I happen to be a lawyer, but I think the issues in this matter are clear enough for the layman to understand.
The federal government through the DOJ is asserting its supremacy in the field of immigration policy. Never mind the fact that they have been incredibly ineffective and inactive in efforts to solve the problem. I think they have two difficulties:
I recommend that everyone read the original complaint:
A coup d'état (pronounced /ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/, us dict: kōō′·dā·tâ′), or coup for short, is the sudden unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment — typically the military — to replace the deposed government with another, either civil or military. A coup d’état succeeds when the usurpers establish their legitimacy if the attacked government fail to thwart them, by allowing their (strategic, tactical, political) consolidation and then receiving the deposed government’s surrender; or the acquiescence of the populace and the non-participant military forces.
Typically, a coup d’état uses the extant government’s power to assume political control of the country. In Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook, military historian Edward Luttwak says: "A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”, thus, armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d’État.
Excellent point. I agree that “source documents” should be used as often as possible in matters such as this. Also, Kudos to WaPo for posting the reader versions of the complaint and the law side by side.
I’m anxious to hear Levin comment on the complaint. They argue that AZ is making it’s own immigration policy (which they obviously aren’t) to claim violation of supremacy, and argue that they’re interfering with illegals movement from state to state - violating the commerce clause. Now that takes some huevos (pun intended)
I find it amazing that in the body of the argument they contend that inquiring into immigration status should be at the “discretion” of the officer. Amazing. They seem to concede that an officer is within his authority to question legal status - but his authority is only valid if it is used under his sole discretion. Bizarre, absolutely Bizarre.
Like I said I read it myself - but I’m anxious to hear Levin’s take.
Inasmuch as you are a lawyer, maybe you’d like to take a stab at answering a question that popped into my mind as I read this post. While I’m doubtful that it will happen, if the GOP captures both houses of Congress this November, are cases like this in the area in which Congress can limit the federal judiciary’s jurisdiction, or is such a matter one of the areas in which the Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction? And if Congress could deny federal court jurisdiction over this matter, would such action be subject to an Obama veto?
Your first point is the one that matters. The Feds are claiming that their power to create immigration law has been usurped by the State of Arizona, yet the Arizona law does not change Federal law one iota. My question is this: Can a judge order the Federal government to pay Arizona’s legal fees for filing such a frivolous suit? Remember Billy Dale.
If their suit is based on preemption, then anyone who preempts federal immigration in the affirmative (or negative) should be sued...that SHOULD include cities who afford “sanctuary” status to illegals.(which is preempting FEDERAL law )