Posted on 03/13/2018 4:46:15 PM PDT by SpeedyInTexas
Very good Texas news!!
Texas Ping!
Winning!
What a diefferent state than here in commie CA
#26. Nuke them from space to convince them of the error of their ways. The survivors will get the point and OBEY THE LAW.
Remember the Alamo!!!
5th Circuit, not the 9th. BIG difference. They rarely get overturned.
One reason the 5th likely ruled that our law would hold up in Federal is because existing federal laws and regs already back it. To be frank (or even John), any entity that takes federal funds has a legal obligation to follow federal regulations/laws. The grantor/lendor (federal government) has a legal obligation (meaning the agencies have to do it) to ensure that the grantee/lendee is abiding by those regs, or cut the funds.
This is why Jerry Brown is playing a snake game in Cali.
By the way, I’m still waiting for those bellweather wins again George P and Sid that he media claimed would happen last week. Suck it, media!
I was just looking at Idaho for relocation, need a new (CONSERVATIVE) place to start a new orchard.
Need power, water (preferably private well, 50 gal/minute, will settle for less), at least 3 bedroom house on about 20 acres or better.
I am also a Californian but some where to the (far) right of Atilla the Hun.
GOD, guns, wife, and dogs.
I am a good neighbor, willing to help out in all situations where things go south; fire, flood, snow, etc. Just like to be left alone to grow my fruit trees and truck gardens.
Former fire fighter (USFS), former (probably still am) Marine, former plumber, former maintenance supervisor, former project supervisor.
Licensed (all expired now) in; Asbestos Inspector/Project Supervisor, Storm Water Inspector/Plan Writer, Potable Water Backflow Inspector/Tester, Project Safety and Building Inspector.
If there is any thing in Idaho that you know of that meets my home farming and peace and quiet requirements please let me know.
I am also a pretty avid bird hunter (quail, chukar, dove, pheasant, etc.), not so much on antelope, deer, or elk anymore (to much work), but I do love to get out into the field whether I get skunked or not.
As an aside, does Austin hold fugitives from other states or countries for extradition?
The frog is boiling. Too many people in the big cities.
Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfNKFvHtA3g
EYE opening if you apply it to humans and a BIG CLUE on current human behavior in cities.
Tra la la, la la la la
You bet!
Thanks for the heads up, Luv, Great news!
I hope that's a joke, and that you're not seriously accusing a fellow Freeper of harboring liberal tendencies.
Agreed. This case will reinforce
former favorable filings. California
will be throwing a tantrum. They will
undoubtedly pass laws that will require
future challenges. Unbelievable that
they support these vermin. Afterall,
it’s still just a misdemeanor offense
to sh*t on the sidewalk in San Francisco.
Never mind indecent exposure, where in some states, will land you on a sex offenders list.
Wait. The 9th Circuit will definitely weigh in on this, and SCOTUS will be forced to state the obvious. But not until a stay on execution has been in effect in the interim.
Indiana. Central Indiana just north of the city. Seriously. Absolutely spectacular place. Conservative, great schools, and I mean world class. Low taxes. Great infrastructure. Easy to make friends. At the center of the grocery wars, ie. all produce and fish cheap. Cheap housing, and when I mean cheap 500k buys you a mansion. (7500 sq foot with a bowling alley in the basement) Water table is 60 ft down and you could get 200 gal a minute if you wanted to. Hell, I will even give you a lead. Google Indianapolis Executive airport and then move north east. Stuckys (sp). I don’t know if they would be willing to sell but is is kind of a hobby apple orchard. Only about 100 acres or so. Stuff is cheap out here. Would probably cost less than your cali house.
Trump needs to place border patrol stations at all exit points from CA.
To keep the flood of illegals from moving eastward.
And carefully check all buses and planes arriving from CA.
>The Supreme Court Agreed
Here is why I think this sentiment is wrong, and why I believe that the federal courts ruled incorrectly on Arizona's SB 1070.
§ 1252c. Authorizing State and local law enforcement officials to arrest and detain certain illegal aliens(a) In general Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to the extent permitted by relevant State and local law, State and local law enforcement officials are authorized to arrest and detain an individual who—
(1) is an alien illegally present in the United States; and(b) Cooperation The Attorney General shall cooperate with the States to assure that information in the control of the Attorney General, including information in the National Crime Information Center, that would assist State and local law enforcement officials in carrying out duties under subsection (a) of this section is made available to such officials.(2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported or left the United States after such conviction, but only after the State or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the status of such individual and only for such period of time as may be required for the Service to take the individual into Federal custody for purposes of deporting or removing the alien from the United States.
As I underlined, this section of federal code expressly authorizes states to pass laws to support § 1252c.
Obama's DoJ sued Arizona on the grounds that ONLY Congress has the authority to make immigration law. This is not entirely true; Congress has plenary power, but they can delegate that power, and § 1252c is where Congress explicitly gives states a limited power to make supporting law, which Arizona did.
The federal court ruling against Arizona SB 1070 further found that the President has a discretionary power to not enforce a federal law, and so Arizona encroached on that Presidential power by enacting its own law. I argue that not enforcing a federal law that grants a power to a state does not disqualify that state from enforcing that law itself, because the state got its authority from Congress, not the President.
In the case of § 1252c (a)(2), a state is limited to apprehending previously convicted felons who were deported and reentered, and only for as long as it takes federal law enforcement to verify and take custody of the individual. § 1252c (b) compels the Attorney General to make this information available to state and local officials. Furthermore, 8 U.S. Code § 1226 - Apprehension and detention of aliens (d) Identification of criminal aliens authorizes the Attorney General to devise and implement an information system.
I would argue that if the Department of Justice refuses to cooperate with a state via § 1252c (b), then the state is in its rights to hold the individual until such time as the Attorney General cooperates. A defiant Attorney General does not nullify a state's power to act under § 1252c (a).
Based on the above analysis, the question now is whether § 1252c (a) gives California the authority to pass a law FORBIDDING cooperation with federal immigration arrests?
-PJ
“Controversial?” For upholding federal law?
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.