Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sen. Charles Schumer promises action on Arizona immigration law
Los Angeles Times ^ | April 24, 2102 | By Lisa Mascaro

Posted on 04/24/2012 2:09:15 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer

WASHINGTON -- On the eve of the Supreme Court’s hearing of the Arizona immigration law, a top Democrat vowed to take congressional action if the high court upholds the state’s tough-on-immigration statute.

The proposal from Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) would surely extend the immigration debate and touch off a states’ rights fight with strong opinions on either side. Should the court uphold Arizona’s SB 1070, Schumer said his proposal would prohibit states from enacting or enforcing their own immigration law penalties unless they are working in concert with the federal government.

“I believe it is simply too damaging to our economy, and too dangerous to our democracy, to have 50 different states doing 50 different things with regard to immigration policy,” Schumer said during opening remarks at a hearing Tuesday.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Mexico; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: aliens; amnesty; arizona; border; immigration; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last
To: Oldeconomybuyer

Climb back in your slime pit Up-Chuck Schumer.


21 posted on 04/24/2012 2:31:23 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty - Honor - Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drill Thrawl; PGR88

I just saw an Arizona state senator call Chuckie a chicken and said he will never insist on it coming to a vote because it would mean the loss of 10 senators in swing states.

He lambasted Schumer


22 posted on 04/24/2012 2:34:34 PM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 ..... Crucifixion is coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

B U M P


23 posted on 04/24/2012 2:39:28 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
It doesn't matter what Chuckie proposes.

It matters what gets passed and signed.

The the GOP House would not pass such a law...even IF Chuckie was able to break a filibuster in the Senate.

24 posted on 04/24/2012 2:45:15 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

“Schumer said his proposal would prohibit states ... “

Another damned yankee who forgets the federal government was created by the states, not vice versa.


25 posted on 04/24/2012 2:47:56 PM PDT by tumblindice (Our new, happy lives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar

“If the SC says it is valid, would they not require an amendment to the Constitution to override it?”

Not necessarily. Congress passing a law slapping down a SCOTUS opinion would lead to what we call a “Constitutional crisis,” that is if anyone bothered to care. They’d need Obama on their side at least.

It’s happened before, what with Andy Jackson daring judges to enforce their ruling and South Carolina’s infamous nullification threat. People tend to view the former as bluster and the latter as treason. SCOTUS’ prestige as the final arbiter of the Constitution has only grown since then. Even among those who disagree with most of its decisions.

For my part, I am happy to let SCOTUS have final official say for practical purposes. Leave final final say to those who supposedly retain sovereignty, that is the people. Judicial power has probably become too entrenched to snatch back Constitutional stewardship by now. Heck, Bush the Younger wouldn’t even presume to veto a law that might be struck down by SCOTUS eventually.

It’s not as if final say is theirs by right or law, however. They have ultimate judicial authority, but judges can be wrong. Incorrect decisions are just as illegal unconstitutional laws. What do you do when SCOTUS doesn’t follow the Constitution, as they have (according to me) in too many cases to list? (Oh, okay, I’ll list a few in no particular order: Kelo, Helvering, Roe, Calder, Wickard, Dred Scott, Plessy, Butler, Home Building and Loan, Carolene Products, Bollinger, Penn Central, McConell, Buckley, Korematsu, Bennis, Miller.) Under the current balance of power, you wait until you get a different SCOTUS or you ammend the Constitution. It doesn’t have to be that way, as it’s only a compromise. Whensoever people lose the faith they’ve built up in SCOTUS as the ultimate arbitrator, that could change.


26 posted on 04/24/2012 2:49:05 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

I do not pretend to be a legal scholar, but could something like this be seen as a bill of attainder? And thus unconstitutional? Not that it has stopped them before...


27 posted on 04/24/2012 2:53:40 PM PDT by cld51860 (Oderint dum metuant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Arizona, enforcing the Federal law the Federal government won’t enforce.


28 posted on 04/24/2012 2:54:41 PM PDT by popdonnelly (Socialism isn't going to work this time, either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

This nonsense won’t get that far. I doubt it’ll ever make it out of committee and then the dims will be afraid to bring it to the floor for a vote anyway. This is just the usual leftie pandering by Chuckles the AssClown!


29 posted on 04/24/2012 2:58:07 PM PDT by rex regnum insanit (falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice

“the federal government was created by the states, not vice versa”

Yes, and anyone who thinks they did so by sacrificing authority over their own borders is an idiot.


30 posted on 04/24/2012 2:58:58 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: cld51860

“could something like this be seen as a bill of attainder?”

No, bills of attainder single out individuals and groups for punishment without due process. I’m pretty sure such a group could not be the entire state of Arizona. The law itself would be what’s singled out for “punishment,” if you can do such a thing as punish a law.


31 posted on 04/24/2012 3:02:54 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Laws mean nothing to these people.

More reason to GET THEM OUT!


32 posted on 04/24/2012 3:08:28 PM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (Anyone not wanting an ID or purple thumb to vote isn't worthy of voting privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Did anybody else notice the phrase “repeal the Scotus decision”. I don’t think there is a mechanism outlined in the Constitution to “repeal Scotus decisions). I don’t even think a Constitutional amendment counts as a repeal as it really just sets up a new measuring stick.


33 posted on 04/24/2012 3:10:20 PM PDT by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drill Thrawl

Only parts of NY keep electing him. The rest of us think he is an embarrassing jackass.


34 posted on 04/24/2012 3:11:47 PM PDT by Dutch Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

schmuck


35 posted on 04/24/2012 3:15:48 PM PDT by Doogle (((USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dutch Boy

We need to make SF, Chicago and NYC, be their own state.

That way we only have 2 senators to deal with.


36 posted on 04/24/2012 3:18:47 PM PDT by hadaclueonce (you are paying 12% more for fuel because of Ethanol. Smile big Corn Lobby,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Hugin

Chuckey’s base consists mostly of New York’s criminal classes and school teachers ~


37 posted on 04/24/2012 3:24:02 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Joe Biden, “STAND UP CHUCK, EVERY BODY GIVE A HAND FOR CHUCK, OH, SORRY CHUCK.”


38 posted on 04/24/2012 3:32:38 PM PDT by GOYAKLA (Recall/ Impeachment Day, November 6, 2012. FUBO, same for RINOs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

“I don’t think there is a mechanism outlined in the Constitution to ‘repeal Scotus decisions’”

There’s no mechanism outlined for SCOTUS to strike down laws, either. It depends on what people are willing to accept, and what becomes habit. I don’t think we’re going to get public acceptance of Congressional oversight of SCOTUS opinions anytime soon.


39 posted on 04/24/2012 3:34:04 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Do it, Schmuckey! The more losing issues you push the more seats the Pubbies will take in the House and Senate. While you’re at it go hard on gun control too.


40 posted on 04/24/2012 3:38:18 PM PDT by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson