Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

After blustering for weeks, the federal government has filed its threathened lawsuit over an Arizona law designed to stop the tsunami of illegal immigrants that the federal government has thus far refused to control...

Arizona's law requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and allows police to question the residency status of people in the course of enforcing another law. It also targets businesses that hire illegal immigrant laborers or knowingly transport them.

Justice Department lawyers argued in its brief that the state statute should be declared invalid because it has improperly preempted federal law.

"A state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws," the brief states. "The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country."

The Arizona law "disrupts federal enforcement priorities and resources that focus on aliens who pose a threat to national security or public safety. ... If allowed to go into effect, [the law's] mandatory enforcement scheme will conflict with and undermine the federal government's careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/06/ ... tml?hpt=T1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

IANAL, but isn't the federal arguement basically "Stop the state from doing our job...even though we aren't doing it ourself"?????

Arizona's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, has accused the Obama administration of failing to secure the border with Mexico, thereby forcing her state to act on its own.

"Do your job. Secure the border," Brewer said of the president in a July 1 speech to a Republican group. She pledged to "defend this law against every assault, including attacks by the Obama administration."

If allowed to go into effect, [the law's] mandatory enforcement scheme will conflict with and undermine the federal government's careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives

That's the part that might be hard for the Feds to win on - that's basically saying there are legit laws on the federal books, and that the Feds should be allowed to pick and choose when to enforce them as part of the "careful balance". That just comes across as a soft defense there. Now, if the Arizona law does contradict or go beyond actual Federal law, that will be a problem for Arizona - but if all they are doing are parroting existing, but unenforced Federal law, this could get interesting.

Arizona is 3 for 3 in laws being challenged for unconstitutionality being upheld.

I'm not sayin' I'm just sayin.....

It all depends on Jon Roberts's relationship with Elana Kegan.

The law, as it stands today, supports the Fed's argument.
The Court, as it stands today, doesn't give a crap about what the law says (see e.g. Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010))

Cue Native

wish them yankees would enforce the fugitive servant law.

danefan wrote:It all depends on Jon Roberts's relationship with Elana Kegan.

The law, as it stands today, supports the Fed's argument.
The Court, as it stands today, doesn't give a crap about what the law says (see e.g. Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010))

Cue Native

Well I am not native but is that really the case. The law that was overturned by the supreme court in Citizens was a had new provisions that had not been brought before the court, correct? Or at least the most important aspects of the ruling were based on new provisions. So what they were really saying was that the new provisions were unconstitutional. Not exactly the same thing as overturning accepted law.

I stand ready to be corrected because I am defilnitely not certain about this.

citdog wrote:wish them yankees would enforce the fugitive servant law.

Spoken from the guy who lives by the motto, "What would John C. Calhoun do?". Ironic.

danefan wrote:It all depends on Jon Roberts's relationship with Elana Kegan.

The law, as it stands today, supports the Fed's argument.
The Court, as it stands today, doesn't give a crap about what the law says (see e.g. Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010))

Cue Native

Gee, don't editorialize too much there. If a law is poorly written and contradicts constitutional rights (i.e. McCain-Feingold) it can be struck down, irregardless of its status as "law". Congress needs to do a better job of writing the stuff upfront and this wouldn't be a problem. Obviously there was much more to Citizens United than just that, but that was a pretty critical part of it.

When I say "law", I'm speaking about Supreme Court precedent.

And of course I'm editorializing.

danefan wrote:When I say "law", I'm speaking about Supreme Court precedent.

And of course I'm editorializing.

Was there a law prior to McCain Feingold (It was McCain Feingold) that prohibited advertising like citizens United. I ask not only for argument sake but because I really don't know. From what I think I know, it would be easy to conclude that the SCOTUS precedent was heading in the direction of McCain Feingold, but was it actually at that point.


Personally, and I suppose it isn't surprising. I don't have a problem with unions and corporations direct advertisement. I really don't think we have to worry much about Google using their billions.

OL FU wrote:

danefan wrote:When I say "law", I'm speaking about Supreme Court precedent.

And of course I'm editorializing.

Was there a law prior to McCain Feingold (It was McCain Feingold) that prohibited advertising like citizens United. I ask not only for argument sake but because I really don't know. From what I think I know, it would be easy to conclude that the SCOTUS precedent was heading in the direction of McCain Feingold, but was it actually at that point.


Personally, and I suppose it isn't surprising. I don't have a problem with unions and corporations direct advertisement. I really don't think we have to worry much about Google using their billions.

McCain Feingold was written based on the following Supreme Court precadent:

”the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public’s suport for the corporation’s political ideas.”

"[c]orporate wealth can unfairly influence elections"

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (199)

The majority in Citizens United completely threw out the concept of deference to precedent and overturned a 6-3 decision in Austin v. Michigan.

And herein lies my point about the Arizona law.
The current SCOTUS precedent supports the Fed's arguments of preemption. But who knows whether this Court will even care about precedent.

OL FU wrote:

danefan wrote:When I say "law", I'm speaking about Supreme Court precedent.

And of course I'm editorializing.

