Posted on 06/25/2012 7:26:29 AM PDT by pabianice
SCOTUS strikes-down 3 of 4 S1170 provisions; says immigration is under federal control. One section -- allowing police to check immigration status after legal stopes -- sent back to 9th District Court for review.
The root problem is not that SCOTUS shot down AZ S1170. The root problem that the executive branch is being allowed by both parties to choose which laws it will enforce, and which laws it will unilaterally decree in the form of Executive Orders. Note my tag line.
Why should the police check their immigration status if you cannot arrest them, if they are here illegally?
Immigration is the responsibility of the Fed, the Fed isn’t doing their job. Seems the court does not think the State can step in just because the Fed is looking the other way. However, the part of the law that wasn’t struck down is extremely important. I wouldn’t call this a loss but not a win either.
Huh? Romney does not have that as his history, so why would he do that as president?
The US Constitution enables a state to mobilize its military to repel a critical, imminent threat.
That would be an interesting decision.
“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ....engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. “
“Imminent” is in the eye of the beholder
They are stupid.
See my post #57 for Sekulow on Beck’s program.
“The issue Romney can win on is: “I will nominate only conservative justices”.”
I’m pretty sure that would be a first. Take a look at his record.
HUGE loss for Obama.
Because, in all my years of listening to stupid news media people, I have NEVER heard more incompetent reporting than I’ve heard this morning on this issue. The so-called smartest people in the room, our beloved media, can’t even tell us what was thrown out and what was upheld in a coherent manner.
Even though I was chastised for calling these black robed morons, black robed morons, here is more proof just how moronic they are.
Section 6 of the AZ law was so damned similar to section 2 as to require a microscope or a lawyer to discern the difference yet the morons struck down 6 and tossed 2 back to the most unconstitutional court in the land the 9th circus.
So here is the situation we have and will of course take no action to resolve.
We have an out of control, overreaching, clearly unconstitutional Federal government, as designed by the founders, who do not do one of the very few jobs assigned to them and the black robed morons on the USSC are preventing a state, negatively impacted by this inaction, from protecting themselves from an invasion of criminal trespassers.
Hey great: Ruling elite pass laws they have no intention of enforcing. Ruling elite prevent a state from enforcing those laws. Now WE THE PEOPLE have to fund criminal trespasser’s education, medical costs, food stamps etc.
Just when are we going to grow a set and chop the federal government down to the size INTENDED and DESIGNED by the founders?
Roberts as with this case and marijuana favors Federal power over State Rights.
Protection of borders is a Federal issue which is why the Court said that federal statutes “preempted” the Arizona law. Federal law always supersedes state law (Article VI, Clause 2). The issue is that Obama (and Bush for that matter) did not enforce existing federal law covering the borders and Arizona sought to protect itself. If the federal laws already in place are enforced properly by the executive branch then Arizona likely never passes SB 1070.
Honestly, this is a WIN for Arizona.
Fans of the Constitution should be pleased that the three provisions over-ruled were done so on the premise of pre-emption. There is already a federal law on the books that covers the three stricken provisions. The court merely upheld the law on this.
On the fourth issue, the Supremes said that Arizona is well within its rights to mandate LEOs ask for proper identifications and request immigration status and proof. THIS was the provision Obama wanted struck-down and he was DENIED!
yes...ruling against states right and law and even us immigrations law means the end.
ObamaCare standing WOULD ensure an 80% white, blue collar, and over 50 turnout against Obama in November. That would be a good thing.
——So basically, all the states can do is bend over and hand out welfare checks while saying “Welcome Senior and Seniorita!”-——
Simple solution: stop paying for welfare.
True, but this won't add much; after all Emperor Hussein I has already decreed that he isn't going to enforce the immigration laws he disagrees with.
Wait, what has one case to do with the other? The AZ law was about the State usurping the Fed authority in this area. The Obamacare case is about the feds overreaching and i this way it can be said the AZ ruling is actually a POSITIVE sign (to over turn) for the ruling to come on Thursday.
“Like the fall of Rome, the will to defend our own boarders isn’t even there anymore.”
Great article here about our national suicide, and our leaders’ role in it.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3409
In reading his thing, it appears that Kennedy et al are basing this ruling on the grounds of the “Supremacy Clause” in which Congress has the constitutional right to preempt state law. It misses the mark though in that the congressional preemption is NOT the issue, but the federal government’s deliberate refusal to enforce current law.
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.