Turnover of AZ Law...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You have to show identification, not prove you're a citizen or legal alien. I don't see any difference in protection. What's at issue is jurisdiction and the presumption of guilt.

Jurisdiction is not an issue. Federal jurisdiction is not infringed. AZ law assists, does not usurp, the Federal Government in finding illegals. Actual guilt, not presumed guilt, is the target.

Any why we already have Federal laws to deal with this issue.

As JR says, the laws are not being properly enforced. Law without enforcement is law that does not exist. Normally, the Federal Government appreciates and encourages local assistance. It is, after all, so "overburdened." The AZ law actually makes the Federal law more meaningful by assisting in its enforcement.

That's not really the issue, it's about a State potentially usurping Federal law and the discrimination of legal citizens and legal aliens in doing so.

There is no possibility that the AZ law can "usurp" Federal law. Any state law that did so (not possible) would be struck down. The AZ law "usurps" no Federal law, no Federal power, no Federal action. It "potentially" assists the Federal Government. There is no special targeting of legal citizens or legal aliens. They are all subject to the same law enforcement. Any "potential" discrimination that occurs from improper enforcement is subject to reverse suits and monetary compensation.

That National support is based more on a desire for the Feds to do more rather than endorsement for the controversial elements of the bill.-spence

It's based on the Federal Government doing what it is supposed to do, rather than the Government doing a piss poor, less than half-hearted, job, and then rejecting help to do what it seems incapable of doing. Which controversial elements? What the Federal Government is doing and not doing, is extremely controversial.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Jurisdiction is not an issue. Federal jurisdiction is not infringed. AZ law assists, does not usurp, the Federal Government in finding illegals. Actual guilt, not presumed guilt, is the target.

Not according to the Federal judge, who believe the AZ law interferes with the Feds ability to set and enforce a consistent policy.

That you disagree with that issue doesn't make it wrong, it's just an interpretation. I'm sure the higher courts will be chiming in soon.

As JR says, the laws are not being properly enforced. Law without enforcement is law that does not exist. Normally, the Federal Government appreciates and encourages local assistance. It is, after all, so "overburdened." The AZ law actually makes the Federal law more meaningful by assisting in its enforcement.

I would think a Conservative would argue that the solution is better Federal enforcement, rather than additional legislation that will increase the size of government through State mandates which also may burden local law enforcement.

There is no possibility that the AZ law can "usurp" Federal law. Any state law that did so (not possible) would be struck down. The AZ law "usurps" no Federal law, no Federal power, no Federal action. It "potentially" assists the Federal Government. There is no special targeting of legal citizens or legal aliens. They are all subject to the same law enforcement. Any "potential" discrimination that occurs from improper enforcement is subject to reverse suits and monetary compensation.

Interfering with Federal priorities and could be construed as the same thing. If the Feds want to focus on drugs, and the local Sheriff is rounding up a hundred day workers to hand over to ICE, you might just have a resource issue.

It's based on the Federal Government doing what it is supposed to do, rather than the Government doing a piss poor, less than half-hearted, job, and then rejecting help to do what it seems incapable of doing. Which controversial elements? What the Federal Government is doing and not doing, is extremely controversial.

So the answer again is to focus on more stringent Federal enforcement which Obama appears to be doing.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

So the answer again is to focus on more stringent Federal enforcement which Obama appears to be doing.

-spence

you are too funny....

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

you are too funny....

I'd have to note, you and my six year old have something in common. Neither of you really cares about the posts, but both love the emoticons

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd have to note, you and my six year old have something in common. Neither of you really cares about the posts, but both love the emoticons

-spence

there you go again...Spence..your posts have been so chock full of detached from reality BS lately...it's hard to do anything but laugh...but I'm not the only one pointing this out...

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

there you go again...Spence..your posts have been so chock full of detached from reality BS lately...it's hard to do anything but laugh...but I'm not the only one pointing this out...

I guess it is easier than thinking

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I guess it is easier than thinking

-spence

when you continually stand common sense on it's head in the form of regurgitated progressive talking points...there's not a whole lot of thinking required on either of our parts...whether in your assertions or in my reponses...you spew...I laugh....you remind me of an article that I read recently about Paul Krugman and his apparent crack up to the point that colleagues and his ombudsman have had to back away pointing out the fact that he's so wed to Keynesian theory and progressive politics that he can't mutter a competent thought or accept reality....

For example, Robert Barro, the distinguished Harvard economist, noted that Krugman "just says whatever is convenient for his political argument. He doesn't behave like an economist." The New York Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent observed that Paul Krugman has "the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults." James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal, after listing the falsities in Krugman's latest piece on climate last week, hazarded that perhaps "Krugman makes himself ridiculous merely to make our job easy."


see...we could substitute Spence for Krugman... most experts would agree

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Not according to the Federal judge, who believe the AZ law interferes with the Feds ability to set and enforce a consistent policy.

That you disagree with that issue doesn't make it wrong, it's just an interpretation. I'm sure the higher courts will be chiming in soon.

This is just a forum discussion on JohnnyD's Q. Discussion of what the judge decided should include her opinions and their merit. I am not disagreeing with an issue, I am commenting on the propriety of her statements and the egregious disagreements she has with her own instructions.

The Executive Branch primarily asserts that provisions in the AZ ammendments to its already existing law are preempted by Federal law.

The judge states that federal preemption can be either express or implied.

