Thanks Pookie.
Posted on 07/23/2010 10:41:23 AM PDT by Starman417
We knew the Obama administration didn't have a case against Arizona....now it appears, at first glance, that the federal judge to decide the case has some serious concerns over the Federal suit:
A federal judge pushed back Thursday against a contention by the Obama Justice Department that a tough new Arizona immigration law set to take effect next week would cause "irreparable harm" and intrude into federal immigration enforcement."Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?" U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton asked in a pointed exchange with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler. Her comment came during a rare federal court hearing in the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer (R).
Bolton, a Democratic appointee, also questioned a core part of the Justice Department's argument that she should declare the law unconstitutional: that it is "preempted" by federal law because immigration
Read more at floppingaces.net...
You said detain or punish and i can see where the length of detention could be construed as a punishment. If the state had to hold onto an illegal for two weeks waiting for the feds to pick them up for deportation then that two weeks could be seen as a sentence by some.
I think a victory for Obama of the sort you describe would be Pyrrhic at best. It stands a real chance of causing a break between the states and the feds when it comes to cooperation. Its a serious issue.
Check this out - precedent for AZ ...
Found this little nugget in the Columbia Law Review. Author is definitely against enforcing immigration laws, but there are three interesting paragraphs in Section II B. And ya gotta remember that this was written BEFORE SB 1070 was passed - so the restriction in the third paragraph is MOOT.
If you wanna read the entire paper it is at:
http://www.columbialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/108/5/Rodriguez.pdf
However, I have posted the three paragraphs here:
“The Tenth Circuit has provided the most analysis regarding state and local law enforcement of federal immigration law. In United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez and United States v. Santana-Garcia, the court of appeals ruled that federal immigration law did not displace state authority to make arrests for violations of federal immigration law. In Vasquez-Alvarez, the defendant was arrested by an Edmond, Oklahoma, police officer based solely on his illegal immigration status. The court stated that immigration provisions indicated that there was no conflict between state and federal immigration enforcement. While federal law did not itself authorize the arrest of an immigrant by a state officer, it did not displace state authority to do so. In fact, the court noted that the portions of immigration law that outline how states may cooperate with the federal government “evince[ ] a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.”
The Tenth Circuit cited Vasquez-Alvarez two years later in United States v. Santana-Garcia, a case involving a Utah state trooper who pulled over a vehicle that failed to stop at an intersection. While ultimately concluding that the officer had probable cause to stop the vehicle in the first place, the court stated that “federal law as currently written does nothing ‘to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws.’”
3. State Enforcement. — Even if the Immigration and Naturalization Acts do not preempt state enforcement, an additional element must be present before state officials can enforce federal immigration law: express authorization under state law to enforce federal law. Even in Gonzales, in which the court of appeals stated that state enforcement of civil immigration provisions was preempted by federal law, enforcement of criminal provisions was allowed only if state law authorized such enforcement.”
In NYC i was given a ticket for walking from one subway car to another. I didn’t realize it at the time but teh cop followed me through 3 cars. Coming back from work,business casual.
Pulled me off the train,questioned me like i was dressed like Obama Bin Laden himself. Held me there 20 minutes going through my ID. 55 year old businessman. Humiliating,truly.
To the point,why can’t illegals be treated as i was?
Actually, the judge did use the word “illegally” at the end of her sentence, but when the Washington Post reported the exchange they left out that word. The exchange was reported correctly in our local papers (Tucson) but that doesn’t fit the agenda of the Main Stream Media so they edited out the words that didn’t suit their purpose.
Thanks Pookie.
Isn’t kidnapping also a federal crime?
if the final ruling is that AZ can *question* but cannot *punish*
Contrary to popular belief, the 9th 10th and 11th Amendments are still valid and in force, for starters.
That the Federal government has encroached and eliminated what were clearly States' Rights over time is beyond dispute and, also contrary to folk wisdom, the Civil War did not repeal those three Amendments and render future debate about their intention unnecessary. If such were the case, those Amendments would be formally repealed and no further uncertainty would result.
But my main argument against Federal preemption is that, if all it takes is to pass a Federal law on any subject, and thus establish permanent jurisdiction over that subject, then the Sates would be out of business altogether, except as enforcers of Federal Law. It does not take much imagination to see the fatal ultimate fate of such a system : Totalitarianism by any of its many names.
Obviously, by the simple expedient of not enforcing a new Federal Law (or ever funding it) there is no State, County or municipal law imagineable that cannot be rendered null and similarly abused.
The fundamental fact and reality is, that by not enforcing their own immigration and citizenship laws, the Federal government has maneuvered itself, "legally," into the position of power to nullify all laws of all lower branches of government.
If a law is not enforced, does it legally and actually exist?
And if it does not exist, can it preempt anything?
Good point.
Then again, it’s probably a very good thing (for some scumbags) that I am not a judge. Or a cop, for that matter.
I do not have the temperment. (Just stating the obvious, here.)
Dang!
The SRM can’t be trusted to report the facts???
lol
I have an idea....why not let ALL the mexicans who WORK and PAY TAXES to stay here....one condition, they can’t vote!
Because they are taking jobs from legal American residents and sending billions out of this country, contributing to the economic crisis.
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.