Atta BABY ARIZONA!!!!!

[danefan]

1. Its not within a State's authority to enforce federal laws, the enforcement of which has not been delegated to them.
2. These criminals are not entering Arizona illegaly. They are entering the United States illegaly.
3. The potential for widely varied application of a law intended to be uniform throughout the country is very high.

I'm not against local authorities being deputized by the Feds to enforce immigration laws. In fact I think its stupid that the Feds haven't utilized this in the past. I am, however, against the legal precadent this will set.

To be consistent, I have to agree with you about the federal/state issue...Immigration law is federal...

But I have to point out you have no problem with the feds doing things that are not federal responsibilities per the 10th Amendment...

Well, where we may have a different interpretation of what the power the Feds should have under 10th amendment. This is unquestionably a power of the Feds. Right?

[Col Hogan]

To be consistent, I have to agree with you about the federal/state issue...Immigration law is federal...

But I have to point out you have no problem with the feds doing things that are not federal responsibilities per the 10th Amendment...

Well, where we may have a different interpretation of what the power the Feds should have under 10th amendment. This is unquestionably a power of the Feds. Right?

But the Constitution is very clear what is a federal responsibility and what isn't...you just pick and chose what you want and then hide behind "interpretation" for everything else...

To answer your question...Yes, it clearly is a federal responsibility...no "interpretation" necessary...

Why do people of your political ilk have to interpret stuff into the constitution...like...how do you get education as a "federal" responsibility...

[danefan]

Well, where we may have a different interpretation of what the power the Feds should have under 10th amendment. This is unquestionably a power of the Feds. Right?

But the Constitution is very clear what is a federal responsibility and what isn't...you just pick and chose what you want and then hide behind "interpretation" for everything else...

To answer your question...Yes, it clearly is a federal responsibility...no "interpretation" necessary...

Why do people of your political ilk have to interpret stuff into the constitution...like...how do you get education as a "federal" responsibility...

Article I, Section 8.
"Congress shall have Power to...provide for the common Defence and general welfare of the United States..."

Its a valid argument, IMO, to say that the education of youth is a directly related to the general welfare of this country. Now, whether the Dept. of Educ. as it currently stands is inefficient and bloated is a different story. But I do believe the Fed's have the right to be involved in the education of the children of this nation.

[Col Hogan]

But the Constitution is very clear what is a federal responsibility and what isn't...you just pick and chose what you want and then hide behind "interpretation" for everything else...

To answer your question...Yes, it clearly is a federal responsibility...no "interpretation" necessary...

Why do people of your political ilk have to interpret stuff into the constitution...like...how do you get education as a "federal" responsibility...

Article I, Section 8.
"Congress shall have Power to...provide for the common Defence and general welfare of the United States..."

Its a valid argument, IMO, to say that the education of youth is a directly related to the general welfare of this country. Now, whether the Dept. of Educ. as it currently stands is inefficient and bloated is a different story. But I do believe the Fed's have the right to be involved in the education of the children of this nation.

If the founders thought that...they never would have written in the 10th Amendment...they clearly wanted to limit federal responsibility, but due to "interpretation" we have the bloated federal government...

[danefan]

Article I, Section 8.
"Congress shall have Power to...provide for the common Defence and general welfare of the United States..."

Its a valid argument, IMO, to say that the education of youth is a directly related to the general welfare of this country. Now, whether the Dept. of Educ. as it currently stands is inefficient and bloated is a different story. But I do believe the Fed's have the right to be involved in the education of the children of this nation.

If the founders thought that...they never would have written in the 10th Amendment...they clearly wanted to limit federal responsibility, but due to "interpretation" we have the bloated federal government...

And therein lies the rub - we're both just interpreting the Constitution. Despite your reluctance to admit it I think you are doing the same thing. You're interpreting what you believe the Founders to have meant by ommission.

That's why I don't think I'm in an inconsistent position here.

