Feds Sue Arizona

[danefan]

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.

1. Tuition was free.
2. You don't learn how to please right wing nutjobs in law school.

[native]

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?

BINGO!

[native]

Thanks for the segue. What a waste of tuition.

1. Tuition was free.
2. You don't learn how to please right wing nutjobs in law school.

Obviously a number of things you didn't learn.

[danefan]

1. Tuition was free.
2. You don't learn how to please right wing nutjobs in law school.

Obviously a number of things you didn't learn.

Like to how to blindly follow talking heads.
How to live a live full of paranoia and fear.
How to make as little money as possible and be miserable doing it.

[native]

Obviously a number of things you didn't learn.

...Like to how to blindly follow talking heads....

Maybe you learned more than I thought.

Keep working on that integrity thing, though. It will help you out in the long run.

[danefan]

...Like to how to blindly follow talking heads....

Maybe you learned more than I thought.

Keep working on that integrity thing, though. It will help you out in the long run.

Integrity? See this is where you go crazy Native.

I disagree with you politically and somehow I have less integrity?

[andy7171]

so if the arizona law mirrors the federal law, who has higher jurisidction to enforce? Or do both have equal power to enforce the law?

[danefan]

so if the arizona law mirrors the federal law, who has higher jurisidction to enforce? Or do both have equal power to enforce the law?

Depends on whether you view immigration/border control as a concurrent power (for both the States and the Feds to enforce) or one reserved for the Feds only.

[andy7171]

so if the arizona law mirrors the federal law, who has higher jurisidction to enforce? Or do both have equal power to enforce the law?

Depends on whether you view immigration/border control as a concurrent power (for both the States and the Feds to enforce) or one reserved for the Feds only.

I think this is how the fed wins this case.

[danefan]

Depends on whether you view immigration/border control as a concurrent power (for both the States and the Feds to enforce) or one reserved for the Feds only.

I think this is how the fed wins this case.

I think you're right.

[native]

Maybe you learned more than I thought.

Keep working on that integrity thing, though. It will help you out in the long run.

Integrity? See this is where you go crazy Native.

I disagree with you politically and somehow I have less integrity?

Not at all. The lack of integrity is in failing to respond in kind to a substantial, civilized response to a serious question that you initiated. You castigate my posts using hyperbole and talking points. I am also guilty, but am willing to engage in a civilized substantial discussion.

For example, on another thread you asked me to reply with even one judicial opinion of Judge Thomas. I replied with a detailed response, and you ignored it.

We both participate in hyperbolic banter. The difference is that you pretend to engage in a substantial, civilized discussion (sometimes), then immediately jump ship or return to hyperbolic banter as soon as you are confronted with a substantial point.

Nobody including me is right all the time. Nor must we agree all the time. We all make mistakes and can learn from them. I would prefer to learn and agree to disagree intelligently rather than to constantly piss on each others' legs.

Here is a question for you. I am not trying to trap you. It is not a trick question, I do not know the answer, and I genuinely want your insight and opinion: In supremacy cases, how often and to what extent do the state laws in question contradict federal law, and how often do they complement federal law?

In the case of AB1070, perhaps you would stipulate that Arizona does not contradict federal law? Perhaps you would also stipulate that precedents in which the state law contradicts are irrelevant to the Arizona case?

Here is another question for you: Do you think that the existence of the federal 287g program and other laws and programs establishes precedent for concurrent jurisdiction in immigration cases?

[danefan]

Integrity? See this is where you go crazy Native.

I disagree with you politically and somehow I have less integrity?

Not at all. The lack of integrity is in failing to respond in kind to a substantial, civilized response to a serious question that you initiated. You castigate my posts using hyperbole and talking points. I am also guilty, but am willing to engage in a civilized substantial discussion.

For example, on another thread you asked me to reply with even one judicial opinion of Judge Thomas. I replied with a detailed response, and you ignored it.

We both participate in hyperbolic banter. The difference is that you pretend to engage in a substantial, civilized discussion (sometimes), then immediately jump ship or return to hyperbolic banter as soon as you are confronted with a substantial point.

Call it jumping ship if you want, but I don't avoid your comments. I put in a comment and then get busy or don't check your repsonses.

I never saw your response to my question about Justice Thomas - and now you'll have a case to add with the recent Chicago gun case.

Nobody including me is right all the time. Nor must we agree all the time. We all make mistakes and can learn from them. I would prefer to learn and agree to disagree intelligently rather than to constantly piss on each others' legs.

Agreed

Here is a question for you. I am not trying to trap you. It is not a trick question, I do not know the answer, and I genuinely want your insight and opinion: In supremacy cases, how often and to what extent do the state laws in question contradict federal law, and how often do they complement federal law?

