How can a state declare that the Fed Gov can NOT enforce its own border???
California citizens should tremble at the thought that the application of law is in the hands of officials who see it’s use as a political weapon, for one day it will come for them should they say or do something deemed offensive.
By forum shopping and using the out of control ninth circuit, that’s how.
It’s a Federal Border. Ca would have to prove some kind of loss....which just won’t happen.
And how can this be squared with the recent judicial precedent that Arizona couldn't enforce Federal immigration laws on its own border, but instead, had to do it the way the Feds wanted it done, by letting the Feds control all aspects (which, under Obama, was no enforcement at all)?
Arizona was told border enforcement it a federal issue and the state cannot try to help. Logically, it would also mean the state could not interfere. But of course, judges have no interest in logic. Only power, and doing what they want.
Here's what the Constitution says about your question:
SUPREMACY OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
[2] This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
[3] The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.