Posted: 6/25/2012 6:56:06 AM EDT
Kennedy broke left  . Mostly thrown out, but some limited provisions upheld. Mostly a win for the Fed, highlighting the importance of making changes in DC.
LINK TO STORY ON FOX |
|
Quoted:
Honestly; did we really expect anything else from those fucktards? I don't believe they are idiots nor that they misinterpreted the constitution. The next step is to then sue the federal govt for failing to perform it's duties which are limited to them alone. I see no reason why those who want a solution to our porous border can't use the same tactics as the left. |
|
I don't see this as a huge win for the Fed. IMO the biggest part of the bill being LEOs can determine legal status during a field stop for some law violation is still in play.
Great point to take the Fed to court and sue for not upholding their jurisdiction. Don't get me started on 3rd party voters from the conservative side. 
|
|
Quoted: I don't see this as a huge win for the Fed. IMO the biggest part of the bill being LEOs can determine legal status during a field stop for some law violation is still in play. Great point to take the Fed to court and sue for not upholding their jurisdiction. Don't get me started on 3rd party voters from the conservative side. Yeah basically the only ruling is that we can't make the sole act of being here illegally a state crime punishable by the state. So we must continue turning them over to the feds unless we have something else to charge them with . Hopefully the state will be able to wrangle up more identity theft and forgery charges due to being able to check status somehow though. |
|
It has been interesting reading the stories this morning.
Early AM - From liberal view, Win that the SC struck down much of 1070 Mid AM - SC rules on 1070, taking out 3 of 4 key provisions of 1070 Later AM - SC rules on 1070, sets precedent for other states to make similar laws regarding LE to confirm citizen status during lawful contact. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Honestly; did we really expect anything else from those fucktards? I don't believe they are idiots nor that they misinterpreted the constitution. The next step is to then sue the federal govt for failing to perform it's duties which are limited to them alone. I see no reason why those who want a solution to our porous border can't use the same tactics as the left. MUCH easier said, than done. The Federal Government is immune from lawsuits. In order to do so, you'd have to have standing, which would be difficult for suing about enforcing immigration laws. And then, you'd have to sue officials such as the head of a given agency. You'd have to detail specific injuries as a result of that official's conduct. Arizona tried it: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/10/us-arizona-immigration-idUSTRE7197GY20110210 |
|
Except the current administration is still going to play games and choose the calls from Arizona law enforcement:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/napolitano-says-dhs-will-continue-decide-which-illegals-detain-deport-despite-scotus Earlier today, The Washington Times, quoting anonymous Obama administration sources, reported that DHS was planning to suspend standing agreements with Arizona police dealing with the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws, adding that the department has issued a guideline directing federal authorities to ignore calls from Arizona that report illegal aliens. |
|
We're screwed. SCOTUS reaffirmed illegal immigration is a civil issue and not a criminal one. The Feds can choose whom they want to prosecute or not prosecute. The Feds suspended all the agreements with AZ LEOs on working immigration together That means AZ LEOs get to make a phone call and hope the Feds pick up.
The USA has essentially declared war on Arizona by choosing not to enforce immigration here. We'll make the stop, detain the illegals and hope the Feds pick them up, which they've said they won't do, and then release them only to be exposed to being picked up again. |
|
Scalia's dissent is a good read:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf Even in its international relations, the Federal Government must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a Union of independent States, who have their own sovereign powers. This is not the first time it has found that a nuisance and a bother in the conduct of foreign policy.
The State’s detention does not represent commencement of the removal process unless the Federal Government makes it so.
But that is not the most important point. The most important point is that, as we have discussed, Arizona is entitled to have “its own immigration policy”—including amore rigorous enforcement policy—so long as that does not conflict with federal law. The State’s whole complaint—the reason this law was passed and this case has arisen—is that the citizens of Arizona believe federal priorities are too lax. The State has the sovereign power to protect its borders more rigorously if it wishes, absent any valid federal prohibition. The Executive’s policy choice of lax federal enforcement does not constitute such a prohibition.
It is one thing to say that the Supremacy Clause prevents Arizona law from excluding those whom federal law admits. It is quite something else to say that a violation of Arizona law cannot be punished more severely than a violation of federal law. Especially where (as here) the State is defending its own sovereign interests, there is no precedent for such a limitation.
But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.
As is often the case, discussion of the dry legalities that are the proper object of our attention suppresses the very human realities that gave rise to the suit. Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem,and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona’s estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants—including not just children but men and women under 30—are now assured immunity from enforcement, and will be able to compete openly with Arizona citizens for employment.
The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent
|