Justice Department Sues Arizona for Immigration Law -- But Does Not Make Charges of "Discrimination"

ABC News ^ | July 6, 2010 | Jake Tapper

[PJ-Comix]

As widely anticipated, Attorney General Eric Holder today filed a lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer over the state’s immigration law. The suit seeks a preliminary injunction to stop the law from being implemented.

The court filing states that Arizona law is pre-empted by federal law and therefore violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The filing makes no assertion that the law is discriminatory or risks being applied in a discriminatory fashion, as the president and other officials said they feared would be the case. Interestingly, this suit makes no civil rights charges against the Arizona law.

You can read the complaint HERE and the preliminary injunction brief HERE.

“The State of Arizona has crossed this constitutional line,” write Assistant Attorney General Tony West, United States Attorney Dennis K. Burke and others. “In acknowledged disagreement with the manner in which the federal government has regulated immigration and in contravention of these constitutional principles…The states are not permitted to set their own independent immigration policies, with varying and potentially conflicting enforcement systems and priorities. Were a number of states to act as Arizona has and strike out on their own, federal immigration policy and enforcement efforts would be crippled.”

The suit states that the Arizona law pursues only the goal of “attrition” while ignoring other objectives Congress has established for the federal immigration system.

You can read more about the lawsuit in THIS PIECE by Senior Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas.

-Jake Tapper

UPDATE: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, released a statement saying: “Suing the people of Arizona for attempting to do a job the federal government has utterly failed to execute will not help secure our borders.  If the President wants to make real progress on this issue, he can do so by taking amnesty off the table and focus his efforts on border and interior security. It is long past time for this administration to prioritize solving a crisis over imposing an agenda and the first step is to recognize that attorneys and amnesty are not acceptable alternatives to border security and job creation.”

Gov. Brewer, meanwhile, is soliciting donations to help defend the state from the Justice Department lawsuit, tweeting: "We will be very aggressive in defending our law. Donate to help keep AZ safe.”

[realcleanguy]

The People of the United States need to file a lawsuit against Eric Holder

[Liz]

Endangered Democrats root for amnesty : ”We just gotta get ‘em legal so they can vote!” Luckily, Democrats got the $20 billion campaign contribution from BP to get it going.

OHAHA MOVES AHEAD FOR 2010-12---Sen Dodd chairing delegation to Mexico-US Interparliamentary Group---bringing messages from Ohaha:

(1) Illegals are undocumented Democrats.

(2) Start increasing the flow of Mexicans into the US for the Nov elections;

(3) Station federales at the border with Democrat party voter registration forms;

(4 ) Obama sends undocumented Democrats application forms for Social Security benefits, SSI apps for the wife, kids and senior relatives, welfare forms, food stamps, EITC apps, lists of free healthcare providers, drivers licenses and passports, sub-prime mortgage apps, bank accounts for every identity, and gun and machete permits.

(5) Lists of Democrat campaign committees taking donations from drug lords.

INSTANT DEMOCRATS (courtesy of FrankR)

[Hostage]

It will be interesting to see how AZ defends this law against the ‘Supremacy Clause’.

I would wish that AZ pursue a defense that negates the Supremacy Clause by establishing that the US Goverment has been derelict and deliberate in its failure to enforce its laws, that States have the right to fill in the void created by a failing or derelict federal government.

Make no mistake, the Supremacy Clause is on trial here. The Constitution clearly states that laws enacted and that are in accord with the Constitution are the Supreme Law of the land, but what if such laws are intentionally left unenforced or even subverted?

This is not a case of a state debating and disagreeing with the federal government on form, policy and style. This is a case about security and protection of residents and citizens.

The burden is on AZ and other states to show that the US Government has been willfully derelict. Against a litany of charges of derelict incidents, the federal government must respond and defend itself. The result will be that finally the federal government’s failure to act will be cast out in the open for all to see and hear. And we are going into election season, so this debate should be good for conservatives running for office.

The key is for AZ to present a strong case of security of its residents so that the judge in the case can deny the injunction, let the AZ law stay in place pending trial. That will allow the elections to proceed with a lower risk of massive illegal vote fraud.

But as in any high profile case, shopping for judges will be expected. I hope Governor Brewer’s AZ attorneys are ready to challenge any impartial judges and ask them to recuse themselves while the state finds a fair judge. Of course judges are supposed to be randomly signed, but we don’t believe in the tooth fairy either.

[Liz]

Ohaha despises the Constitution. Ohaha probably never even read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The Federalist papers, etc. He supposedly taught constitutional law, and voters rights, but he trucked with various fringe elements at the U of Chicago. The whiff of affirmative action fouls the air.

The Ovomitons forgot that States have rights that the feds government cannot thwart.

============================================

REFERENCE The Constitution is the limiting document upon the feds; the federal government cannot become greater than the granting power. That is, the federal servant cannot become greater than its master........the states.

According to Fox's judicial analyst, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, Ohaha's healthcare reforms amount to "commandeering" the state legislatures for federal purposes, which the Supreme Court has forbidden as unconstitutional. "The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate state governments.

Nevertheless, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done.(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com............

=================================================

States Can Check Washington's Power; by directly proposing constitutional amendments
WSJ 12/21/09 | DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY
FR Posted 12/2/09 by rhema

For nearly a hundred years, federal power has expanded at the expense of the states—to a point where the even the wages and hours of state employees are subject to federal control. Basic health and safety regulations that were long exercised by states under their "police power" are now dominated by Washington.

