Everyone needs to donate!
All contributions are for the current quarter expenses.
Posted on 11/08/2014 5:17:20 PM PST by Steelfish
November 8, 2014
Another Arizona Immigration Law Struck Down By Federal Court
PHOENIX -- Arizona's frustrations over federal enforcement of the state's border with Mexico spawned a movement nearly a decade ago to have local police confront illegal immigration. Now, the state's experiment in immigration enforcement is falling apart in the courts.
A ruling Friday that struck down the state's 2005 immigrant smuggling law marks the latest in a string of restrictions placed by the courts on Arizona's effort to get local police to take action on illegal immigration.
The law made smuggling undocumented immigrants a state crime. Like similar state statutes, it was tossed because a judge concluded it conflicted with the federal government's immigration powers.
"There may be some broad sympathy within a constituency for these laws, but that constituency isn't enough to overcome the problems those laws pose," Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor who specializes in immigration law.
For years in Arizona, many officials resisted suggestions that local and state police agencies confront illegal immigration, long considered the sole province of the federal government.
But the notion gained political traction as voters grew frustrated over the state's status as the nation's then-busiest immigrant smuggling hub and over what critics said was inadequate border protection by Washington.
A small number of the state's immigration laws have been upheld, including a key section of Arizona's landmark 2010 immigration enforcement law that requires police to check people's immigration status under certain circumstances. But the courts have slowly dismantled other Arizona laws and policies.
Obama vows to press ahead with executive action on immigration U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton on Friday threw out the smuggling law as part of the Obama administration's challenge of the state's 2010 immigration law,
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Make them stop!
The governors of these states should NULLIFY these criminal decision by these maniac judges. Refuse to obey them.
Force the bastard to try to send federal troops in to try and enforce all these maniac decisions.
It is LOOOOONG past time for congress to grow a pair and make this stop.
Clinton appointee
Bolton, Susan Ritchie Born 1951 in Philadelphia, PA
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. District Court, District of Arizona
Nominated by William J. Clinton on July 21, 2000, to a seat vacated by Robert C. Broomfield. Confirmed by the Senate on October 3, 2000, and received commission on October 13, 2000.
Education:
University of Iowa, B.A., 1973
University of Iowa College of Law, J.D., 1975
Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. Laurance T. Wren, Arizona Court of Appeals, 1975-1977
Private practice, Phoenix, Arizona, 1977-1989
Judge, Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County, 1989-2000
In the battle between good and evil, Democrats have chosen the side one would expect.
It’s never going to stop, is it? AZ just can’t get a break.
We need to revoke all state laws that are copies of federal law.
By 2017, Obama will have appointed close to 400 federal judges. He has the power of pardon. Entering the US illegally is a misdemeanor and returning after deportation is a felony. He can by a stroke of the pen pardon all 11-15 million illegals. Nothing cane be done about it except impeachment, and the Senate does not have the 2/3rd majority to convict him. Besides he has only two years more to co, and Congress has already indicated that impeachment is not on the table.
Well what if the federal government has decided not to enforce the law, then what? That is the situation Americans find themselves in when it comes to dealing with illegals that violate immigration laws.
There must be some way to skin this cat.
Basically, we need elected officials willing to defy these tyrants and their misrulings that are a threat to our nation.
By what logic does the presence of a Federal law mean that a state cannot assist in enforcement thereof. If a kidnapping suspect is on the run from the FBI, is a state supposed to just stand down and give the suspect free run of their state?
1. Arizona should assign the National Guard to the border.
2. The new Republican majority in Congress should immediately pass a bill to reimburse States that place the National Guard on the border.
Where issues concerning the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers are concerned, judges should be required to specify constitutional clauses which reasonably delegate specific powers to the feds to substantiate their assertions about federal government powers.
And in the case of “government” power to regulate immigration, based on the excerpt below from Thomas Jefferson’s writings, the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration, Jefferson indicating that immigration is a 10th Amendment-Protected state power issue.
“4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force [emphasis added].” —Thomas Jefferson, Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798.
In fact, politically correct interpretations of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause aside, Clause 2 of Article VI, the Supreme Court has historically clarified that power not delegated to the federal government expressly via the Constitution, the power to regulate immigration in this case, are prohibited to the federal government.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
And with all due respect to AZ freepers, I suspect that AZ state lawmakers, probably as constitutionally clueless as the voters who elected them are, will not fight the judge’s constitutionally baseless decision.
If the Governors decide to exercise their Constitutional Rights and tell the Federal Courts to F-off, it will stop. Sheriffs are quite capable of organizing a State Militia to help enforce the Governor's stance.
Yep.
Who is allowing these federal judges to wreck this country?
——the courts——
The courts are the cudgel of the DOJ
In general, the courts seem to have no trouble with an excess of laws, even overlapping and contradictory ones going back centuries.
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.