[Col Hogan]

If the founders thought that...they never would have written in the 10th Amendment...they clearly wanted to limit federal responsibility, but due to "interpretation" we have the bloated federal government...

And therein lies the rub - we're both just interpreting the Constitution. Despite your reluctance to admit it I think you are doing the same thing. You're interpreting what you believe the Founders to have meant by ommission.

That's why I don't think I'm in an inconsistent position here.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV...so I turn to the founding fathers for my "interpretation"

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document. However, it has been argued that, in the case of the United States Constitution, the statement regarding the "general welfare" was not then and is not now intended to give plenary power to the Federal Government. [2] These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are exceptions to the description above, and are not considered broad grants of a general legislative power to the federal government since the U.S. Supreme Court has held:

* the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments";[3][4] and,
* that Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction of the Article I, Section 8 General Welfare Clause elaborated in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States was the correct interpretation.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause was not an independent grant of power, but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.

Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”[7]

Chief Justice John Marshall described in obiter dictum a further limit on the the General Welfare Clause in Gibbons v. Ogden: "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. ... Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know...wiki...but I'm hurting and it's hard to type...burned several fingers on the lawn mower tonight...

Justice Marshall hit a home run IMHO...

[Skjellyfetti]

If the founders thought that...they never would have written in the 10th Amendment...they clearly wanted to limit federal responsibility, but due to "interpretation" we have the bloated federal government...

Clearly? Really? Is that your interpretation?

Because, I believe the Constitution clearly was designed to give more power to the Federal government... considering the whole reason we scrapped the Articles of Confederation and went with the Constitution was to give the Federal government powers it lacked before.

[native]

It's worse than you suggest. The Tucson sector is exremely dangerous and has not been cleaned up like other sectors.

These people aren't committing crimes because they are illegal aliens though. They are criminal committing state crimes and they also happen to be illegal aliens.

The Tuscon police have the authority now to arrest anyone they want that commits a state crime. They also have the delegated authority to question those suspected of a crime as to their immigration status. If they come back as illegal they should then turn them over to the Feds. What the Feds do is a completely different issue. One that is rightfully dealt with at the Federal level.

Listen, I'm 100% against illegal immigration. I'm also 100% against amnesty. But I'm 100% against anyone but the Feds enforcing Federal laws unless the Federal government delegates that power.

My rights don't come from you or the government. The only purpose of the federal government is to protect my rights, not give them to me.

[Chizzang]

This is an example of "states getting uppity" and pushing back against the Federal Government...
and mostly I like that

It's always fascinating to watch states push their "States Rights" as far as they can...
This event will be fun to watch

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

The federal government gave up their right to be a part of this when they CHOSE to ignore the security of this country.

I dont recognize them in any way, if you cant do the job we will find someone else that can do the job of protecting this country and its citizens.

Thank you Arizona, you are a perfect example of the way this country should be run.

[travelinman67]

Yet, through all the debate...

...nobody has asserted the position that the Federal Government has properly managed immigration policy and enforcement.


So, it seems as though this would be game, set, match: Arizona!

[CitadelGrad]

If the founders thought that...they never would have written in the 10th Amendment...they clearly wanted to limit federal responsibility, but due to "interpretation" we have the bloated federal government...

Clearly? Really? Is that your interpretation?

Because, I believe the Constitution clearly was designed to give more power to the Federal government... considering the whole reason we scrapped the Articles of Confederation and went with the Constitution was to give the Federal government powers it lacked before.

Holy Mother of God, you are an idiot. "More" is not a superlative. "More" is comparative. Did the Constitution permit more powers to the federal government compared to the Articles of Confederation? Yes. Did the Constitution give unlimited powers to the federal government? No. The 10th Amendment makes that pretty fucking clear.

[native]

Clearly? Really? Is that your interpretation?

Because, I believe the Constitution clearly was designed to give more power to the Federal government... considering the whole reason we scrapped the Articles of Confederation and went with the Constitution was to give the Federal government powers it lacked before.

