Posted on 07/25/2017 12:50:00 PM PDT by detective
What hypocrites. State laws were pooh-poohed by the left when they worked WITH federal law to counter illegal immigration.
“States rights” is now superior?! LOL!!!
AGain, can we kick states OUT?
When you look at ALL the states that are in opposition to the principles on which this country was founded and sadly it’s a long list, MASSACHUSETTS, it at the pinnacle of the pile of $hit they represent. It is the fountainhead of everything that’s wrong with our country. And for the entirety of my almost 77 years, it’s ALWAYS been on the top of the pile.
As for this court’s ruling, it will be interesting when the Federal Courts are brought in. The idea that a state would want to help protect criminals is beyond comprehension.
Total Kabuki that is, each state can decide as they have what if any penalty there is for possession. In Colorado and other states who have done so there is no override to stop a company firing you for testing dirty
It is ridiculous to put it in the same tier as Heroin on the drug schedule, just keeps agents employed as it did post prohibition when alcohol was made legal again
It’s illegal to hold people suspected of committing a crime?
Well, that certainly changes things.
The crappy reporting doesn’t mention anything about the defendant named LUNN. He is not a US Citizen, although he has been in the USA, admitted legally as a refugee from Cambodia, and has been seemingly on a “green card” since 1985.
He has been in trouble with the law many times and on the DHS radar for at least 10 years
In sum, the MA Supreme Court is saying - the larceny charges against Lunn were dismissed by the State, so therefore he is not involved in a criminal case. MA Supreme Court says Federal Immigration is a civil matter, so the MA police have no right to hold him, regardless of Feds/ICE request.
I’m also wondering why ICE then simply doesn’t go and get LUNN on their own?
The article is extremely unclear - simply painting it as a victory against ICE and Trump.
Exactly.
The thought is that making it a criminal offense would raise the burden of proof required to process through the judicial system. Not saying that I agree, just sharing what the given excuse is.
(a) Arrest, detention, and releaseOn a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States. Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section and pending such decision, the Attorney General—
...
(e) Judicial review
The Attorney General’s discretionary judgment regarding the application of this section shall not be subject to review. No court may set aside any action or decision by the Attorney General under this section regarding the detention or release of any alien or the grant, revocation, or denial of bond or parole.
-PJ
Just remember, this is the court that started Gay marriage.
Look where that got us.
Massachuttes is not America. The people there are Neoeuropeans
What was this court “high” on?
Exactly.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Based on both Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, and also the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 1 in Minor v. Happersett, illegals aren’t necessarily protected by constitutionally enumerated rights.
Only citizens are protected by rights which the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect imo.
”14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen [emphases added] already had.” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
In fact, note that the Court argued that being a citizen didn’t automatically give women the right to vote, many states not allowing women to vote in those days.
Insights welcome.
Never gonna happen.
It was the idiots on the Mass. SJC who started the whole legal/judicial move to gay marriage, by ruling that the Mass. Constitution (originally drafted by John Adams) sanctioned gay marriage. That was the first big domino, IIRC.
...and seize their assets
That’s fine, shut off all Federal funds to Mass, including federal retirement and social security. The court will change its mind pretty quick.
Law Abiding Citizen anyone?
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.