I have no clue, but I don't think it matters. What matters is the state is trying to legislate in an area of law which is the sole purview of the Feds. That's express preemption.

In the case of AB1070, perhaps you would stipulate that Arizona does not contradict federal law? Perhaps you would also stipulate that precedents in which the state law contradicts are irrelevant to the Arizona case?

I agree that the Arizona law does not contradict the Federal laws. I never said it did. The precedents that matter are those like Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U. S. 497 (1956)

Congress having thus treated seditious conduct as a matter of vital national concern, it is in no sense a local enforcement problem. As was said in the court below: "Sedition against the United States is not a local offense. It is a crime against the Nation. As such, it should be prosecuted and punished in the Federal courts, where this defendant has, in fact, been prosecuted and convicted and is now under sentence. It is not only important, but vital, that such prosecutions should be exclusively within the control of the Federal Government . . . "

I haven't had time to read it yet, but I assume the Complaint filed by the Feds relies heavily on the idea of immigration crimes being crimes against the Nation and not against Arizona as well as the fact that there is an undoubtful need to have consistent border control and immigration enforcement throughout the country.

Here is another question for you: Do you think that the existence of the federal 287g program and other laws and programs establishes precedent for concurrent jurisdiction in immigration cases?

No. I believe 287g is merely a delegation of authority, right? It does not mean that the states can act outside their delegtated authority, which is what Arizona is trying to do. An expansion of 287g is necessarry, IMO. And despite the fact that I think Arizona's law is unconstitutional, I am hopeful that it will spur the Feds to do something.

[AZGrizFan]

I think this is how the fed wins this case.

I think you're right.

2 things interest me:

1) The Feds are arbitrarily choosing NOT to enforce laws currently on the books, yet challenging a state's right to do so
2) If AZ wants to help the Feds, I believe ICE has already said they would NOT take possession of illegals identified and detained by AZ law enforcement.

[native]

...What matters is the state is trying to legislate in an area of law which is the sole purview of the Feds. That's express preemption....

Here is a discussion of "express preemption" from Wisconsin:

"Express preemption

Express preemption exists if a federal statute explicitly states that it preempts state law (and if Congress, in passing the statute, was exercising authority granted to it under the U.S. Constitution).Although express preemption can be unambiguous, often federal statutes expressing an intent to preempt are quite complicated and difficult to apply. In addition, like any statute, a federal statute expressing an intent to preempt is subject to interpretation by administrative agencies and the courts.For example:

The federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempts all state laws “insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan,” except that state “laws . . . which regulate insurance, banking, or securities” are saved from preemption.29 U.S.C. 1144 (a) and (b) (2) (A).These statutes have spawned numerous ERISA preemption cases under which the courts determined which state laws “relate to” an employee benefit plan, which state laws “regulate” insurance, banking, or securities, and what activities qualify as insurance, banking, or securities.

The Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act preempts state laws concerning price, routes, or services of motor carriers, except that “the safety regulatory authority of a state” with respect to motor vehicles is saved from preemption. A case originating in Columbus, Wisconsin, is among the cases interpreting this provision.In City of Columbus v. Ours Garage and Wrecker Service, Inc., 536 U.S. 424 (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court held that “safety regulatory authority of a state” includes the regulatory authority of municipalities, so that municipalities are allowed to regulate tow truck safety."ref: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lrb/pubs/c ... III051.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regarding "express preemption," it seems to me that there is a good chance the courts will be obligated to give Arizona some wiggle room on AB1070, since the "express" preemption in the 14th Amendment is limited to legal citizens, and due to the inherent local issues involved. Inherent state issues include driver's licenses and identity theft, which are inextricably bound with the illegal immigration problem, especially in Arizona.

Considering Arizona's sanctuary cities such as Tucson, might there not also be an obligation of the Arizona legislature to use AB1070 to ensure uniformity of due process and equal protection in Arizona, per the due process and equal protection discussions in the 14th Amendment?

[citdog]

yankee (federal) law makes pot illegal. but when libs in cali pass laws that VIOLATE the yankee law nothing is done. when az passes a law to enforce the yankee laws already on the books this is unconstitutional in the view of the "justice" dept of "the late united states"? someone please explain to me the difference.

[danefan]

...What matters is the state is trying to legislate in an area of law which is the sole purview of the Feds. That's express preemption....

Here is a discussion of "express preemption" from Wisconsin:

"Express preemption

Express preemption exists if a federal statute explicitly states that it preempts state law (and if Congress, in passing the statute, was exercising authority granted to it under the U.S. Constitution).Although express preemption can be unambiguous, often federal statutes expressing an intent to preempt are quite complicated and difficult to apply. In addition, like any statute, a federal statute expressing an intent to preempt is subject to interpretation by administrative agencies and the courts.For example:

The federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempts all state laws “insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan,” except that state “laws . . . which regulate insurance, banking, or securities” are saved from preemption.29 U.S.C. 1144 (a) and (b) (2) (A).These statutes have spawned numerous ERISA preemption cases under which the courts determined which state laws “relate to” an employee benefit plan, which state laws “regulate” insurance, banking, or securities, and what activities qualify as insurance, banking, or securities.

The Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act preempts state laws concerning price, routes, or services of motor carriers, except that “the safety regulatory authority of a state” with respect to motor vehicles is saved from preemption. A case originating in Columbus, Wisconsin, is among the cases interpreting this provision.In City of Columbus v. Ours Garage and Wrecker Service, Inc., 536 U.S. 424 (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court held that “safety regulatory authority of a state” includes the regulatory authority of municipalities, so that municipalities are allowed to regulate tow truck safety."ref: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lrb/pubs/c ... III051.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regarding "express preemption," it seems to me that there is a good chance the courts will be obligated to give Arizona some wiggle room on AB1070, since the "express" preemption in the 14th Amendment is limited to legal citizens, and due to the inherent local issues involved. Inherent state issues include driver's licenses and identity theft, which are inextricably bound with the illegal immigration problem, especially in Arizona.

Considering Arizona's sanctuary cities such as Tucson, might there not also be an obligation of the Arizona legislature to use AB1070 to ensure uniformity of due process and equal protection in Arizona, per the due process and equal protection discussions in the 14th Amendment?

I'm not jumping ship, but I don't time to look it up and I don't know the answer (if there is one) off the top of my head.

[Chizzang]

yankee (federal) law makes pot illegal. but when libs in cali pass laws that VIOLATE the yankee law nothing is done. when az passes a law to enforce the yankee laws already on the books this is unconstitutional in the view of the "justice" dept of "the late united states"? someone please explain to me the difference.

I believe they call that: Politics

[native]

yankee (federal) law makes pot illegal. but when libs in cali pass laws that VIOLATE the yankee law nothing is done. when az passes a law to enforce the yankee laws already on the books this is unconstitutional in the view of the "justice" dept of "the late united states"? someone please explain to me the difference.

The difference is extreme executive corruption and incompetence.

The Constitution used to provide checks and balances on unbridled executive power, corruption and incompetence.

When Dems and Repubs alike undermine and destroy the foundations of the Constitution, the checks and balances no longer work.

I believe that de Tocqueville, among others, calls it democratic politics, when weakened Constitution and dismembered republic fail to to balance the fleeting passions of the mob, exactly as intended by Democrats/Progressives, and quite the opposite of what was intended by the founders.

[native]

...Regarding "express preemption," it seems to me that there is a good chance the courts will be obligated to give Arizona some wiggle room on AB1070, since the "express" preemption in the 14th Amendment is limited to legal citizens, and due to the inherent local issues involved. Inherent state issues include driver's licenses and identity theft, which are inextricably bound with the illegal immigration problem, especially in Arizona.

Considering Arizona's sanctuary cities such as Tucson, might there not also be an obligation of the Arizona legislature to use AB1070 to ensure uniformity of due process and equal protection in Arizona, per the due process and equal protection discussions in the 14th Amendment?

I'm not jumping ship, but I don't time to look it up and I don't know the answer (if there is one) off the top of my head.

Thanks for the courtesy of a response. I suspect that the answers to my questions lie not only in the Constitution, but in the statutes and cases that have followed the 14th Amendment.

[Chizzang]

I'm not jumping ship, but I don't time to look it up and I don't know the answer (if there is one) off the top of my head.

Thanks for the courtesy of a response. I suspect that the answers to my questions lie not only in the Constitution, but in the statutes and cases that have followed the 14th Amendment.

I think he (Danefan) is just avoiding the issues and lacks integrity...

[native]

Thanks for the courtesy of a response. I suspect that the answers to my questions lie not only in the Constitution, but in the statutes and cases that have followed the 14th Amendment.

I think he (Danefan) is just avoiding the issues and lacks integrity...

You are a day late and a dollar short. We already kissed and made up.

[Chizzang]

I think he (Danefan) is just avoiding the issues and lacks integrity...

You are a day late and a dollar short. We already kissed and made up.

Dang-it..!!!
I can't believe I missed that fabulous opportunity

[danefan]

The 3rd Circuit held today that Hazleton, PA's attempts to regulate immigration through ordinances covering employment and housing are unconstitutional on supremacy grounds.

Lozano v. Hazleton
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/073531p.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Although our reasoning differs from that of the district court, we agree that the provisions of the ordinances which we have jurisdiction to review are pre-empted by federal immigration law and unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.

There is some good reading in there on the Supremacy Clause and how it could likely be applied by the Supreme Court to Arizona's law.