Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arizona Can't Do It; Washington Won't
Townhall.com ^ | June 26, 2012 | Debra J. Saunders

Posted on 06/26/2012 5:56:22 AM PDT by Kaslin

President Barack Obama hailed the Supreme Court's 5-3 decision Monday that struck down most of Arizona's 2010 immigration law. In a statement released by the White House, however, the president said that he remains "concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally."

All eight voting members of the Supreme Court upheld this provision, which requires that Arizona cops try to determine the immigration status of individuals who have been stopped for reasons not involving immigration.

Even though federal law requires legal immigrants to carry identification papers with them, open-border types have dubbed the Arizona provision "show me your papers." Even though the Arizona law requires that race not be a factor in any police actions conducted under the law, MSNBC's Chris Matthews calls that section of the law "the requirement that cops stop people because they look a certain way." Quoth the president, "No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like." No matter how much Arizonans improve the law, the left will maintain that it is about race and race alone.

The irony is that Obama has been a strong booster of the Secure Communities program, introduced by President George W. Bush, operated under U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and expanded under this administration. The program forwards fingerprints taken by local law enforcement to ICE, where officials check to see whether arrestees are in the United States legally. Obama is happy to have local law enforcement check on the immigration status of people it arrests, as long as only his feds make the decision over what to do -- or not do -- about it.

"A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system," Obama intoned in his statement. That's Phony, Part 2.

"The White House hasn't sued San Francisco," a self-proclaimed sanctuary city, noted Jon Feere, legal policy analyst for the pro-enforcement Center for Immigration Studies, "but it's going after states that are trying to uphold the law."

I asked the Department of Justice to explain the administration's scruples on Arizona-versus-sanctuary-cities to me in 2010. A spokeswoman replied: "There's a difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law. That's what Arizona did in this case, and we believe it is an unconstitutional interference with the federal government's prerogative to set and enforce immigration policy."

Or, in this case, not enforce immigration policy. Clearly, the president objects only when states seek to bolster immigration law, not flout it.

As dissenting justice Antonin Scalia reasoned, "the sale of illegal drugs, for example, ordinarily violates state law as well as federal law, and no one thinks that the state penalties cannot exceed the federal."

Now, there is a case to be made for the argument that letting states enforce federal law can, as Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, "undermine federal law." But it's a case best made by those able to ignore the administration's selective umbrage. What Obama is really saying: "Move over, Arizona. Only I have the right to undermine federal law."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: aliens; sb1070

1 posted on 06/26/2012 5:56:28 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

There’s a constitutional fallback for a state that is invaded; it can wage war on its own. War has considerably fewer niceties than civil law as we know it. While this might mean tanks to some, I’d be happy if Arizona set up a huge trebuchet on the border facing south, and launched Mexican interlopers back into Mexico. (OK, give them a parachute so the landing isn’t quite so rough. We don’t want to part with all humaneness, after all.)


2 posted on 06/26/2012 6:00:00 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (let me ABOs run loose, lew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

It’s well past time to start culling the corrupt Washington herd.

Checks and balances my Aunt Matilda.


3 posted on 06/26/2012 6:02:03 AM PDT by Arm_Bears (Journalists first; then lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; P-Marlowe

After a night to think about this, it seems to me that Roberts has sided with piece-mealing decisions so that everyone gets something. That’s a political template for deciding court cases.

It’s troubling, of course, with ObamaCare.

It argues that the mandate will be struck down and maybe a few more provisions of it, but that plenty (most) of it will be left intact.

That will invite the Fed to finance it by other means, and with Obama just declared “despot in chief” by the Arizona fiasco, that means he’ll ignore Congress’ budget power and use, say, the defense budget + the medicare budget to finance a single payer financing of ObamaCare’s health provisions.

Watch out seniors, Obama’s coming after Medicare, Medicaid, and anything else that even hints of health money in it.


4 posted on 06/26/2012 6:06:24 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Between not wanting to make waves and trying to preserve a legacy, it seems the last thing that matters to the in-Justices, if at all, is the US Constitution as written and as they swore to uphold it. Scalia and Thomas excepted, SUPREMES ARE BOZOS.


