Posted on 07/15/2010 11:24:24 AM PDT by honestabe010
Beginning at 1 P.M. E.T. CNN began running a story on lawsuits being brought against the Arizona immigration law. CNN failed to tell you this, but leading legal experts say that these suits have “little chance” to prevail in court. The CNN anchor referred to analysis of a contributor while saying “We know there are so many lawsuits out there, but what is the basis of this one?” Apparently 7 lawsuits constitute “so many”.
They covered two citizens with what they referred to as “Mexican ancestral heritage” who are also both police officers in the state and are bringing suit against Arizona for SB-1070. They both claim that for personal reasons and principles they will not enforce the law, but are worried because of the consequences that may follow. Word of advice, you should probably quit your job if you are unable to follow the oath which you swore to uphold and protect. Otherwise, you should be punished and stop crying to CNN about this self-initiated kunudrum you are in.
In the suits, both Officer Salgado and Officer Escobar are citing the 14 amendment which guarantees minorities full rights as U.S. citizens as well as contains the supremacy clause. The plaintiffs are arguing that the Arizona law infringes upon minorities rights, but are also arguing that the law is unconstitutional because the supremacy clause prevents any state from passing immigration related laws.
The law is obviously not directed towards citizens so the first claim has little standing. In regards to the “supremacy clause, ” in the case of Edgar v. Mite Corporation in 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute." Any logical person know the Arizona law is an enforcement of current federal statutes.
(Excerpt) Read more at thewoodwardreport.com ...
llegal Immigrants gave way to Undocumented Workers which is now giving way to Men Of Mexican Ancestral Heritgage.
Aka “La Raza”.
The law is obviously not directed towards citizens so the first claim has little standing. In regards to the “supremacy clause, ” in the case of Edgar v. Mite Corporation in 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that “A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute.” Any logical person know the Arizona law is an enforcement of current federal statutes.
Can an argument be made that a state law is void where it conflicts with Federal policy? What about a conflict with Federal agency rulings?
I am asking this in all seriousness.
CNN, what’s that? (s
I never watch CNN. They haven’t got a clue why they are so low in the ratings.
As I understand it, you'd have to show a conflict with a federal statute, rather than with the policy implementing it. Since the Arizona law mirrors existing federal statutes, that's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to prove.
Yes and yes. The Supremacy Clause takes care of the first, and federal agency rulings are technically powers Congress delegated to the executive, so should still be subject to the Supremacy Clause.
But the state law is only invalid where there is no way the two laws can be reconciled, basically where they are exactly opposite. This being a law complementary to federal law, I don't see how it can be overturned based on the Supremacy Clause.
This is as opposed to sanctuary laws, which IMSNHO have irreconcilable differences with federal law. That is where an Executive faithfully executing the laws of land would sue.
These two are simply useful idiots.
“the 14 amendment which guarantees minorities full rights as U.S. citizens”
It does nothing of the sort. It guarantees citizenship to all people born in the U.S. Which might include what we call “minorities,” but, as I said, only the ones who are born in the U.S.
“Can an argument be made that a state law is void where it conflicts with Federal policy?”
Policy? No. Law, maybe. Depends. The states and the feds in many areas have overlapping jurisdiction.
“Yes and yes. The Supremacy Clause takes care of the first, and federal agency rulings are technically powers Congress delegated to the executive, so should still be subject to the Supremacy Clause.”
That’s one way of putting it, I guess. The law is the controlling thing, in any case. If there’s a conflict with preemptive policy, the feds will not argue in court that the states are interfering with their policy; they’ll cite the law.
What’s happening in this case, and what’s funny, is that the feds are going after the states fro transgressing their de facto policy of mostly not bothering to enforce immigration law. If they were honest, they’d have to admit that they are mad at Arizona for doing exactly what the law gives them the power to do. Which is an untenable legal position, since the law—and not their desire not to enfo4rce the law—is what matters. So they must go through the charade of pretending the Arizona law is somehow different than the federal law, which on the whole it is not (except insofar as it is nicer).
-PJ
Ping!
Talk about racist! Just because their great-grandfathers were here when we became a state, these two police officers now speak for the entire illegal alien community.
At least, that’s the take-away the reporter wants to offer...
Not a lawyer but my hunch is if the law goes into effect as planned then most likely the judge has no intention of issuing an injunction.
Disgraceful story for Disgraceful journalism..
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.