The courts have similarly distorted the Constitution by inventing new constitutional rights and failing to limit governmental power as provided for in the document. The aggrandizement of judicial power has been a particularly vexing challenge, since it is inherently incapable of correction through the normal political channels.

There is a way to deter further constitutional mischief from Congress and the federal courts, and restore some semblance of the proper federal-state balance. That is to give to states—and through them the people—a greater role in the constitutional amendment process.

The idea is simple, and is already being mooted in conservative legal circles. Today, only Congress can propose constitutional amendments—and Congress of course has little interest in proposing limits on its own power. Since the mid-19th century, no amendment has actually limited federal authority.

But what if a number of states, acting together, also could propose amendments? That has the potential to reinvigorate the states as a check on federal power. It could also return states to a more central policy-making role.

The Framers would have approved the idea of giving states a more direct role in the amendment process. They fully expected that the possibility of amendments originating with the states would deter federal aggrandizement, and provided in Article V that Congress must call a convention to consider amendments anytime two-thirds of the states demand it.(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...

Related Stories:

Randy Barnett: The Case for a Federalism Amendment

Clarence Thomas: How to Read the Constitution

[rockinqsranch]

There are currently 26 Democrats, 23 Republicans, and 1 Independent holding the office of Governor.

That means at least 24 States could sue the Federal Government for NOT doing a major aspect of the job the Federal Government was formed Constitutionally to do.

This whole thing is bass-ackwards. The Fed is basically a management company for the States. (rather simplistic perspective, but.....) Let’s get it back in perspective.

[SweetCaroline]

Bad news for Obama: Conservative Justice Kennedy tells pals he's in no rush to leave Supreme Court

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/07/06/2010-07-06_holdin_court_at_73_justice_kennedy_tells_pals_hes_not_retiring_for_years__thats_.html?print=1&page=all#ixzz0sx1Cm3Lz

[glock rocks]

“Dude, where’s my discrimination?”

Hell, next thing ya know, Holder et al will be allowin black community agitators to threaten and intimidate the whities at the polls...

no wait...

[Hostage]

Good points but what if there is a security risk in granting the injunction?

Same question: What if AZ residents face increased risk of life and property as a result of granting the injunction?

You say that it boils down to a question of law, but what of the crime and violence that would re-establich under a court injunction?

IMO a fair judge will hear the security argument and delay or deny the injunction until the federal government can demonstrate that it will enforce its laws.

AZ should be prepared to show impartial crime statistics that are unequivocally associated with illegal immigration

[Girlene]

...Section 3 is Preempted Because it Seeks to Criminalize Unlawful Presence and Will Result in the Harassment of Aliens...

How is "WILL" provable at this point? Just starting to read this suit, and I just can't understand how the Justice Dept can make these assumptions. Page 3, top -

......."Moreover, SB1070 will result in the harassment of lawfully present aliens and even US citizens"......

Curious.

[MountainDad]

Sweet flag!

I'd love to have one of those!

[greyfoxx39]

Good one, Zak!

[greyfoxx39]

Bad news for Obama: Conservative Justice Kennedy tells pals he's in no rush to leave Supreme Court

Kennedy response over Obama slam of SCOTUS at the State of the Union Speech....OH SNAP!

[Uncle Chip]

In acknowledged disagreement with the manner in which the federal government has regulated immigration and in contravention of these constitutional principles ...

Would those constitutional principles include Article II??? How are you doing with those principles???

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks PJ-Comix. This is the bridge too far for Holder.

The suit seeks a preliminary injunction to stop the law from being implemented. The court filing states that Arizona law is pre-empted by federal law and therefore violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. The filing makes no assertion that the law is discriminatory or risks being applied in a discriminatory fashion, as the president and other officials said they feared would be the case. Interestingly, this suit makes no civil rights charges against the Arizona law.

[Grampa Dave]

Below is a site where we can donate to help Arizona fight the thugs of Lord 0haha!:

https://az.gov/app/keepazsafe/index.xhtml

[Girlene]

The burden is on AZ and other states to show that the US Government has been willfully derelict.

According to the suit as I'm reading it, page 4

A. Federal Laws and Discretion Regarding the Entry, Removal and Treatment of Aliens Within the United States

blah, blah, blah,.....at the very bottom, 2- Under federal law, "an alien's mere unlawful presence is not a crime....."

Read this whole part...IOW, the Justice Department is saying it is not a crime to be an illegal alien.....it's a crime only if they "Catch" you entering illegally...or if you come back after being deported or leave voluntarily. Just being here illegally is fine and dandy - no crime involved!

[apocalypto]

I plan to help.

[DataDink]

But... doesn't Holder look like a perfect angel in this photo from the Fox News website?

Why would someone like this go after good people unless they were doing something wrong?

haha - GO ARIZONA!!!!!

[Oceander]

It can't be a matter of preemption. First because the Arizona law doesn't create a competing immigration regime, all it does is direct that its officers enforce federal law - whatever that happens to be - and thus there are no substantive differences that might trigger preemption. Second, federal immigration law doesn't specify that only federal law-enforcement agencies are to enforce it, and one cannot draw the necessary inferences that would trigger procedural preemption. Contra all that nonsense, you have the provisions of Article VI of the Constitution that require that each and every state officer take an oath to support the Constitution - since the Constitution mandates that federal law is the supreme law of the land, "supporting" the Constitution necessarily entails supporting - and enforcing - federal law. QED, the thugs' lawsuit should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

So Arizona is getting sued for writing a law the echoes existing federal law? How do the plaintiffs resolve that? (I think the answer is: Arizona is fed up enough to enforce that law, where the feds are happy to sit and be clock-punchers.)