5 posted on 06/26/2012 6:06:56 AM PDT by Rapscallion (Defy by silence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I think Arizona should now start checking for immigration papers at all DUI checkpoints.

Throw it right back in SCOTUS’ face and give them a severe case of legal indigestion.


6 posted on 06/26/2012 6:09:11 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
"Airizona can't do it; Washington won't."

Guess the only alternative is for the people to do it!

7 posted on 06/26/2012 6:09:28 AM PDT by mosaicwolf (Strength and Honor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Man, that’d be a thrill...

“FREE TREBUCHET RIDES!”

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/42043/insane_car_catapult/


8 posted on 06/26/2012 6:09:37 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

To get right to the point folks is the Prezzy is concerned is that the state might compile a list of illegals that could then be used to see if any voted.....


9 posted on 06/26/2012 6:11:02 AM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mo

To get right to the point folks is that the Prezzy is concerned that the state might compile a list of illegals that could then be used to see if any voted.....


10 posted on 06/26/2012 6:11:57 AM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
There’s a constitutional fallback for a state that is invaded; it can wage war on its own

What Kennedy basically said the Federal government can decide on its own if they want to repel an invasion or not.

The Constitution expressly gives the Federal government no choice in the matter: that's their job and they have to do it.

Kennedy (and Roberts for god's sake) just gave a roadmap to any country that would like to invade and take over the United States: simply have your nationals walk in and install themselves as the citizenry, and take over. You're not allowed to fight back, especially if they aren't white people.

So indeed the states have an emergency right to repel an invasion. The Federal "government" has shown not just a disinterest in complying with it's Constitutionally mandated job, but an outright hostility to it.

Mexico is intentionally trying to control the U.S. Southwest in practicality if not in name. Brewer should simply mobilize the Arizona National Guard on a war footing and declare any incursions into the State as being something that will be repulsed militarily.

Let Kennedy write an opinion about that. And then stuff it where the sun don't shine.

11 posted on 06/26/2012 6:12:27 AM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
There’s a constitutional fallback for a state that is invaded; it can wage war on its own. War has considerably fewer niceties than civil law as we know it. While this might mean tanks to some, I’d be happy if Arizona set up a huge trebuchet on the border facing south, and launched Mexican interlopers back into Mexico. (OK, give them a parachute so the landing isn’t quite so rough. We don’t want to part with all humaneness, after all.)

Yeah, tanks, well, I'd like to get a bunch of Sherman Jumbos (my favorite tank) and Easy 8's ready for the rumble. Well, OK, I'm a World of Tanks junky as a side note. B-) I think what Arizona should do is when they arrest an illegal, just put them in one of Sheriff Joe's camps and hold them there. I told my cousin, "we should put them to work in the plane Boneyard and make them refurbish DC-4's, 707's, DC-8's and the like and Arizona can use the planes to fly them back." Come to think of it, we'd have a labor pool to refurbish the Sherman tanks. B-)

BTW, like the Trebuchet idea too.
12 posted on 06/26/2012 6:19:07 AM PDT by Nowhere Man (General James Mattoon Scott, where are you when we need you? We need a regime change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

When Mexico began passing out pamphlets on how to sneak into the USA, it let the cat out of the bag, if said feline ever had been hidden in the bag in the first place. Since this would mean losing Mexico’s best and brightest (as long as they didn’t have any conscience about what US citizens wanted) it had to be a deliberately hostile move.


13 posted on 06/26/2012 6:21:02 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (let me ABOs run loose, lew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Who says AZ can’t do it? They should set up their own program and ignore the ruling.

Pray for America


14 posted on 06/26/2012 6:21:41 AM PDT by bray (Power to We the People)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I’m nervous about the healthcare decision too based on this. If the Supremes rule in favor of this or mostly so, this will be the defining moment America “jumped the shark.” Some claim that America “jumped the shark” anywhere from 1865 to 2008, but it was not quite a sure thing, but if we lose this one, that will be the true defining moment. All I can say is I hear the twin Evenrudes idling up and I see Fonzie in my binoculars putting on his waterskis.


15 posted on 06/26/2012 6:22:32 AM PDT by Nowhere Man (General James Mattoon Scott, where are you when we need you? We need a regime change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

I mean, like how would Canada feel if Barack Obama had pamphlets on how to sneak into Canada printed and disseminated across the USA???


