Posted on 04/11/2011 10:34:07 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Have you read the opinion?
I believe such an action would place the governor in the position of making foreign policy, and thereby trespassing on the Constitutional authority and jurisdiction of the president to do so.
Noonan's opinion deals with a similar issue (a state in conflict with the president's power to conduct foreign policy), and I feel certain that an executive order of the sort proposed, would be squashed on that basis.
LOL! The judiciary has no right to make decisions for they other branches of the federal government
"The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but the legislature and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.."
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804.
Much less make decisions for the States which created it-
However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
So I don't give a rat's patootie what the Supreme Court says.
Their jurisdiction is limited just like the other branches are. Separate, but EQUAL...remember?
As I understand it, one of the reasons AZ passed this law was to make sure it's "sanctuary" cities were actually enforcing existing law, and weren't looking the other way when they came across illegals. That, because of this opinion, will probably continue to be an issue.
The Court is saying that it's not possible for states to create any kind of law regarding immigration, and I would take that to be inclusive of statutory and administrative law as well.
AZ, and other states, are going to continue to struggle to manage or correct the actions of these certain municipal districts that give a kind of safe-harbor to illegals, if this opinion carries the day.
Yes, I agree. I corrected myself just above - probably typing as you were posting.
You can make up fantasy laws all you want, but they have no effect outside your fevered mind.
Have a nice life.
But stuff like this..... Arizona's desire to do something about the problem is understandable, but this law is just amateurish. As the opinion points out, Arizona's arguments in court were essentially an attempt to explain why what the law meant was different from the actual letter of the law.
I have read everything up to here and there is something I still just don’t understand.
If the county sheriff shows up at someone’s house and finds them:
...distilling/selling illegal alcohol (a federal no-no)
...printing 100’s on their color printer (a federal no-no)
...sawing off shotgun barrels (a federal no-no)
...etc, etc, etc,
I certainly expect the sheriff would escort them off to jail.
But if the sheriff finds a person who
...has entered the country illegally (a federal no-no)
how is it different in that case,
that the sheriff should just turn a blind eye?
Thanks!
Have you read the opinion itself?
There's certainly that, but there's also this "sanctuary" issue as well. And, it's kind of a pickle for the states to manage, given this decision.
While there's a supremacy clause that applies from federal t state, there's also the public policy necessity for states to be able to give binding direction to their municipalities. How can states stop these cities from giving safe-harbor, even explicit safe-harbor to illegals if the state can't craft any legislation that specifically addresses the issue without encroaching on the federal government's foreign policy supremacy?
Given this decision, it seems likely that Tuscon, for example, can continue to provide unrestrained support to people who should be deported, and who are knowingly deportable. That's a problem - and it's a problem that becomes more difficult to remedy with this decision.
The FedGov needs to enact legislation that demands that state/local police officers act accordingly if there's reasonable suspicion that they've come in contact with an illegal. Then, they can litigate that federal statute without any supremacy clause issues.
Not even a “nice try”. The quote may have pertinence to an injunction, the merits of which are yet to be properly tested at the highest level, but the quote isn’t pertinent to the issue I raised - the right of a state to defend itself from foreign invasion in the absence of effective federal action.
As for whether the AZ’s law actually supersedes federal law, which I agree is inappropriate re immigration, it is my understanding from an initial reading of the law, the writings of reviewers and its authors, that it did not.
I’ll read the decision and review the arguments of the authors of the law. I’ll be back, either to congratulate you or educate you.
Regards,{:^)
Yes, but reading it and understanding it are two different things.
I can only surmise as a comparison to my question to you,
that the appeals court says that the state of Arizona cannot enact laws making counterfeiting; selling illegal liquor; or manufacturing illegal firearms illegal;
because those things have federal jurisdiction?
Time to stop referring to it as the “Federal” government and just start calling it what it is - the “central” government.
To a degree, especially with respect to counterfeiting. With some of the other things you mentioned, there may be concurrent state/federal interest and jurisdiction. For instance, there might be OSHA or EPA regulations that apply to all of those things, in addition to other limitations or regulations that the states mandate, right?
Where the supremacy clause would be germane in all of your examples, is if the states tried to enact a regulation that countervailed a federal law. That's not allowable. But, with respect to this particular case at bar, the establishment of foreign policy falls exclusively to the federal government, or so the court (and several before it) has held.
Why is it up to a state government to do what the federal government is supposed to do? Why is a state supposed to listen to the federal government about state laws?
Lots of history of weak people doing what they were told when a federal court arrogated power to itself when it did not have the authority (Roe v Wade, for example).
You get what you deserve from your government.
Because states can't pass laws that conflict with the Constitution or federal law - hence the supreme in Supremacy Clause.
Yes, that applies when it is a proper federal issue. When the federal government starts ruling on things where they have no constitutional authority, they should be ignored.
When the federal government refuses to do their job and then prevents states from acting in their own best interest because it is a federal job, I support secession.
The act of the Legislature of New York is not a regulation of commerce, but of police, and, being so, it was passed in the exercise of a power which rightfully belonged to the state. The State of New York possessed the power to pass this law before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. The law was “intended to prevent the state’s being burdened with an influx of foreigners and to prevent their becoming paupers, and who would be chargeable as such.” The end and means here used are within the competency of the states.
Justice Barbour goes on in his opionion for the 6-1 majority:
...obviously passed with a view to prevent her citizens from being oppressed by the support of multitudes of poor persons who come from foreign countries without possessing the means of supporting themselves. There can be no mode in which the power to regulate internal police could be more appropriately exercised. New York, from her particular situation, is perhaps more than any other city in the Union exposed to the evil of thousands of foreign emigrants arriving there, and the consequent danger of her citizens being subjected to a heavy charge in the maintenance of those who are poor. It is the duty of the state to protect its citizens from this evil; they have endeavored to do so by passing, amongst other things, the section of the law in question. We should upon principle, say that it had a right to do so.
New York v Miln (1837)
I suppose I could use an editor tonight. My pronouns are just a mess there.
Question. Does what you say mean that states cannot recognize/act on crimes where/when the federal government has laws dealing with such crimes. What comes to mind is someone caught by state police trying to blow up an interstate highway bridge. Does the state cop instead of a formal arrest just say don’t do it until I call the feds? Or does it all hinge on the state cop having to have a state law that allows him to make an arrest?
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.