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 ...
... snip ...
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.
... snip ...
No, the Jurisdiction of SCOTUS is well defined. For enforcement, the SCOTUS largely depends on what you talked about, peoples tolerances. Enforced by public opinion.
After that the only other recourse is Contumacy, but that would be declaring constitutional war ... not a bad idea given the concept of “Repealing Scotus decisions”.
Powers not granted are reserved. Under the Compact Theory which says that the states are parties to the compact(Constitution) and the Constitution created the federal government, the states are the final arbiter of constitutionality of laws passed by the Legislative branch; executive orders, “guidances’”, etc written by the Executive branch; and decisions made by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has a self-vested interest as it is part of the federal government. They consistently make bad decisions i.e. Kelo vs. New London, Wickert vs. Filburn, etc and then we have to live with those bad precedent setting decisions.
The sovereign power is the people and the people have to say to their state legislatures that a law, executive order, or decision is unconstitutional and the state should nullify such. 35+ states passed legislation that private property would not be taken for private use and public benefit which basically nullified the Supreme Court decision in Kelo. Virginia recently nullified those unconstitutional provisions in the NDAA. There are numerous examples in our country’s history all the way back to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798-99 where state nullification has been used.
The people of each state need to say “enough is enough” and make null and void, through their state legislatures, those unconstitutional actions of the federal government.
Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California need to nullify any decision by the Supreme Court that negatives the Arizona immigration law. I don’t expect NM and Calif. to do that because of their liberal views, but there is a good chance that Tex and Ariz would pass nullification. Those two states represent a large part of the southern border.
What will the feds do? Send in the troops? Cut off federal funding? The states need to say “Go ahead, make my day”. The feds would be powerless and our Union and Constitution would be intact. Powers not granted are reserved
Schmuckie must be reading Dubya’s old notes.
W’s second term was underwhelming in many ways.
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.
