Posted on 07/06/2010 11:45:49 AM PDT by nysuperdoodle
The federal government just filed suit against the state of Arizona for daring to enforce the law. It's deeply troubling to see the federal government attacking our own state governments to protect lawbreakers, but on the plus side, the lawsuit was filed by Eric Holder, which means at least the legal work should be sub-par.
(Excerpt) Read more at evilconservativeonline.com ...
OK here’s my prediction.
The following RAT Congresscritters from Arizona are toast:
Gabrielle Giffords
Harry Mitchell
Anne Kirkpatrick
Possibly, but we won't know until later. One of the worst things Clinton did was accelerate the politicization of the judiciary. A lot depends on the judge, and whether this winds up before a multi-judge Federal court. If Holder gets to forum shop for a sympathetic judge (and I don't know how this would work when you are suing a state--there may be no choices as to where you wind up), then the initial outcome is predetermined, but will be appealed.
Your federal tax dollars at work.
That's probably going to mean the next case involving the 14th is that it encompasses CITIZENS and NOT FOREIGNERS.
To give you an idea of how this works notice: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" and the next clause refers to "people", not "citizens". What that means is even foreigners get some sort of day in court regarding their grievance, and presumably it's gonna' be the same process a citizen would get.
So, what kind of process does a citizen get when it comes to deportation? Hunh? Well, citizens are not supposed to get deported, plus, they have rights that simply cannot be abridged ~ e.g. the right to be here, the right to have guns, the right to speak, the right to run around, etc.
Obviously the clause directed at citizens is not also directed at foreigners. They are entitled only to due process in cases involving deprivation of " life, liberty or property". Which means they can be deported, or executed, and so forth.
This Arizona case can go to the SCOTUS and the Obama Regime could get a "privileges and immunities" decision shoved down its tiny little throat.
I think Judge Thomas telegraphed that message in the recent gun rights case ~ he wrote a concurring opinion based on the "privileges and immunities" clause, not the "equal rights" clause, so the decision on gun rights recognized gun rights, et al, but there was no majority for that as an "equal right" ~ you had to add in "privileges and immunities".
A case like the US v. Arizona case cries out for some discussion of "privileges and immunities" and the difference between a citizen and someone who is not a citizen. Frankly I think the 14th says states can abridge the privileges and immunities, that is "rights", of illegal aliens, or even legal immigrants (who are not yet citizens) on whatever basis they might chose, and all they have to do is write a law and set up a process that insures the illegal aliens are all treated the same!
That would include being deported ~
That'd bring down the federal government's involvement in dealing with illegals and turn it into something states do!
No doubt New York could handle their problem, and Texas theirs, and Maine theirs, and probably a lot better than the federales, but if any of those illegals decided to move around the country they might run into Arizona!
This could be one of those historical 'inflection points.' We'll see. It all depends upon how badly they think they need a Reichstag fire event.
Did the idiot finally get around to reading the Arizona law before filing this suit?
marxist needs to read this thread. Cost of illegals to states
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2547803/posts
Bring....it....on, asshat.
States can pass environmental laws, if they are as stringent or more stringent than Federal laws.
Do you really want to open this can of worms, Holder?.
This is the way all Tyrants rule.
Pray for America
Whatever else, it will be an interesting case if we do indeed pass some sort of law denying birthright citizenship here in Arizona.
Perhaps I misunderstood the discussion I read; wasn’t the privileges and immunities clause argued in MacDonald, though not successfully? The NRA’s position hinged on due process and that is what the Court agreed with when incorporating the 2nd Amendment into the 14th.
“It’s too bad that Arizona isn’t being run by the New Black Panthers.”
Isn’t that the truth! They could then do any damn thing they want!
A sad state of affairs.
Hey Arizona (and 49 of the other 56 States) should Sue them right back.
TT
So now the country I was born and raised in is now putting citizens like me in harms way on purpose. My country is not protecting it’s own soil or people, they just let foreign invaders take over land inside this counties borders and let American Citizens be murdered. This administration is the worst on record.
It's all going to come down to Kennedy.
I read a quote from somewhere: "It's Justice Kennedy's world - we all just live in it".
Insanity! Who would have predicted this just a few years ago?
They are always open, as the need arises. If a case demands their attention (as a jurisdictional point), it get attention. If the case is discretionary on their part, they can come back for that, if they want.
States can't and don't enforce federal laws. They may enforce a state law that has a parallel federal violation (and FWIW, a person tried in both venues is NOT, as a matter of law, being subjected to double jeopardy).
States may report offenders of federal law to the feds, but state courts are not competent to render judgments flowing from violation of federal laws.
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.