16 posted on 06/26/2012 6:23:54 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (let me ABOs run loose, lew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man

We’ve seen some feeble promises out of Mitt Romney to do such things as excuse all 50 states. Which he might or might not do, but you gotta know that Obama would assuredly never do.


17 posted on 06/26/2012 6:27:23 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (let me ABOs run loose, lew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

They should take every illegal they detain, load them on buses and drop them off in Washington. Obama likes them so much he can deal with them personally.


18 posted on 06/26/2012 6:42:20 AM PDT by Oshkalaboomboom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
I mean, like how would Canada feel if Barack Obama had pamphlets on how to sneak into Canada printed and disseminated across the USA???

That's simple. Just walk across the Peace Bridge during any game of the Stanley Cup Finals.

19 posted on 06/26/2012 6:48:22 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

the ultimate fallback


20 posted on 06/26/2012 6:56:49 AM PDT by silverleaf (Every human spent about half an hour as a single cell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
I mean, like how would Canada feel if Barack Obama had pamphlets on how to sneak into Canada printed and disseminated across the USA???

An immigration invasion of white people? He'd hate it!

21 posted on 06/26/2012 7:04:33 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mosaicwolf

“Guess the only alternative is for the people to do it !”

What is that saying about stuff not being the federal government’s jurisdiction being reserved to the states or the people?

I wonder does that apply when the federal government chooses to flout the law?


22 posted on 06/26/2012 7:12:04 AM PDT by EBH (Obama took away your American Dreams and replaced them with "Dreams from My (his) Father".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mosaicwolf
Guess the only alternative is for the people to do it!

Sure, when sheep drive coyotes.

23 posted on 06/26/2012 7:20:38 AM PDT by Lady Lucky (God-issued, not govt-issued.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I'm wondering why someone (not sure who) doesn't sue the federal government for NOT enforcing immigration laws and for the lack of border enforcement.

The constitution spells out the role of the federal government is to protect our borders and defend against enemies foreign and domestic.

Curious. Congress acts as if it has no power to stop this lawlessness out of the executive branch.

Furthermore, congress holds the purse strings. Why these bozo's don't begin cutting off the life blood of Obama’s pet projects in the EPA, DHS, TSA and so forth just befuddles me.

24 posted on 06/26/2012 7:20:53 AM PDT by servantboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

Take any agreement or contract that has ever been written or agreed to and you can find one lawyer that will interpret it as understood by the signer.

And another lawyer who will interpret it differently and be willing to go to court to contest the other person’s interpretation.

Some contracts have even been designed so they could be contested, for the financial gain of the attorney.

This court decision may fall in this category.

So find a constitutional lawyer who will read into the decision that the federal government MUST, since the state of AZ cannot, enforce the immigration law as written by Congress.


25 posted on 06/26/2012 7:26:56 AM PDT by old curmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck; Scoutmaster
Arizona citizen could vote to have ALL citizens 'show their papers'. Do it for a year. For traffic stops and random road blocks.

That way illegals could be caught and no one's 'civil rights' would be violated as everyone is treated the same...

Scoutmaster - do you think this would work?

26 posted on 06/26/2012 7:34:46 AM PDT by GOPJ (The 'doting court eunuchs' of the MSM fail to notice...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

More Conservative Supreme Court justices is the only answer...GET RID OF OBAMA!


27 posted on 06/26/2012 8:02:54 AM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway

and get rid of the rats in the Senate and the House


28 posted on 06/26/2012 8:08:03 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

The Constitutional law question is ‘above my pay grade,’ GOPJ. As a practical matter, however, I don’t know that the public’s willing to ‘show their papers’ on a regular basis, much less whether the manpower and budget is available.


29 posted on 06/26/2012 9:59:33 AM PDT by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: xzins
After a night to think about this, it seems to me that Roberts has sided with piece-mealing decisions so that everyone gets something. That’s a political template for deciding court cases. It’s troubling, of course, with ObamaCare. It argues that the mandate will be struck down and maybe a few more provisions of it, but that plenty (most) of it will be left intact.

