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

Skip to comments.

Montana court strikes down last piece of anti-immigrant law
Herald Courier ^ | 05/11/2016 | AP

Posted on 05/15/2016 10:07:05 AM PDT by Rusty0604

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last
To: Piranha; mrsixpack36
The case that set the precedent was Plyler vs Doe in Texas in the 1970s, which was eventually upheld by SCOTUS in 1982.

Plyler vs Doe dealt only with educating illegals, but it was used as a precedent when the court overturned Proposition 187 in California, except it was extended to include everything in Prop 187.

Because GOP Guv Wilson was out going, it was up to incoming dem Guv Gray Davis to appeal and he didn't.

41 posted on 05/15/2016 12:50:27 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

With just a pinch of dumbass (”Feel The Bern”) thrown-in, for bad measure.


42 posted on 05/15/2016 12:56:21 PM PDT by Carriage Hill ( A society grows great when old men plant trees, in whose shade they know they will never sit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

Strange - I had been under the impression that the folks of Montana were sane.


43 posted on 05/15/2016 1:38:44 PM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer; A_Former_Democrat; Maceman
If Your State is a Mess.
44 posted on 05/15/2016 1:49:50 PM PDT by Jacquerie (ArticleVBlog.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

I agree with you Ben. However, as you said the proposition 187 case stopped at the level of the district court. It never got to the circuit court, and as a result there is no binding precedent on Montana. (Montana is in the 9th circuit, the same circuit as California, so if there had been an appeal to the federal circuit court it would have covered Montana).

In any case, even if there were binding precedent in the 9th circuit a state court could have held differently and the case would have gone to the US supreme Court. Also, arguably, since it was a different statute whose constitutionality was being considered and not proposition 187, even a federal court could have distinguished the other cases if the judges wishes to do so. That also would have brought the case to the Supreme Court.


45 posted on 05/15/2016 1:55:45 PM PDT by Piranha (Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have - Saul Alinsky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

The leftist courts continues on their mission to mainstream insanity.


46 posted on 05/15/2016 2:12:52 PM PDT by mbrfl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604
Bios of the Supreme Court members.

Contact info:
Montana Supreme Court
Justice Building
215 N. Sanders
P.O. Box 203001
Helena, Montana 59620-3001
Phone: 406-444-5490
Fax: 406-444-3274
Hours: Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

No email address found.

47 posted on 05/15/2016 3:44:25 PM PDT by Oatka (Beware of an old man in a profession where men usually die young.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

We have to deport the illegals and keep them out. Once they are here the liberals think they need to hand them everything on a silver platter.


48 posted on 05/15/2016 5:15:18 PM PDT by Tammy8 (Please be a regular supporter of Free Republic! Become a monthly donor if you haven't already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

Likely not, but I expect them to claim everything he does to secure the border and deport illegals is unconstitutional. It will be a major battle to get our country back.


49 posted on 05/15/2016 5:17:10 PM PDT by Tammy8 (Please be a regular supporter of Free Republic! Become a monthly donor if you haven't already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tammy8

I’m afraid you’re right.


50 posted on 05/15/2016 7:51:57 PM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

I try to do the same. The Voters’ Pamphlets may provide a list groups that endorse a particular judge but they usually try to make even the most activist judges look non-partisan. I wish there were an online site that could provide information about judges.


51 posted on 05/15/2016 9:07:05 PM PDT by Mr. N. Wolfe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

This could be a BVlessing in disguise for citizens and a huge blunder by the ruling class.

The courts ruled the state was attempting to meddle in an area of federal jurisdiction using a term that is unconstitutional because it conflicts with the federal laws. The entire law is pre-empted by federal immigration laws, the Montana Supreme Court opinion said.

GREAT, FEDERAL LAW SAYS:

18 U.S. Code § 31 - Definitions

(6)Motor vehicle.—
The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.

DID the Montana Supreme Court just INVALIDATE ALL DRIVERS LICENSE REQUIREMENTS for the Average DRIVER?? Clearly STATE LAW is
meddling in an area of federal jurisdiction using a term that is unconstitutional because it conflicts with the federal laws. The entire law is pre-empted by federal laws.

Somebody needs to FORCE THIS RIGHT DOWN THIER THROATS!

http://www.shtfplan.com/experts/living-free-without-permission-building-without-a-permit-driving-without-a-license_05162015

By law, the only individuals who are required to license themselves and their vehicles are those who are involved in the commercial activity of transporting goods or paying passengers for a living. We The People have a Right to own the cars we have purchased and travel upon the public Right of Way. However, it has been written since the times of horse and buggy that the commercial activity of transportation shall be a regulated privilege. “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thomas v. Smith, 154 SE 579.


52 posted on 05/16/2016 3:24:28 PM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last

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