[glock rocks]

I think the question of it being Constitutional probably is based on the State taking it upon themselves to enforce what usually comes under Federal jurisidiction.

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!

[lastchance]

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.