Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 06/18/2010 12:58:35 PM PDT by Kaslin
The Obama administration will file suit to challenge Arizona's immigration law, an official told Fox News on Friday.
The confirmation comes after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview with a TV station in Ecuador earlier this month that the administration would challenge the law in court, though officials had long said the issue was under review.
Administration officials initially would not confirm Clinton's statement. But an official told Fox News on Friday that while the review is still underway, the decision has already been made that a Department of Justice suit will be filed. The administration at this point is just building its case.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Choice B: Notify Governor Brewer and announce the lawsuit properly, or
Choice C: Send out a lying weasel anonymous source to leak the news, so it can be denied later if it blows up in your face.
Color me shocked (...SHOCKED!!!), they plumped for Choice C. Whodathunkit?
I think the really interesting part to this story is Hillary’s revelation on Ecuadorian tv. She’s made her goofs as Sec-State, but I don’t think she’d let something this big “slip” inadvertantly.
Could we be seeing the opening shots in the Hillary 2012 campaign?
none of those in the fed would be effected by the law, therefore... they have no standing to bring a suit.
works for me.
Barry hears the chill winds of
November
by Thomas Hood
No sun—no moon!
No morn—no noon!
No dawn—no dusk—no proper time of day—
No sky—no earthly view—
No distance looking blue—
No road—no street—
No “t’other side the way”—
No end to any Row—
No indications where the Crescents go—
No top to any steeple—
No recognitions of familiar people—
No courtesies for showing ‘em—
No knowing ‘em!
No mail—no post—
No news from any foreign coast—
No park—no ring—no afternoon gentility—
No company—no nobility—
No warmth, no cheerfulness, no healthful ease,
No comfortable feel in any member—
No shade, no shine, no butterflies, no bees,
No fruits, no flowers, no leaves, no birds,
November!
Obama is appointing the Mali ref who screwed the US out of a World Cup winning goal.
And the Feds will likely get the of the stick because.
Make it illegal in the State of Arizona for an alien to not register with the government, thus being an “illegal alien” (already the case at the federal level: 8 USC 1306a; USC 1304e)
Allow police to detain people where there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they’re illegal aliens (see the recent court case Estrada v. Rhode Island for an idea of what “reasonable suspicion” might entail)
Prohibits sanctuary cities (already prohibited at the federal level, 8 USC 1373) and allows citizens to sue any such jurisdiction
Reality vs. Myth: SB1070
Myth No. 1: The law requires aliens to carry identification that they weren’t already required to carry.
Reality: It has been a federal crime (8 United States Code Section 1304(a) or 1306(e)) since 1940 for aliens to fail to carry their registration documents. The Arizona law reaffirms the federal law. Anyone who has traveled abroad knows that other nations have similar requirements. The majority requests for documentation will take place during the course of other police business such as traffic stops. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country. (See News Hour clip 3:45 seconds in)
Myth No. 2: The law will encourage racial profiling.
Reality: The Arizona law reduces the chances of racial profiling by requiring officers to contact the federal government when they suspect a person is an illegal alien as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment as federal law currently allows. Section 2 was amended (by HB2162) to read that a law enforcement official “may not consider race, color, or national origin” in making any stops or determining an alien’s immigration status (previously, they were prohibited in “solely” considering those factors). In addition, all of the normal Fourth Amendment protections against racial profiling still apply.
Myth No. 3: “Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct.
Reality: “Reasonable suspicion” has been defined by the courts for decades (the Fourth Amendment itself proscribes “unreasonable searches and seizures”). One of the most recent cases, Estrada v. Rhode Island, provides an example of the courts refining of “reasonable suspicion:”
A 15 passenger van is pulled over for a traffic violation. The driver of the van had identification but the other passengers did not (some had IDs from a gym membership, a non-driver’s license card from the state, and IDs issued from the Guatemalan Consulate). The passengers said they were on their way to work but they had no work permits. Most could not speak English but upon questioning, admitted that they were in the United States illegally. The officer notified ICE and waited three minutes for instructions.
The SB1070 provision in question reads:
“For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.”
Myth No. 4: The law will require Arizona police officers to stop and question people.
Reality: The law only kicks in when a police officer stopped, detained, or arrested someone (HB2162). The most likely contact is during the issuance of a speeding ticket. The law does not require the officer to begin questioning a person about his immigration status or to do anything the officer would not otherwise do.
Only after a stop is made, and subsequently the officer develops reasonable suspicion on his own that an immigration law has been violated, is any obligation imposed. At that point, the officer is required to call ICE to confirm whether the person is an illegal alien.
The Arizona law is actually more restrictive than federal law. In Muehler v. Mena (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that officers did not need reasonable suspicion to justify asking a suspect about their immigration status, stating that the court has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment). Source = http://www.numbersusa.com/dfax?jid=475466&lid=9&rid=123&series=tp06MAY10&tid=999725
Even if he wins in a liberal court and Arizona says kiss my cactus thorns, whats he going to do send the jackboots in, or the mexican army???
If Arizona loses the case - does the Federal Gubmint confiscate its assets and throw Gov. Brewer and the Legislature in jail?
Figures! This POS AG focuses time and money on the Arizona law and totally ignores the blatant acts of bribery in the PA and CO senate races.
King Obama will lose the case, but the problem is that they will issue a restraining order until the court case is settled. Then they will stall for years. My advice to AZ is to ignore the order and go ahead with kicking the illegals out. If this communists King Obama will not let ICE deport them then built a tent city and the hell with the Federal Government. Activate the National Guard is AZs right and on all land near the border, which is probably private, patrol and shoot on site. This damn communists rotten pig King Obama is unbelievable.
I would like to add that Arizona should challenge other states to do the same.
Obama administration, just filing lawsuits that Americans won’t do.
That’s what I’m looking for.
Either one of these firearms freedom acts or the Arizona law gets ruled against by a federal court and the state refuses to accept the jurisdication of the court within the state.
And it will take years and years....so it’s for political purposes..
Elections are coming.
Arizona defense:
“Mr Obama has no standing, and must prove citizenship to demonstrate grounds for standing”
You got that right
I was wondering if the state of Louisianna can sue the federal government—anyone?
Oh, I know, it’s just an expression I used
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.