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


1 posted on 07/07/2010 7:49:01 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Kaslin

This is really chutzpa: soetoro sues AZ for enacting a law which he, as President, is sworn to uphold but doesn´t, which could have him impeached, but doesn´t since the criminal Congress gives him a pass on having their own prerogatives stolen.

God help us.


2 posted on 07/07/2010 8:02:44 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

The federal government now has the “right” not to enforce its own laws? Then why have a congress? Why even enact laws? Jim Madison is spinning in his grave.


3 posted on 07/07/2010 8:03:55 PM PDT by fhayek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Can Arizona bring a counter suit for the money it has spent on illegal aliens because the federal government hasn’t enforced the immigration laws? I think that all 50 states could get into a class action suit on this. And how about bringing charges against the executive branch for not enforcing the constitutionally passed laws.


4 posted on 07/07/2010 8:09:13 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (The US will not die with a whimper. It will die with thundering applause from the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
" It's about a federal "right" to not enforce U.S. law. "

Sure ..... when black is white and day is night.

The Federal government with possibly one exception for patents held by the government does not have rights!

The federal government has duties and obligations to the citizens of the United States. Nothing more and nothing less.

6 posted on 07/07/2010 8:13:32 PM PDT by An Old Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Obama is a miserable failure.


10 posted on 07/07/2010 8:26:30 PM PDT by BunnySlippers (I LOVE BULL MARKETS . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

This has nothing to do with the enforcement of immigration law. Obama knows that there is plenty of case law that gives states the right to enforce federal law, and that there’s zero chance that the Feds will win on this. And they know the racial profiling argument is BS too.

Why then did they file the suit if, as I claim, they know they will lose?

Because there’s an election coming up, and they’re behind the 8-ball. The economy and other issues have caused the level of Hispanic support for Obama to drop by about 20% since his election. But since this lawsuit was filed - it’s gone back up 3%.

This lawsuit is a political maneuver designed to elevate Obama in polls and by extension, any Democrat Congressional candidates he endorses. Obama knows the majority of the country supports the law but he only cares about regaining Hispanic voter support in time to keep Harry Reid and other influential Dems in power in 2010.


11 posted on 07/07/2010 8:29:18 PM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

So what happens if the Feds succeed with their lawsuit? When we’re told we have no options but to bend over and enjoy the invasion?


14 posted on 07/07/2010 8:36:08 PM PDT by Flag_This (Real presidents don't bow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/az-complaint.pdf

This is amazing - the government’s complaint appears to be a combination of

a) We’re too busy catching terrorists
&
b) Congress assigned the DHS,DOJ and DOS the task of enforcing immigration laws, but they really don’t have to.

An interesting point might be that it seems to want to make State law subserviant not to Federal law, but to Federal policy.

Since policy can change on a whim, no State law, even those fully in agreement with Federal law, could be secure.


17 posted on 07/07/2010 8:51:15 PM PDT by RS ("I took the drugs because I liked them and I found excuses to take them, so I'm not weaseling.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

By the reasoning of the DOJ, local officers should not be arresting bank robbers since banks are the perview of the FBI. Also, they wouldn’t be used to fight terrorism, interstate theft etc. The DOJ really should be careful there.


18 posted on 07/07/2010 9:12:47 PM PDT by McGavin999 (I'm sorry, your race card is overdrawn and no further charges can be accepted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Serious question. There is no field preemption or conflict preemption here. What is the government’s constitutional argument?


20 posted on 07/07/2010 9:53:36 PM PDT by uscabjd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
So how long before Obama's Injustice department goes after the "sanctuary" cities for passing laws and resolutions that violate Federal law and especially in regard to immigration enforcement?

What breathtaking hypocrites progressives are!

25 posted on 07/07/2010 11:01:19 PM PDT by highlander_UW (The left proclaimed Obama as a Lightworker, but his work habit proclaims him to be a light worker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Democrats have been:

1. Threatened by the cartel and are caving in

2. Given some quid pro quo by the cartel and are reluctant to go after it


29 posted on 07/08/2010 12:45:56 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
Well, this is what we get for hiring nothing but lawyers to run our country.

Bottom line - IMO - keep the focus on “illegal” in the immigration issue. (those libs love to use smoke & mirrors to cloud the real issue). Remind our politicians that granting amnesty is nothing more than sanctioning illegal behavior. Granting them a “free” entry card does not guarantee any allegiance to the USofA.

32 posted on 07/08/2010 5:54:58 AM PDT by beachn4fun (Libs use name-calling to silence the opposition's voice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All

watch the preliminary injunction hearing.

a test for the preliminary injunction is a high degree of prevailing on the merits.

I a preliminary is granted, the fix is in.


35 posted on 07/08/2010 9:51:57 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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