Was there a law prior to McCain Feingold (It was McCain Feingold) that prohibited advertising like citizens United. I ask not only for argument sake but because I really don't know. From what I think I know, it would be easy to conclude that the SCOTUS precedent was heading in the direction of McCain Feingold, but was it actually at that point.


Personally, and I suppose it isn't surprising. I don't have a problem with unions and corporations direct advertisement. I really don't think we have to worry much about Google using their billions.

There was the Austin v Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v FEC as SCOTUS precedents, as at least some of the precedents involved in this case (and two that were overturned because of this case). Both weren't very old precedents (Austin was 1990 and McConnell was ealier this decade that was part of the response against McCain-Feingold that came up as soon as that bill became law), and frankly, IMO (editorializing here dane!), both were fairly muddled precedents (especially McConnell). Austin held that you couldn't use treasury money to support or oppose candidates in an election, but left open that you could set up a separate fund and do so from there. And McConnell only started the process of repudiating the legislative mess that was McCain-Feingold (a noble idea and law that was just horribly crafted and implemented - IMO of course).

danefan wrote:

OL FU wrote:

Was there a law prior to McCain Feingold (It was McCain Feingold) that prohibited advertising like citizens United. I ask not only for argument sake but because I really don't know. From what I think I know, it would be easy to conclude that the SCOTUS precedent was heading in the direction of McCain Feingold, but was it actually at that point.


Personally, and I suppose it isn't surprising. I don't have a problem with unions and corporations direct advertisement. I really don't think we have to worry much about Google using their billions.

McCain Feingold was written based on the following Supreme Court precadent:

”the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public’s suport for the corporation’s political ideas.”

"[c]orporate wealth can unfairly influence elections"

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (199)

The majority in Citizens United completely threw out the concept of deference to precedent and overturned a 6-3 decision in Austin v. Michigan.

And herein lies my point about the Arizona law.
The current SCOTUS precedent supports the Fed's arguments of preemption. But who knows whether this Court will even care about precedent.

Precedent matters, but it doesn't mean that it trumps everything. Dred Scott was precedent, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to be returning slaves to citdog, now does it?

GannonFan wrote:

danefan wrote:
McCain Feingold was written based on the following Supreme Court precadent:





Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (199)

The majority in Citizens United completely threw out the concept of deference to precedent and overturned a 6-3 decision in Austin v. Michigan.

And herein lies my point about the Arizona law.
The current SCOTUS precedent supports the Fed's arguments of preemption. But who knows whether this Court will even care about precedent.

Precedent matters, but it doesn't mean that it trumps everything. Dred Scott was precedent, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to be returning slaves to citdog, now does it?

It absolutely does not trump everything, but there is a great need for predictability in Constitutional interpretation. And while yes, Dred Scott was precedent, as was Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court's overruling of those cases was hardly unexpected and therefore predictable.

Oh, and BTW, I'm not totally against what the Supreme Court did in CItizens United, because I think, like you, that McCain Feingold was a mess. I'm just pointing out that the Arizona lawsuit is up in the air because we don't know how much weight will be given to Preemption precedent by this Court.

Oh and another BTW - I'm completely sensationalizing for the sake of conversation.

Good to see that DoJ resources being used for pandering while Obama's buddies at Goldman Sachs are protected.

danefan wrote:

OL FU wrote:

Was there a law prior to McCain Feingold (It was McCain Feingold) that prohibited advertising like citizens United. I ask not only for argument sake but because I really don't know. From what I think I know, it would be easy to conclude that the SCOTUS precedent was heading in the direction of McCain Feingold, but was it actually at that point.


Personally, and I suppose it isn't surprising. I don't have a problem with unions and corporations direct advertisement. I really don't think we have to worry much about Google using their billions.

McCain Feingold was written based on the following Supreme Court precadent:

”the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public’s suport for the corporation’s political ideas.”

"[c]orporate wealth can unfairly influence elections"

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (199)

The majority in Citizens United completely threw out the concept of deference to precedent and overturned a 6-3 decision in Austin v. Michigan.

And herein lies my point about the Arizona law.
The current SCOTUS precedent supports the Fed's arguments of preemption. But who knows whether this Court will even care about precedent.

You will have to forgive the uneducated. The deference was that corporate wealth can unfairly influence electios which is why they can't give to a candidate, correct. Did the previous ruling state they could not advertise prior to an election or was the precedent was opposition against increasing corporate influence.

I may have missed the point, but I am trying to learn

danefan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Precedent matters, but it doesn't mean that it trumps everything. Dred Scott was precedent, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to be returning slaves to citdog, now does it?

It absolutely does not trump everything, but there is a great need for predictability in Constitutional interpretation. And while yes, Dred Scott was precedent, as was Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court's overruling of those cases was hardly unexpected and therefore predictable.

Oh, and BTW, I'm not totally against what the Supreme Court did in CItizens United, because I think, like you, that McCain Feingold was a mess. I'm just pointing out that the Arizona lawsuit is up in the air because we don't know how much weight will be given to Preemption precedent by this Court.

Oh and another BTW - I'm completely sensationalizing for the sake of conversation.

