thing...this coming from the left who regularly loves it when the courts overturn issues in their favor, now they don’t like it? FO Chucky!
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.
... snip ...
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.
... snip ...
No, the Jurisdiction of SCOTUS is well defined. For enforcement, the SCOTUS largely depends on what you talked about, peoples tolerances. Enforced by public opinion.
After that the only other recourse is Contumacy, but that would be declaring constitutional war ... not a bad idea given the concept of “Repealing Scotus decisions”.
Powers not granted are reserved. Under the Compact Theory which says that the states are parties to the compact(Constitution) and the Constitution created the federal government, the states are the final arbiter of constitutionality of laws passed by the Legislative branch; executive orders, “guidances’”, etc written by the Executive branch; and decisions made by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has a self-vested interest as it is part of the federal government. They consistently make bad decisions i.e. Kelo vs. New London, Wickert vs. Filburn, etc and then we have to live with those bad precedent setting decisions.
The sovereign power is the people and the people have to say to their state legislatures that a law, executive order, or decision is unconstitutional and the state should nullify such. 35+ states passed legislation that private property would not be taken for private use and public benefit which basically nullified the Supreme Court decision in Kelo. Virginia recently nullified those unconstitutional provisions in the NDAA. There are numerous examples in our country’s history all the way back to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798-99 where state nullification has been used.
The people of each state need to say “enough is enough” and make null and void, through their state legislatures, those unconstitutional actions of the federal government.
Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California need to nullify any decision by the Supreme Court that negatives the Arizona immigration law. I don’t expect NM and Calif. to do that because of their liberal views, but there is a good chance that Tex and Ariz would pass nullification. Those two states represent a large part of the southern border.
What will the feds do? Send in the troops? Cut off federal funding? The states need to say “Go ahead, make my day”. The feds would be powerless and our Union and Constitution would be intact. Powers not granted are reserved
Schmuckie must be reading Dubya’s old notes.
W’s second term was underwhelming in many ways.
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.