Holy Mother of God, you are an idiot. "More" is not a superlative. "More" is comparative. Did the Constitution permit more powers to the federal government compared to the Articles of Confederation? Yes. Did the Constitution give unlimited powers to the federal government? No. The 10th Amendment makes that pretty **** clear.

[CID1990]

Clearly? Really? Is that your interpretation?

Because, I believe the Constitution clearly was designed to give more power to the Federal government... considering the whole reason we scrapped the Articles of Confederation and went with the Constitution was to give the Federal government powers it lacked before.

Holy Mother of God, you are an idiot. "More" is not a superlative. "More" is comparative. Did the Constitution permit more powers to the federal government compared to the Articles of Confederation? Yes. Did the Constitution give unlimited powers to the federal government? No. The 10th Amendment makes that pretty **** clear.

Don't beat your head into a wall over the guy, CG.

SK and several others think that the Constitution grants rights to the government, instead of placing limits on it.

[danefan]

Yet, through all the debate...

...nobody has asserted the position that the Federal Government has properly managed immigration policy and enforcement.


So, it seems as though this would be game, set, match: Arizona!

I gladly assert the position that the Feds have NOT properly managed immigration in this country.

BUT

Arizona has 2 Senators and 8 Representatives in Congress. Its their job to represent the people of Arizona with regards to Federal issues, such as immigration. The State legislature has no business with federal issues.

[danefan]

This is an example of "states getting uppity" and pushing back against the Federal Government...
and mostly I like that

It's always fascinating to watch states push their "States Rights" as far as they can...
This event will be fun to watch

Yes, that's in effect all it will lead to, since the first conviction will be overturned.

If it helps push the Feds to do more, like deputize and train local authorities then I guess there is a benefit.

But like I said before, immigration needs to be enforced more strictly and uniformly across this entire country. Arizona's law does nothing to that end.

[Chizzang]

This is an example of "states getting uppity" and pushing back against the Federal Government...
and mostly I like that

It's always fascinating to watch states push their "States Rights" as far as they can...
This event will be fun to watch

Yes, that's in effect all it will lead to, since the first conviction will be overturned.

If it helps push the Feds to do more, like deputize and train local authorities then I guess there is a benefit.

But like I said before, immigration needs to be enforced more strictly and uniformly across this entire country. Arizona's law does nothing to that end.

I like it for a few reasons...
State politicians can be controlled more easily - thus tend to reflect the will of their local population more directly

The Federal Government - as we have seen over the past 20 plus years - acts in contrary to the general population with virtual impunity...

Arizona's population or citizenry has dismissed the Federal Governments ability to address an issue specific to their region... and thus is "handling it" on their own

I like that, no matter what it is... even if there might be an example where I don't like the premise of the bill I like the action and process...

[Baldy]

Holy Mother of God, you are an idiot. "More" is not a superlative. "More" is comparative. Did the Constitution permit more powers to the federal government compared to the Articles of Confederation? Yes. Did the Constitution give unlimited powers to the federal government? No. The 10th Amendment makes that pretty **** clear.

Don't beat your head into a wall over the guy, CG.

SK and several others think that the Constitution grants rights to the government, instead of placing limits on it.

+1,000,000,000,000

[Skjellyfetti]

SK and several others think that the Constitution grants rights to the government, instead of placing limits on it.

It does both. And it literally says the Constitution GRANTS the rights to government.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States

It then goes on to list powers GRANTED to the Congress.

Next section (section 9) it lists limits on Congress' power

Next section (section 10) it lists the powers prohibited of states.

[CitadelGrad]

SK and several others think that the Constitution grants rights to the government, instead of placing limits on it.

It does both. And it literally says the Constitution GRANTS the rights to government.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States

It then goes on to list powers GRANTED to the Congress.