Well, first of all, Dred Scott was never overruled by the Court - they didn't have to as the Civil War and the 14th Ammendent corrected that wrong. And how was the overruling of Plessy both expected and predictable? It did stand for 50 years or so and most consider Brown v Board of Ed to be significant because it was such a departure from what was expected (and the skeptics out there who still, somehow, revile Brown still don't understand how the Court came to its conclusions). Precedent, especially poor precedent, can be overturned and has been overturned plenty of times over the past 234 years and will continue to be overturned, and sometimes controversially.

As for the Arizona law, I'm not so much concerned about the precedent - the history of the supremacy clause isn't really rife with tons of clear or strong precedent one way or the other. I think it comes down to the facts as they are today and what, if any, aspect of the Arizona law can be viewed as circumventing the federal laws. It will also be interesting to see how the Court views the reaction of foreign bodies (Mexico in this case) to the law and if they default to the federal government in light of its supremacy in foreign affairs. But I don't think the law, as it stands today (both in law as well as precedent) clearly points to a winner in this case.

And I have no problem with sensationalization.

OL FU wrote:

danefan wrote:
McCain Feingold was written based on the following Supreme Court precadent:





Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (199)

The majority in Citizens United completely threw out the concept of deference to precedent and overturned a 6-3 decision in Austin v. Michigan.

And herein lies my point about the Arizona law.
The current SCOTUS precedent supports the Fed's arguments of preemption. But who knows whether this Court will even care about precedent.

You will have to forgive the uneducated. The deference was that corporate wealth can unfairly influence electios which is why they can't give to a candidate, correct. Did the previous ruling state they could not advertise prior to an election or was the precedent was opposition against increasing corporate influence.

I may have missed the point, but I am trying to learn

I'm no licensed constitutional law expert, but the Austin case was what set the precedent about corporations unfairly influencing elections - but my criticism of it is that it merely said corporations couldn't spend from their treasuries but the could from separate funds. McConnell was the ruling that dealt with the advertising time limits that came up in McCain-Feingold, but I wouldn't consider anything around McCain-Feingold to really be settled case law since it's still so new and was so controversial from the get-go. Overturning precedent of a couple of years is different than overturning precedent of 100 years.

GannonFan wrote:

OL FU wrote:

You will have to forgive the uneducated. The deference was that corporate wealth can unfairly influence electios which is why they can't give to a candidate, correct. Did the previous ruling state they could not advertise prior to an election or was the precedent was opposition against increasing corporate influence.

I may have missed the point, but I am trying to learn

I'm no licensed constitutional law expert, but the Austin case was what set the precedent about corporations unfairly influencing elections - but my criticism of it is that it merely said corporations couldn't spend from their treasuries but the could from separate funds. McConnell was the ruling that dealt with the advertising time limits that came up in McCain-Feingold, but I wouldn't consider anything around McCain-Feingold to really be settled case law since it's still so new and was so controversial from the get-go. Overturning precedent of a couple of years is different than overturning precedent of 100 years.

and that was my point although I didn't say it very well. I didn't see how United was overturning precedent. It seemed from the little I know that it reversed the direction of the court, not precedent. But I admit to my limited knowledge here.

OL FU wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I'm no licensed constitutional law expert, but the Austin case was what set the precedent about corporations unfairly influencing elections - but my criticism of it is that it merely said corporations couldn't spend from their treasuries but the could from separate funds. McConnell was the ruling that dealt with the advertising time limits that came up in McCain-Feingold, but I wouldn't consider anything around McCain-Feingold to really be settled case law since it's still so new and was so controversial from the get-go. Overturning precedent of a couple of years is different than overturning precedent of 100 years.

and that was my point although I didn't say it very well. I didn't see how United was overturning precedent. It seemed from the little I know that it reversed the direction of the court, not precedent. But I admit to my limited knowledge here.

Well, it did, technically, overturn precedent. Even the court said so and specifically in reference to the two decisions (Austin and McConnell). My point was not all precedents are created equal.

GannonFan wrote:

OL FU wrote:
and that was my point although I didn't say it very well. I didn't see how United was overturning precedent. It seemed from the little I know that it reversed the direction of the court, not precedent. But I admit to my limited knowledge here.

Well, it did, technically, overturn precedent. Even the court said so and specifically in reference to the two decisions (Austin and McConnell). My point was not all precedents are created equal.

OK, I agree. And all precedents aren't good ones.

danefan wrote:It all depends on Jon Roberts's relationship with Elana Kegan.

The law, as it stands today, supports the Fed's argument.
The Court, as it stands today, doesn't give a crap about what the law says (see e.g. Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010))

Cue Native

Thanks for the segue. What a waste of tuition.

Deleted because I don't know the difference between edit and quote

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE

Article. VI.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

native wrote:THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE

Article. VI.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

And the Arizona law mirrors the federal law. There's nothing wrong with it.

The most ironic part about this is that Arizona's law, that mirrors federal law, is being being challenged by the feds. Yet local governments that have passed so-called "sanctuary" laws, that directly contradicts federal law, are left alone.

What reason could be driving this? Votes?