US Gov't Sues Arizona Over Immigration Law

[bhsup]

Every speeding ticket written in MIssouri for driving over 55mph on US and State highways until 1994 were state and local officials enforcing federal law. Missouri didn't actually lower the speed limit to match the federal (unconstitutional) mandate. I suspect the same was true in many States.

 

[Cutlass]

If they weren't sending the ticket money to the feds, then they weren't enforcing federal law, they were breaking state law.

 

[Merkinball]

Basically the law conflicts with federal objectives, - Illram

You're damn right it does! It's too bad that federal objectives are conflict with their constitutional duties.

 

[illram]

Next time you get a speeding ticket VR, tell me what statute is referenced and tell me where you send your check. Or which court you go to to claim you weren't speeding

 

[GhostWriter16]

You're damn right it does! It's too bad that federal objectives are conflict with their constitutional duties.

This.

 

[sonorakitch]

1) Parts of the law do conflict with federal law. That's what the opinion is saying. The Judge doesn't avoid saying that at all. 2) No it's not compatible, that's the point. 3) 10th amendment is irrelevant because immigration is clearly a power granted to the federal government. The 10th amendment has zero to do with this (and with almost everything.) Zero.

Well, I don't see in Bolton's ruling where she actually demonstrates any conflict aside from the notion that the Federal government has the sole right to regulate immigration unless I missed it. And the 10th Amendment has enjoyed support from this current Supreme Court makeup...

And it is an ideological difference illram to declare the 10th Amendment doesn't have anything to do with this. Again, the rights of police are contained within it and if Arizona can make a good case that lack of federal enforcement endangers the "safety and well-being" of the citizens of Arizona, there may be a sympathetic ear in SCOTUS as much as you might want to disagree with the notion.

It is an age old argument we have here: one that has started wars and generally divides us (always has).

~Chris

 

[Patroklos]

1)
Well I don't think I can be too divorced from reality when for one year I was the one defending them.

The way things work is: state cops enforce state law. Federal cops enforce federal law. Once in a while on big operations the state police will cooperate with the federal police, like say for a huge drug bust or an ICE sweep in gang territory. (That happens in SF believe it or not.)

But your every day local beat cop is not enforcing federal law. Go out on the street and light up a joint in front of your local beat cop. When you get your notice to appear tell me what statute is written on it.

I'm just saying your original point is irrelevant because 90% of the drug enforcement that goes on in this country is people getting arrested on state drug laws; if every state cop tomorrow said "I will not enforce federal drug laws" the status quo would change very much.

Don't quibble.

It is state law that mirrors the Fedaral statues in most cases. Just like the Arizona law. If anything the state narcotics laws are the unconstitutional ones becase not only do the mirror the Federal laws, the state is also trying the offenders while the immigrants are simple turned into the feds.

This "fills the field" nonsense is transparently a trap for liberals. It will essentially gut state civil rights laws as well. There is literally nothing that the Feds have the fingerprints on that the "fills the field" can't be applied to. This will go to the Supremes, and they will have a fielday with this amatuer nonsense. Talk about a lib judge chopping off his nose to spite his face

 

[Merkinball]

Don't quibble.

It is state law that mirrors the Fedaral statues in most cases. Just like the Arizona law. If anything the state narcotics laws are the unconstitutional ones becase not only do the mirror the Federal laws, the state is also trying the offenders while the immigrants are simple turned into the feds.

This "fills the field" nonsense is transparently a trap for liberals. It will essentially gut state civil rights laws as well. There is literally nothing that the Feds have the fingerprints on that the "fills the field" can't be applied to. This will go to the Supremes, and they will have a fielday with this amatuer nonsense. Talk about a lib judge chopping off his nose to spite his face

And this really gets to another very important crux of the issue. The bottom line is that this isn't applied equally throughout the nation. Take the California Environmental Regulations. Say, gas mileage. The feds are more than happy to let California usurp EPA regulations all the freakin' time. What's more, is that when California comes out with state laws that grossly usurp "encorporated" federal responsibilities that are executed by the executive branch, the executive branch will ADOPT and conform to the environmental laws passed at the state level! It's just a matter what the feds want to enforce and what they don't want to enforce. It matters if your state is the enemy of the state, or friends towards it. It's a matter of whether todays Department of Justice feels like filing an injunction or not. But one thing is for sure, is that there is absolutely positively no uniformity when it comes to this crap.

 

[illram]

Don't quibble.

It is state law that mirrors the Fedaral statues in most cases. Just like the Arizona law. If anything the state narcotics laws are the unconstitutional ones becase not only do the mirror the Federal laws, the state is also trying the offenders while the immigrants are simple turned into the feds.

This "fills the field" nonsense is transparently a trap for liberals. It will essentially gut state civil rights laws as well. There is literally nothing that the Feds have the fingerprints on that the "fills the field" can't be applied to. This will go to the Supremes, and they will have a fielday with this amatuer nonsense. Talk about a lib judge chopping off his nose to spite his face

Who is quibbling? You're saying states enforce federal law and now you're saying they "mirror" it.

Mirroring is not the same as conflicting or preempting or enforcing. A state law can go above and beyond a federal law, it can mirror a federal law, it can seek to accomplish similar goals to a federal law. What it cannot do is prevent or obstruct the enforcement of the federal law or its objectives. These are distinct concepts.

This is all well established law we're talking about here. Read some cases if you're interested.

 

[sonorakitch]

What it cannot do is prevent or obstruct the enforcement of the federal law or its objectives. These are distinct concepts.

Seriously, how does 1070 obstruct Federal law? A case can be made (however wrong I think it might be) that 1070 supplants Federal law, but how in the heck does it obstruct it?

Did Bolton address that? Not that I remember....

Merky: that's for sure. At least we should apply the laws evenly if those laws are deemed so black and white.

 

[illram]

Seriously, how does 1070 obstruct Federal law? A case can be made (however wrong I think it might be) that 1070 supplants Federal law, but how in the heck does it obstruct it?

Did Bolton address that? Not that I remember....

Merky: that's for sure. At least we should apply the laws evenly if those laws are deemed so black and white.

She addresses it throughout the whole thing. My above post referencing Hines v. Davidowitz (previous page I think) is the foundation for it. For example, AZ's attempt to mandate immigration status checks for every arrestee, among other things, substantially burdens Federal resources already implemented to combat immigration while also frustrating the purposes of Congress in enacting immigration rules. That's just one example.

Obstructs is probably the wrong word though. Frustrate would be more accurate, I think.

And they are not black and white! That should be apparent here. Although preemption in this particular case is fairly obvious to most legal observers there's still several flavors and levels of preemption.

 

[sonorakitch]

Okay. I know in her ruling she references "the diverting of Federal resources" several times....certainly didn't see that as obstructing. Frustrating? Well......not buying that either. How about "burdening"......

Of course I do object to her notion that the federal government has to divert resources as being a bad thing. In order to enforce laws, you always have to divert resources!

Thus, an increase in the
number of requests for determinations of immigration status, such as is likely to result from
the mandatory requirement that Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies check the
immigration status of any person who is arrested, will divert resources from the federal
government’s other responsibilities and priorities.

I wonder how a Judge can determine the responsibilities and priorities of the Federal government exactly? I thought that part was a bit odd.

The black and white thing was a reference to whether or not a ruling was "absolutely right" or "absolutely wrong". I most definitely do not believe it is black and white. These are legal opinions of course.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

You're damn right it does! It's too bad that federal objectives are conflict with their constitutional duties.

What constitutional duties are those?

While the constitution does allow congress to limit immigration, it does not give them any duty to do so, and in fact they did not actually choose to use their ability until the 1920s.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Yes We Klan.



http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/conservative-policies-take-off-in-arizona/1112253

PHOENIX — Lost in the uproar over Arizona's immigration crackdown is another groundbreaking law that took effect this week. Anyone over 21 now can carry a concealed weapon without a permit.

"We sure are on a roll," said Sen. Russell Pearce, sponsor of both bills. "It's a great time for conservative Republicans in Arizona. We're leading the nation."

From opting out of abortion coverage under exchanges in the new federal health care law to banning "ethnic" studies in schools to tough illegal immigration measures and relaxed gun regulations, the Grand Canyon State has become a hotbed for conservative policy.

The victories are part circumstance — after six years, the GOP-dominated Legislature has an ally in the governor's office — but also the spoils of a decade-long effort to purge moderate Republicans.

"Yes we Klan," read one sign. "The racial profiling state." Dozens were arrested as TV news cameras looked on.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Ah the "constitutional carry" bill.

One of the things that Arizona has gotten right.

 

[Ajidica]

Bugfatty, I'm curious on your opinion. Given the added responsiblity a concealed handgun bestows upon the user, why wouldn't a background check for a permit be needed?
I'm not saying that they ban concealed carry completly, but at least require permits.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Bugfatty, I'm curious on your opinion. Given the added responsiblity a concealed handgun bestows upon the user, why wouldn't a background check for a permit be needed?
I'm not saying that they ban concealed carry completly, but at least require permits.

Well most states already allow people to carry a gun without a permit or license as long as it is in plain view. The 2nd amendment does say "keep and bear arms" so carrying a gun is already a constitutional right IMO. Personally I don't think there is enough difference between open carry and concealed carry to warrant regulating one and not the other.

 

[Ajidica]

I see your point, its just that there is also the part about a well-regulated militia. Permits and at least keeping track of who has what would help in the well-regulated part.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I see your point, its just that there is also the part about a well-regulated militia. Permits and at least keeping track of who has what would help in the well-regulated part.

Heller vs DC established that a "well-regulated militia" means "disciplined and trained militia" based on the late-18th century definition.

And of course that case also determined that the 2nd amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for individuals and is separate from militia service.

Yet the SC also recently upheld most gun laws and regulations as well so I don't think a case can be made that carrying a concealed weapon is a constitutional right but one can be definitely made for carrying one in plain sight. So yeah if you're going to have a constitutional right carry a gun openly for self-defense then I think carrying it concealed should also be allowed by default as a matter of privacy and personal preference.

 

[Ajidica]

Heller vs DC established that a "well-regulated militia" meant "disciplined and trained militia."

Wait. I'm no constitutional lawyer, but isn't the express purpose of allowing the populance to carry weapons is to be a militia? So the well regulated part doesn't apply, despite people only being allowed to carry weapons to be the well regulated militia?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.