Next section (section 9) it lists limits on Congress' power

Next section (section 10) it lists the powers prohibited of states.

Did your mother chug vodka when she was pregnant with you? Did it occur to you that the Constitution lists specific powers granted to the federal government so that the federal powers would be limited to just those powers and there would be no misunderstanding about the extent of federal power. Read the 10th amendment.

[Chizzang]

It does both. And it literally says the Constitution GRANTS the rights to government.



It then goes on to list powers GRANTED to the Congress.

Next section (section 9) it lists limits on Congress' power

Next section (section 10) it lists the powers prohibited of states.

Did your mother chug vodka when she was pregnant with you? Did it occur to you that the Constitution lists specific powers granted to the federal government so that the federal powers would be limited to just those powers and there would be no misunderstanding about the extent of federal power. Read the 10th amendment.

Did your dad beat you with a Louisville slugger featuring the constitution embroidered on it...

Here's an idea:
Instead of berating / belittling and attempting to diminish... Why not simply state your opinion and observations establishing a "point of view"..? We're all familiar with the 10th - explain your interpretation please...

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Yet, through all the debate...

...nobody has asserted the position that the Federal Government has properly managed immigration policy and enforcement.


So, it seems as though this would be game, set, match: Arizona!

I gladly assert the position that the Feds have NOT properly managed immigration in this country.

BUT

Arizona has 2 Senators and 8 Representatives in Congress. Its their job to represent the people of Arizona with regards to Federal issues, such as immigration. The State legislature has no business with federal issues.

I disagree, when the federal government is costing a state money and lives then it is our responsibility to take matters into our own hands to protect the citizens. More states need to disregard the Federal government when they are CLEARLY not acting on behalf of the LEGAL people in this country

[danefan]

I gladly assert the position that the Feds have NOT properly managed immigration in this country.

BUT

Arizona has 2 Senators and 8 Representatives in Congress. Its their job to represent the people of Arizona with regards to Federal issues, such as immigration. The State legislature has no business with federal issues.

I disagree, when the federal government is costing a state money and lives then it is our responsibility to take matters into our own hands to protect the citizens. More states need to disregard the Federal government when they are CLEARLY not acting on behalf of the LEGAL people in this country

I get your point, but there avenues for Arizona to rectify this within our current system of government.

Once again, these people are not committing crimes because they are illegal aliens. They are criminals that also happen to be illegal aliens. The crime problem is Arizona's. The immigration problem is the Feds'.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

I disagree, when the federal government is costing a state money and lives then it is our responsibility to take matters into our own hands to protect the citizens. More states need to disregard the Federal government when they are CLEARLY not acting on behalf of the LEGAL people in this country

I get your point, but there avenues for Arizona to rectify this within our current system of government.

Once again, these people are not committing crimes because they are illegal aliens. They are criminals that also happen to be illegal aliens. The crime problem is Arizona's. The immigration problem is the Feds'.

You got me to agree with ya on what you're saying as far as the proper way of doing things but the fact is the immigration problem is Arizona's problem also. I think you were saying that it is the Feds job to handle the problem but if they are not doing it and leaving Arizona to suffer the consequences then I don't mind seeing them making an effort to deal with it themselves. As you said hopefully it will spur the Federal Government to quit dismissing the problem and leaving the states with their hands tied by implementing ineffective policies.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I disagree, when the federal government is costing a state money and lives then it is our responsibility to take matters into our own hands to protect the citizens. More states need to disregard the Federal government when they are CLEARLY not acting on behalf of the LEGAL people in this country

I get your point, but there avenues for Arizona to rectify this within our current system of government.

Once again, these people are not committing crimes because they are illegal aliens. They are criminals that also happen to be illegal aliens. The crime problem is Arizona's. The immigration problem is the Feds'.

I understand where you are coming from I just disagree. There are a LOT of illegals coming to Arizona ILLEGALLY and committing crimes I dont think you can really separate the two.