You need to be signed in to Facebook, I believe..., to see this, though. But, you can click the link to the story at it's source, up above.
Hmmm..., is the Supreme Court getting ready to do a “two-for-one deal” and strike down both laws... using the previous one of a few years back to “kick-start” the process and not even wait for a challenge to come forth, yet, for this new law?
This is not SB1070.
So, will the wise Latina write the majority opinion?
Ping!
Immigration is not the same as illegal immigration...i think ariz will win this.
Is the 9th circuit a conservative court or a goofy left court???? hmmm...goofy left and they sided with ariz.
Ummm ... the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 [signed by Reagan] has provisions in it for punishment of employers who hire illegal aliens.
I assume that this 1997 law from AZ is modelled on the language of that Act ...
Here we go....
Naturally, the US Chamber of Commerce is supporting the overturning of the law since it wants to maintain the flow of slave laborors into the U.S.
If this law is overturned, it’s over fighting illegal aliens.
Star...can you clarify this a little more in laymans language...the issue of immigration and illegal aliens is confusing this for me...one of those Dah days....Thanks.
...after Kagan has taken her SCOTUS seat...........
The Arizona employer sanctions law had been challenged by the Chamber of Commerce business group, the American Civil Liberties Union, immigration groups and others. A federal judge and then a U.S. appeals court upheld the law.
I would surmise that it is highly unlikely that the USSC would overturn this case considering that both the original judge and the appellate court are in agreement regarding the law's constitutionality.
And the Supreme Court will hear the challenge to nationalized heath care when??... 2020?
Bring it. The sooner the better. Arizona can win both cases.
The SC just upheld the RKBA. The groundwork for this was the Heller v District of Columbia case. Part of the evidence in Heller case was from the View of the Constitution by George Tucker. Written in 1803, this was part of a larger work put in pamphlet form and distributed at the request of Congress to the public at large in order to explain the newly created Constitution to the people.
Here's what Tucker said about the federal government's authority concerning naturalization-
The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject. This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shalt have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
Volume 1 — Appendix, Note D, [Section 9 — Powers of Congress (cont.)]
------
If the SC insists on continuing the expansion of illegitimate federal power to control every person and State in the country.......the People will be just about out of options.
However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions