Posted on 08/29/2011 12:27:09 PM PDT by Second Amendment First
A federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of Alabama's new law cracking down on illegal immigration, ruling Monday that she needed more time to decide whether the law opposed by the Obama administration, church leaders and immigrant-rights groups is constitutional.
The brief order by U.S. District Judge Sharon L. Blackburn means the law won't take effect as scheduled on Thursday. The ruling was cheered by opponents who have compared the law to old Jim Crow-era statutes against racial integration.
But Blackburn didn't address whether the law is constitutional, and she could still let all or parts of the law take effect later. The judge said she will issue a longer ruling by Sept. 28.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
That is debatable. Not that I disagree with you by and large but with so much Federal involvement in those areas it is not as simple as asserting they are solely State programs.
Immigration laws are under the Federal government. The problem and the reason for State government response is the failure of the Federal government to fullfill its constitutional duties regarding immigration.
Attention states, no federal laws should be enforced by state personnel from here on out.
Any state funds collected that should go to the federal government should be held until this statute is figured out.
I’d hate to see states doing something illegal.
apparently everything is under the federal government these days, even whether to serve chocolate milk in schools. This country is not a suicide pact and if the fedgov doesn’t do its job, then SOMEBODY has to.
I meant to say everything is now under the “Federal Family”, lol
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/08/29/out-us-government-in-federal-family/
Judges should follow the law rather than headlines.
If the FedGov is going to attack you at ever turn, it's probably not the right time to try these maneuvers.
Perhaps with the *next* admin?
Whether that requires a statute or a Constitutional amendment I don't know but States should have the standing to get nearly immediate consideration of such claims against them or of claims they exert against the United States. The current system takes way too long.
He may very well turn out to be a weasel, but he hasn't yet. You have no idea how he is going to react to this, so wait and see before unloading on him.
Maybe it's time to start doing what the democRATS and socialists have been doing all along.
Camp out at these assholes houses and offices. Track their every movement and video EVERYTHING they do.
Exactly. In 1980 Reagan should've known that his VP would nominate a woman to the bench 11 years later who would take a few extra days to decide a case 20 years after that.
Reagan was such a sellout!
Sorry. Had to sarc.
There’s a large Baptist church in Birmingham, Alabama that drove a bus around the Northern U.S. picking up illegal Mexicans and bringing them to the Promised Land.
There’s a large historic Catholic Church downtown that seems to employ only Mexicans.
It’s a sad day when Churches are desperate enough to fill their pews with illegal aliens.
Is it constitutional to deny the legal citizens protection from illegals?
That’s what I want to know.
If we could get published in B’ham News and others it could possible sway the judge. All I have seen on TV is the pro illegal crowd. Wouldn’t hurt to let the TV stations know that their are many who are for the legislation. Just my 2 cents.
And this is my shocked face.
The question of this court may indeed be such. The state has every right to restrict it's resources to legal citizens. Please tell me what part of the constitution can support denying Alabama fiscal sanity. Is it the obamanazation of the part that used to say follow our edicts, or we'll cut you off? Damn, we're gonna party like it's 1939!
in 20 years there will be NO california
wow..now THAT’S a Catch 22 !!
The stand the Catholic church takes on this is outrageous and has nothing to do with compassion...We can treat illegals with compassion while we enforce our immigration laws.
The church on immigration has the identical motive of the Dems...more votes, more dues paying parishoners.
yes, I think we will win this election as the right is very motivated. But the leftist and the communist and all of their needy dependents will launch an assault, probably when we move big to regain our freedom. That is ok....I will fight to the death to not lose all of our freedom...hopefully their death...in self and national defense.
I think the Federal government argument is not only do immigration policies come under their purview but so do immigrants who are not yet citizens (legal or illegal) so therefore any and everything that impacts those illegals is subject to Federal scrutiny.
The Feds like the Big Umbrella approach to issues.
I don’t agree just advancing what is probably their argument.
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.