And that there are two types of implied:

FIELD PREEMPTION--where the depth and breadth of a congressional scheme occupies the legislative field. She briefly alludes to the Congress as being the only legitimate author of immigration law, but so much of her rhetoric seems to imply that the Executive branch has that power. It only has such power as delegated to it by Congress. In many instances Congress has expressed a concurrent responsibility between the States and the Federal government in enforcing the immigration laws. It is the intent of Congress, not the Executive branch that should be addressed. It is the Congress that authorized the Executive agencies dealing with immigration (DOJ, DHS, DOS). She dishonestly limits her discussion of State and local constitutional authorization to arrest aliens unlawfully present in the U.S. who have previously been convicted of a felony and deported. She doesn't expand the discussion to show States are permitted to arrest illegal immigrants who have not been convicted of a felony and who have not been deported. The same statute she cites also directs the executive to work at the behest of the States, making it subservient to the States in enforcing immigration law in that instance. The depth and breadth of the Congressional field, when considering the Congressional intent gives far wider scope to State power than that to which the Executive branch wishes to be limited.

CONFLICT PREEMPTION--This occurs when compliance with both Federal and State regulations is a physical impossibility or where State law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. ACTUAL AS OPPOSED TO HYPOTHETICAL OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT must exist for conflict preemption to apply. (These are her own legal standards for analysis.) She then bases her decision on hypotheticals, against her own instruction. Notice also, that she says the State law must be an obstacle to . . . the full purposes and objectives of Congress (not the Executive branch.)

She also requires as a legal standard that the U.S. challenge is likely to succeed on its merits. The U.S. (the Executive branch) challenged AZ ON ITS FACE.

The judge's standard for a facial challenge are that it must establish that no set of circumstances exist under which the act would be valid. That a facial challenge must fail where a Statute has a plainly legitimate sweep. That in deciding a facial challenge, courts must be careful NOT TO GO BEYOND THE STATUTES FACIAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECULATE ABOUT HYPOTHETICAL OR IMAGIONARY CASES. Which is what she did.


I would think a Conservative would argue that the solution is better Federal enforcement, rather than additional legislation that will increase the size of government through State mandates which also may burden local law enforcement.

First of all, a conservative would argue that the Constitution be applied in its original intent.

A DOJ 2002 memo says that States have inherent power, subject to Federal preemption, to make arrests for violation of Federal law. And that it is reasonable to assume that Congress intended that the Federal Government should receive whatever assistance states might provide in identifying and detaining those who may have violated Federal law and Federal statutes should be presumed not to have preempted this authority.

Congress has authorized various agencies to assist in this cooperation (LESC, NCIC, ICE, NSEERS, etc.) The LESC operates 24/7 365 days per year. It was created to assist officers in completing exactly the enforcement duties anticipated under the AZ law. In the past 6 years it has processed nearly 10 million information requests from State and local law enforcement. Over 90% of the info requests are processed electronically in under 10 minutes and require no human contact.

There is no additional legislation. AZ ammended its already existing legislation. The burden that you speak of is their job.

Interfering with Federal priorities and could be construed as the same thing. If the Feds want to focus on drugs, and the local Sheriff is rounding up a hundred day workers to hand over to ICE, you might just have a resource issue.

Just might have is speculation. The Feds and locals have always agreed to cooperate when there is a conflict of interest. It even stipulates in AZ ammendment that "reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status . . . EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION."

So the answer again is to focus on more stringent Federal enforcement which Obama appears to be doing.
-spence

More "stringent" Federal enforcement can and should be assisted by State and local enforcement. It is the inherent right of the State and locals to do so, and it makes the entire process more productive.

Yes, the other Courts will chime in. No doubt the 9th Circuit will uphold Bolton's decision. When it gets to the SCOTUS, real and substantive argument may happen. Which way it finally goes . . .??

[Raven]

Interesting that Virginia cops are using the Arizona law in the same fashion

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Raven

Interesting that Virginia cops are using the Arizona law in the same fashion

Several States are preparing similar AZ laws. This should not have been necessary. For some time, there has been great dissatisfaction with the Federal Government growing at the expense of the States. Constitutionally, the States are sovereign nations that have agreed to a union of cooperation and have delegated specific powers to the Federal Government to act as a representative of the States in specific, defined matters. The debate as to which should be greater goes all the way back to the federalists vs. the anti-federalists. The Federalist idea has been winning, despite the 9th and 10th ammendments. The Civil War was a major victory, with good intentions, for power shifting to the Federal level. That is all past history, and may be irrelevant today. The problem is the shift to Federal power, and the shrinking of State and individual rights and freedoms, appears to be unabated. Many who oppose this are trying to re-assert State's rights. If there had been a more reasonable Federal cooperation with States, this could have been avoided.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The problem is the shift to Federal power, and the shrinking of State and individual rights and freedoms, appears to be unabated. Many who oppose this are trying to re-assert State's rights. If there had been a more reasonable Federal cooperation with States, this could have been avoided.

Yup, it seems to have been forgotten that it was the States
that formed, and gave power to the Federal Govt.,not vice versa.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The problem is the shift to Federal power, and the shrinking of State and individual rights and freedoms, appears to be unabated. Many who oppose this are trying to re-assert State's rights.

Yup, it seems to have been forgotten that it was the States that formed, and gave power to the Federal Govt.,not vice versa.