You echoed my latest fears - cutting a big toe off the monstrosity instead of eviscerating it.

30 posted on 06/26/2012 10:30:50 AM PDT by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster
I think the people of Arizona are so fed up with illegals that they might be willing to vote a situation where they 'show papers' for 18 months... All citizen. Put up road blocks everywhere...

If the State doesn't do that - make it the same for all people in the State - Holder will sue the first time he thinks someone was asked BECAUSE he's Hispanic...

We know liberal elites want illegals here - we know they don't respect the law - there's got to be a way to stop them from forcing illegals on us.

31 posted on 06/26/2012 3:25:44 PM PDT by GOPJ (The 'doting court eunuchs' of the MSM fail to notice...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster
Even though the Arizona law requires that race not be a factor in any police actions conducted under the law, MSNBC's (MSDNC's) Chris Matthews calls that section of the law "the requirement that cops stop people because they look a certain way."

Matthews is right on this - cops can't pick out certain people... it's against the law. But with my idea, that wouldn't be happening. They would check out everyone along a certain road - or every 5th car... something NOT race based. But can people vote away their rights? Or is that a right? You don't have to answer -I get the 'above pay grade' but you have a good feel for the law... well, better than that...

32 posted on 06/26/2012 3:34:13 PM PDT by GOPJ (The 'doting court eunuchs' of the MSM fail to notice...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

AZ should start a “catch and release” program for all felony warrants. All law enforcement in AZ should be told that if they pull someone over that’s wanted on a felony warrant to bring them to a holding center. Then they will be taken to the state border and released. Then the feds will be notified that they had their man but let him go the day before. And don’t tell them which state line they took them too.

Bottom line is obama has chosen one law he doesn’t want AZ to help enforce. AZ should tell him they believe choosing one law over another is “prejudiced” against all the other criminals and they don’t want to be accused of showing favoritism.


33 posted on 06/26/2012 4:06:01 PM PDT by Terry Mross ( To all my kin: Do not attempt to contact me as long as you love obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf
I keep have Fort Sumter running through my mind. Obama decrees he will not enforce federal laws. If Jan Brewer says I will protect the citizens (as she is sworn to do) from invasion and puts the national guard on the southern guard of her state and does not allow people to enter her sovereign state. Obama has said, No! I will not allow this. Now the question becomes will the US Marines and Army and Navy and Air force fire on American citizens in the National Guard. I have not one centilla of doubt that Obama would issue the order. The question becomes one for the US military leadership.

That is far fetched, but the invasion has already put Phoenix on the map as the kidnapping capitol of the world. (next to Mexico City). Now Obama has opened the flood gates, with his good will extended, to any maurader, militant, terrorist, theif, rapist, murderer, or anyone who has designs to reconsitute Mexico 1500.

Brewer does have the right and duty to call up the National Guard. The invasion has been going on for many years. Now the escalation is certain. What other options does Brewer have? This would set up a Fort Sumter scenario. And Obama has always fancied himself as a Lincoln-wannabe. This is quiet the pissing contest the Supreme Court has set up for us. Thanks for trashing the Precious Constitution. All in the world you had to do is be faithful to the Constitution....and you would not.

34 posted on 06/26/2012 4:36:53 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
I mean, like how would Canada feel if Barack Obama had pamphlets on how to sneak into Canada printed and disseminated across the USA???

They would be making such a ruckus at the UN and everywhere else and rightly so.
35 posted on 06/26/2012 6:22:09 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (General James Mattoon Scott, where are you when we need you? We need a regime change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
We’ve seen some feeble promises out of Mitt Romney to do such things as excuse all 50 states. Which he might or might not do, but you gotta know that Obama would assuredly never do.

Yeah, I know Romney was not my first choice, but at least he is not an America hater or destroyer like Obama is.
36 posted on 06/26/2012 6:51:17 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (General James Mattoon Scott, where are you when we need you? We need a regime change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: trebb
You echoed my latest fears - cutting a big toe off the monstrosity instead of eviscerating it.

By doing that, you just make the monster angrier.
37 posted on 06/26/2012 7:07:41 PM PDT by Nowhere Man ("People should not fear their government, their government should fear the people." - V for Vendetta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson