Democrats & Liberals Archives

Judge Grants Injunction Against Arizona Law

US District Judge Susan Bolton has granted an injunction on the most controversial portions of the controversial Arizona Immigration Bill.

From the TPMDC article on the subject:

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled that the portions of the law that most angered its opponents -- including the checking of immigration status during stops for unrelated offenses -- would not be allowed to be enforced. The Associated Press reported that the sections would be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. White House spokesman Bill Burton told reporters on Air Force one that the Department of Justice would be reacting to the ruling. [...] Bolton rules, "There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new [law]. ... By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."

Okay, now that this ruling has come down, we can expect to move on from the constitutional merits of the law to accusations from the right of judicial activism and ad hominem attacks on the judge.

I've been making the exact same points for months now, though, even as many on the Right basically said that Obama would walk away with egg on his face. Fact of the matter is, the Constitution gives the Federal Government the power to regulate naturalization explicitly, as an enumerated power. I've also been pointing out the far too low threshold of suspicion that the law enables. Lo and behold, that's one of the issue the judge brings up. The matter of investigating matters unrelated to the reason for a traffic stop is another issue I brought up. Sure enough, thats one of the issues addressed in the ruling.

While I'm at it, I think I should tell you about a rather curious detail about Gov. Jan Brewer's support of this bill.

In short, two of Brewer's two top advisers once worked for a company called Corrections Corporation of America (CCA).

Paul Senseman, Brewer’s deputy chief of staff, is a former lobbyist for CCA. His wife continues to lobby for the company. Meanwhile Chuck Coughlin, who leads her re-election campaign, chaired her transition into the governorship, and is one of the governor’s policy advisors, is president of HighGround Public Affairs Consultants, which lobbies for CCA.

This is important because CCA currently “holds the federal contract to house detainees in Arizona.” CBS 5 notes that the company currently bills $11 million a month to the state of Arizona and that, if SB-1070 is successfully implemented, its profits would be significantly padded as it would take responsibility for imprisoning immigrants arrested by Arizona police.

The company maintains that it “unequivocally, did not at any time lobby — nor did we have any outside consultants lobby — anyone in Arizona on the immigration law,” but direct lobbying would not be necessary with allies like Senseman and Coughlin working directly for Brewer.

Food for thought.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at July 28, 2010 2:10 PM
Comments
Comment #304707
The judge said this – the requirement of law enforcement officials to essentially make all possibly illegal immigrants show their papers – is a violation of the separation of powers, a violation of federal sovereignty and federal control of immigration matters

Does this mean I do not have to show my driver’s licence when I get stopped by a local policeman?

Perhaps, since the constitution is being enforced again we should remind the government and the courts of the ninth and tenth amendments.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 28, 2010 5:03 PM
Comment #304710

The judge did not refer to drivers’ licenses, but “papers”….and I’m sure you know what is meant by that. It isn’t nearly as contentious to just go easily along with it, though….

Posted by: jane doe at July 28, 2010 5:30 PM
Comment #304711

Weary Willie-
The Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This amendment is much argued over, but I think it comes down to this: You have rights, as a person, that are not explicitly laid out in the constitution. There is no explicit right not to be cheated in a financial dealing, but anybody rational would say they have a right to such treatment. There is no right to open travel in the constitution, no right to privacy, no right to presumed innnocence, no right to a jury of your peers.

What the Ninth Amendment says is, we don’t have to explicitly tell you every right you have in this document for you to have it. The constitution is the beginning of our rights as Americans, not the end.

The Tenth Amendment is another story.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Highway laws are the state and local government’s domain. That’s why they, and not the FBI or US Marshals Service pulls you over when you speed. They issue you parking tickets. In practice, the Federal Government can certainly encourage states to legislate a certain way, by dangling the carrot of federal funds. What they can’t do is commandeer the state or local governments to do their will. They cannot write a law that tells the state government directly to pass a law, or which sockpuppets them as enforcers of federal law.

They can, however, delegate power to states who willingly take those powers on. But the key is, Federal power must be delegated, and state and local governments always have the option to tell the Feds to take a hike.

You have to show that drivers license because in a traffic stop it is a perfectly reasonable question to ask somebody who is suspected of violating the traffic laws. Local and State law enforcers are well within their jurisdiction. That driver’s license is issued to you by the state, so that should tell you by what authority they can ask to see it.

But to ask them about something that is
A) A Federal matter, and
B) Not a logical extension of the subject of that investigation, that is, the traffic violation,

is another matter altogether.

I mean, what if they pulled you over, and asked “Can I search your car for drugs?” despite the complete lack of any such evidence in plain sight, how would that fly?

The Fourth Amendment tells us that those enforcing the law must have probable cause to believe a crime is being committed, or has been committed in order to search, to arrest, to confiscate goods, to tap communications. This puts the limits on state, federal and local law enforcement officers ability to intrude into your life without good cause, keeps them focused on what they’re really supposed to do.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 28, 2010 5:41 PM
Comment #304712

At least Mr. Daugherty’s self-congratulatory comments were mercifully short. I wonder if he thinks this is the end of the matter…lol.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 28, 2010 5:47 PM
Comment #304713

From the judgment:

If enforcement of the portions of S.B. 1070 for which the Court finds a likelihood of preemption is not enjoined, the United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm. This is so because the federal government’s ability to enforce its policies and achieve its objectives will be undermined by the state’s enforcement of statutes that interfere with federal law, even if the Court were to conclude that the state statutes have substantially the same goals as federal law.

Like I said: the court was always going to be unlikely to side against the supremacy clause in this case. Arizona could never have its own immigration policy, even if it had the best of intentions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 28, 2010 5:50 PM
Comment #304714

Royal Flush-
I don’t know whether it’s the end, but I think it will be fairly difficult to argue against an enumerated, sovereign power. Immigration is a federal bailiwick, and States are at best guests in that arena, by the Federal Government’s leave.

The Right Wing made its arguments from a mix of emotional appeals, anti-federalism, and wishful thinking. They were hoping for the judge to slap Obama in the face on this one. They were arguing that States could fill in on federal functions where the National government fell short, they were arguing that the courts should just ignore all kinds of nagging little issues with the extent of the searches permitted.

Me? I did some research. Immigration is a federal power. As I know, the supremacy clause always hands the win to the Federal Government in these cases. It would take a pretty radical judge to overrule them, and that radical judge would have to answer an objection from a supremacy clause position. Even Right-Wing Judges don’t like to get reversed, so that would be unlikely.

The reasonable suspicion standard is controversial at best, and with illegal immigration cases, what is there exactly that tells you that a person’s breaking immigration law on sight? How could you enforce such a law without overstepping your bounds?

The Right argued that the States should be able to duplicate federal powers, especially when the feds fell short, but there is no such constitutional threshold, nor power sharing. The states have no legitimate jurisdiction. They couldn’t decide foreign policy on their own prerogative, send out ambassadors. The states cannot legislate for themselves as if they were the Federal Government. States have their powers, the Feds have their powers.

Arguments about the necessity wouldn’t hold any water. I reasoned that they would be considered irrelevant in court, since the courts job was to determine the law, and the law was clear, even to an amateur.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 28, 2010 6:06 PM
Comment #304715
While I’m at it, I think I should tell you about a rather curious detail about Gov. Jan Brewer’s support of this bill.

I see you’ve been watching “Leverage” on TNT. That’s an excellent show. I don’t miss an episode.

But to ask them about something that is A) A Federal matter, and B) Not a logical extension of the subject of that investigation, that is, the traffic violation,

is another matter altogether.

What you’re saying is the local police can ask for a driver’s licence but, what if they don’t have one because they are illegal and cannot get one? Is the officer suppose to issue a ticket and let the guy go?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 28, 2010 6:06 PM
Comment #304716

While driving is considered a privelege, the premise of traffic stops, IMHO, violates search and seizure portions of the constitution.

I have no problem with stopping someone for safety issues, but that has been extended to give an excuse for ipso facto random stops. Texas police have continually found reasons to perform random stops, which are usually knocked down on appeals.

While I don’t know if the courts will nullify Arizona’s law on the current basis of this lawsuit (there have been several lawyers state that there is a good argument that the Feds are using), I believe eventually there will some abuse occur and the law will then be overturned, as well as costing Arizonans substantial monies.

Popular appeal to racism and fear mongering is never good public policy.

The $2 billion dollar fence doesn’t do much good either.

Posted by: gergle at July 28, 2010 6:15 PM
Comment #304717
Popular appeal to racism and fear mongering is never good public policy.
Posted by: gergle at July 28, 2010 06:15 PM

I agree! I wish the Democratics would quit using them.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 28, 2010 6:39 PM
Comment #304719

I know Mr. Daugherty understands that this is not a settled issue with this ruling.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 28, 2010 6:57 PM
Comment #304720

WW wrote:

What you’re saying is the local police can ask for a driver’s licence but, what if they don’t have one because they are illegal and cannot get one?

Is the officer suppose to issue a ticket and let the guy go?

I think everyone on the left would agree with me: No!

Of course, individuals stopped for traffic violations who fail to produce a valid driver’s license. This already was the case before the AZ law. What this law does is give the police the authority to demand identification from anyone who comes in “lawful contact” with the police. This could be something as benign as a pedestrian stopping to ask directions or something such as being a witness/victim of a crime.

The standard set by the 4th Amendment is “Probable Cause”, not lawful contact. Most traffic stops are done according to Terry v. Ohio, which only requires that law enforcement have a “Reasonable Suspicion” that a crime was/is/will be committed.

Lastly, I want to add that Delaware v. Prouse prohibits traffic stops merely for the purpose of checking driver’s license & registration.

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 28, 2010 7:06 PM
Comment #304723

The court hasn’t thrown the law out. What they did was they basically postponed implementation until certain issues are resolved with it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 28, 2010 7:22 PM
Comment #304725

Immigration is federal business. Arizona used bogus reasoning in the first place. Border crossing on their border has not been increasing to any degree, so that flood of illegals Brewer ranted about just wasn’t there. And the crime she was having so much trouble with was, 1. decreasing for twelve years running, and, 2. A law enforcement problem. Nothing in federal law says a state cannot arrest a thief, murderer, drug dealer, or any other criminal who commits crimes against state laws.

More illegals have been sent back to Mexico, Central and South America under Obama during this eighteen months than during the last four years of Cheney/Bush.

The solution still does not involve the immigrants. The only way to completely stop it is to make it hard on those who hire them. THAT will not be done as long as a Republican draws breath. It has all been a farce from the beginning.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 28, 2010 7:42 PM
Comment #304726

Dude…you’re not arguing law, but rather, how many illegals cross the AZ border to justify the law.

I do agree with you that the only way to stop illegal immigrants coming here in the first place is to stop hiring them. When the jobs dry up those here most likely will go home on their own and the incentive for more to come will be eliminated. And, neither party has the willpower or motivation to do what is necessary to clamp down on the jobs.

I believe the Nov election results will, in part, reflect how disgusted the voters are with this non-performance regarding illegals.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 28, 2010 8:00 PM
Comment #304727

Weary Willie-
While I’m sure its an excellent show, any resemblance between what I said and what was said in the show is completely coincidental, as I’ve never seen it.

Here’s the gist of my argument: a police officer pulling you over for a traffic stop is pulling you over because they think you’re speeding, driving recklessly, running a stop sign, etc.

That’s their probable cause. That’s what they have reason to investigate, based on what they can observe.

But what about an immigration violation? If you have an employer who’s had some illegals working for him on a regular basis, and they follow that up and ask people to prove citizenship, that’s one thing. The facts of the case naturally lead to the direction of the investigation. The government has some business intruding on the private citizen then.

But if it’s just a broken tail light, or worse, just showing up as a witness at an accident, then what’s the reason for law enforcement to be intruding into people’s affair on this matter?

Royal Flush-
If you read the language, though, the injunction is basically the court agreeing that the law should not be carried out because it would do irreparable harm to the Federal Governement’s ability to carry out its powers.

That’s how seriously the court takes the argument that this runs against an enumerated federal power. That’s the reason for the injunction: the law has such profound constitutional questions attached to it at these points that they don’t even fell comfortable letting that law be enforced in those sections while the Circuit Courts hash it out. They’re thinking it would set such a bad precedent as to permanently harm the powers of the federal government.

That’s not encouraging news for those who want the law to stand.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 28, 2010 8:00 PM
Comment #304728

Royal Flush:
Percent of Americans who believe that illegal immigration is a top priority? 9%

Percent who favor what you would call amnesty:
81%.

I don’t think you can get quite the mileage you think you can get off of it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 28, 2010 8:06 PM
Comment #304729

Yes, I am sure it is encouraging news for those who believe as you do. However, I believe I would wait awhile before doing a victory dance or before I throw in the towel. I am sure you are aware that other states are preparing their own version of the AZ law.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 28, 2010 8:11 PM
Comment #304730

Mr. Daugherty, thanks for the link. Your cherry-picking is understandable, however the results from all the polls clearly are against the government action in AZ and continuing illegal immigration.

Perhaps Mr. Daugherty did not read beyond the first poll cited…that of CNN.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 28, 2010 8:20 PM
Comment #304735

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Is this the part of the law everyone is up in a tizzy about?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 28, 2010 9:01 PM
Comment #304737

Yes.

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 28, 2010 9:11 PM
Comment #304738

Weary Willie-
Yes, definitely.

Royal Flush-
I hope you’re not arguing that we should share your bias.

On the subject of the polls, I’m aware of the results. I figured people would seem them for themselves. However, I think the results speak for themselves, even, and especially in the context we’re talking about.

Most people think there’s a problem, don’t think that Obama’s done well about it. The Republicans, however, are pushing a position against what the majority wants: the Pathway to citizenship. What’s more, Obama’s backing that approach, too. If it weren’t for the Republicans in this case, the popular option, like the Public option and Medicare buy in before it, would stand a decent chance of getting passed.

The Republicans like to claim majority support, but the nuances of what that majority wants complicates their all-too-oversimplified reading of the law.

As for the other states preparing their own versions of the law? They should think twice about that. The constitutionality of a state immigration policy is never more than dubious, and I think it does voters and taxpayers a disservice when they spend time, money, and other finite resources on unsustainable legislation, just to bolster their political fortunes. We have more pressing matters to attend to.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 28, 2010 9:14 PM
Comment #304739

“I am sure you are aware that other states are preparing their own version of the AZ law.”

Perhaps the best argument in support of the federal suit. Immigration policy is clearly an explicit federal power under the Constitution and preempts state involvment under the Supremacy Clause. Multiple states with their own version of an immigration enforcement law threatens the Constitutional scheme which directs a single national policy.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2010 9:16 PM
Comment #304740

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

How would this fly?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 28, 2010 9:18 PM
Comment #304742
Okay, now that this ruling has come down, we can expect to move on from the constitutional merits of the law to accusations from the right of judicial activism and ad hominem attacks on the judge.
Posted by Stephen Daugherty at July 28, 2010 02:10 PM

Leverage is about a group of x-criminals who use their skills to help people that have been screwed over by big corp types. This episode of Leverage is about a warden that runs a privately operated prison and a judge that sends innocent people to that prison for the money. Kind’a like the ad hominem attack on Governor Brewer you eluded to in your original post.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 28, 2010 9:33 PM
Comment #304746

One thing all of those who support this law hopefully understand - this law does absolutely nothing to increase border security. This law might catch some people who have been here a long time, maybe a few recent border crossers but it does nothing to strengthen border security. No more walls, no state police stationed on the border, nothing other that a law that is vague and open to abuse as well as violating the Constitution. It can also open the state and local police up to potential harm - if every illegal immigrant fears deportation every time they see a policeman they may either flee and cause a dangerous chase or fight.

As I have said before if these folks were serious about doing something to stop illegal immigration, attacking the demand side will be easier and more effective than trying to find a deport 12 million people. The weak law on the AZ books that has not been enforced doesn’t count. Putting employers in jail would do more to solve this problem than deportations ever will.

Posted by: tcsned at July 28, 2010 11:03 PM
Comment #304748
if every illegal immigrant fears deportation every time they see a policeman they may either flee and cause a dangerous chase or fight.

That is Probable Cause.

This law also addresses employers that hire illegal aliens.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 28, 2010 11:08 PM
Comment #304752

Weary Willie-
I didn’t make an ad hominem argument against the law. I merely pointed out a conflict of interest that some of Jan Brewer’s closest advisors might have concerning it. It’s hard to deny that putting more immigrants in the private prison system that houses them before they are deported would certainly raise the profits of such a company.

As for the Immigration statute, problems concerning probable cause are just one part of it. If Arizona is rewriting the rules concerning immigration enforcement, it treads on the Federal Government’s ground.

As for the argument that fleeing a police officer is probable cause for arresting them, the trouble with that argument is that you first have to determine why they are running away.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 28, 2010 11:23 PM
Comment #304757

Do you think law enforcement should wait until a consensus is reached before they apprehend someone who is running away from them?

If the Federal Government surrenders the ground they have no right or responsiblility toward it. Nature abhores a vacuum.

Whether it is or isn’t an ad hominum attack is a matter of opinion.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 28, 2010 11:32 PM
Comment #304759

WW,

So running has become a crime? How about jogging? Can I continue to jog or do I have to purchase a treadmill? If I have to buy one, must I buy it from Jan Brewer’s brother-in-law?

Posted by: Marysdude at July 28, 2010 11:38 PM
Comment #304761

Are you arguing for the sake of argument, Marysdude? Because I don’t think any law inforcement personel would consider running from them a natural response. To answer your question, No. Running is not a crime, but running from a law enforcement person is probable cause. Ask any of them. They will tell you that the questions you ask are really dumb questions when you put them in CONTEXT.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 28, 2010 11:51 PM
Comment #304767

So, if I spot a police officer coming down the street, and turn around and run the other way, I have given cause for…what?

Posted by: Marysdude at July 29, 2010 12:16 AM
Comment #304768

PS:

I NEVER argue just for the sake of argument. You have made a case for the Arizona immigration law. All I want is to understand why you are still on that subject after reading the proper passages in the Constitution…er…you HAVE read…er…sorry.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 29, 2010 12:19 AM
Comment #304769

Weary Willie,

So, just for grins, put the phrase “leagal contact” in context for us.

Oh and BTW, that was not the only section of the law that has an injunction against it.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 29, 2010 12:30 AM
Comment #304770

Any good cop who makes eye contact with someone who turns and runs the other way is going to give chase. Who do you think you are trying to kid here. Your posts are deflecting from the original post. Your posts are making excuses. Your posts are arguing for the sake of argument. Your posts are intelectually vacant.

I am still on this subject because the original post is about this subject. Your quest for understanding is not about the Arizona law, it is about deflecting the arguement away from the Arizona law because there is no reason the Arizona law is not valid.

If I say I don’t want to pay my taxes on my property do I still have a claim on that property? If I park my car on the roadside do I still have the right to keep it there? If the federal government refuses to protect our southern border why do they rely on their constitutional obligation to do so as an excuse not to?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 29, 2010 12:40 AM
Comment #304771

I know, Rocky Marks. Quote it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 29, 2010 12:45 AM
Comment #304773

I’m ready for another argument because this one is void of content.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 29, 2010 1:03 AM
Comment #304776

You have made it so. Arguing the same points over and over even though there has been good reason given not to…I’d think your head would be sore by now.

If President Obama has carted off more illegals back South of the border than Cheney/Bush did in four years, and if the current President has increased the number of enforcers on the border, the argument that the feds are NOT DOING their job is moot. And if the Constitution gives immigration to the central government, it would be up to it as to whether enforcement is necessary or not, and to what levels, so the argument about states rights are moot. Please try to keep up.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 29, 2010 6:24 AM
Comment #304777

Republicans want cheap labor, and Democrats want votes and cheap labor.

So neither do anything about it, and haven’t for decades.

Yet, the voters continue to reward FOR-SALE, incompetent, greedy, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.

So, the majority of voters are culpable too (not only for illegal immigration, but all of these abuses).

At any rate, the voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2010 7:04 AM
Comment #304786

Weary Willie-

Do you think law enforcement should wait until a consensus is reached before they apprehend someone who is running away from them?

Consensus? No. Fourth Amendment says probable cause. If you have no idea what a person has done when you’re chasing them, then you have no idea whether their motivation for running from you is legal.

Let me present a hypothetical to you: Legal immigrants, in the Courts argument, had good reason to fear false imprisonment under these laws. If this law actually got carried out, it’s conceivable legal immigrants might run to avoid trouble.

The Constitution speaks to a requirement of probable cause, to the requirement of a warrant to search and seize, to arrest people. Why? To ensure that the police keep to their business, and do their job, instead of acting like a strong-arm for the government. The freedom to be left alone if you are not breaking the law is an important one, important enough that the framers introduced the likelihood of some of the guilty going free, so the innocent would not be caught up by those in law enforcement.

As for “nature abhors a vacuum?” That’s nature. This is constitutional law. If the Secret Service doesn’t choose to arrest somebody for counterfeiting, the local sheriff has no jurisdiction to go in and do it for them. Same if a Sheriff from another county comes in and tries to arrest somebody.

The choice not to exercise a power to the degree that the states would like is a prerogative of the federal government, and must be, for federalism to work. The states, too, where they have power, can tell the Federal government to take a hike. Sanctuary Cities are an example of this. Because Immigration is under federal jurisdiction, the state and local authorities can just choose not to join in cooperation with federal efforts. The Federal government cannot force the states to enforce federal law. They can do something like threaten federal spending to the states, but if the states are willing to kiss that goodbye, then there’s notihng the feds can do.

Now, under current federal law, State officers can receive the training, and State and local governments can agree to cooperate in enforcing federal law, taking the training necessary to get deputized by the government for those purposes.

But where federal law does not grant them the power, the constitution says they cannot take it for themselves. Thus, the injunction. The states cannot pick up an enumerated power if the Government chooses not to exercise it. That’s not the way Federalism works.

As far as Ad Hominem goes, that’s not purely opinion. You can make a case for how much my case relies on the use of invalid appeals to the nasty, bad, naughty nature of the group or person, rather than valid appeals to things like political connections and conflicts of interest, which do in this case exist.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 29, 2010 11:06 AM
Comment #304789

Weary,

Popular appeal to racism and fear mongering is never good public policy. Posted by: gergle at July 28, 2010 06:15 PM I agree! I wish the Democratics would quit using them.

Name one Democratic (sic) that uses them.

The stupidity of saying, “I’m rubber your glue it bounces off me and sticks to you” got a bit old for me at about the third grade. Got any other briliant arguments?

Posted by: gergle at July 29, 2010 11:53 AM
Comment #304804

Let me take a half second to think of a reason to run if you spot a policeman…Okay, the half second is up…I’m walking down the street and espy a couple of policemen approching from the opposite direction. I see the creases in the uniform trousers and suddenly remember my own pants are in the cleaners which is about to close. The cleaners is two blocks back, so I take off. Oops! Running away from a policeman…what a crime, and I should be hauled in for that. Damn, should have known better than to run.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 29, 2010 3:16 PM
Comment #304805

PS:

I think we could make a game of this. Can anyone else think of a reason for running from a policeman? Remember you only have a half second to think it up.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 29, 2010 3:18 PM
Comment #304806

WW,

I’ll bet even you could think of several, and in less than a half second each.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 29, 2010 3:20 PM
Comment #304812

Marysdude,

Most police I’ve ever met would detain you based on suspicious activity. It is doubtful they would arrest you unless something else came up.

Posted by: gergle at July 29, 2010 4:25 PM
Comment #304819

Running away from a police officer unless doing so after an obvious breaking of the law or being asked to address that officer is not probable cause. Most law enforcement persons are not stupid and are capable of differentiating suspicious behavior from normal behavior. I would think that most would also be able to differentiate fleeing from simply running in most situations. The area and time of day are also going to have a relevance in the decision to apprehend or not. There are many variables that might play into any situation. But under normal circumstances with no clear intent any smart officer will not pursue trouble just for the sake of doing so. Trust me, they hate the extra paper work.

Posted by: RickIL at July 29, 2010 5:57 PM
Comment #304830

The judge in AZ will be overturned in the SC. It will be of vital importance for dems to pass immigration reform in the lame duck session. Meaning amnesty… Hopefully another party of NO for republicans.

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 29, 2010 7:35 PM
Comment #304839

Beretta9-
Why would it be overturned? You can’t just hope that your favorite judges will pull an act of judicial activism out of their asses. They’ve got to have a reason.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 29, 2010 9:20 PM
Comment #304850

Stephen, just watch and see what happens.

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 30, 2010 1:16 AM
Comment #304860

nice spam

Posted by: tcsned at July 30, 2010 7:24 AM
Comment #304861


Stephen, keeping in mind that nearly half the Democrats support the Arizona law, what effect do you think the parties stance on this issue will have on their prospects in the fall?

Another typical situation in which the Democrats willingness to compromise with Republicans has given the Republicans another wedge issue to use against the Democrats.

As you have noticed, the Republicans have forgotten that their party is as responsible, if not more so, for illegal immigration. The Republicans have shored up their base while driving a wedge in the gap that the actions of the Democratic Party have produced between it and many of those who wanted to support them, both Democrats and independents.

As usual, Dan has pointed out the problem, partisans. When you make excuses for your party and try to pretend that you care more about your country than your political party or political philosophy, then the country and all but the few are placed in jeopardy.

Posted by: jlw at July 30, 2010 7:27 AM
Comment #304864

With all the furious rhetoric about the Arizona law, you would think that the border area with Mexico has deteriorated in recent years to a lawless no man’s zone. That is not the fact. In fact, illegal immigration crossing from Mexico is dramatically down over the past few years(54% drop in apprehensions 2005-2009 while almost doubling of border patrol). Crime in border cities is among the lowest in the US. See the recent article by Tim Padgett in Time documenting the low crime rates. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2007474,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2010 9:26 AM
Comment #304867

I wonder if there is a 54% drop in subscriptions to Time Magazine and viewing of CNN? Their purpose is not to investigate, but rather to condem the law. I think you will have trouble convincing America that the Mexican border is a safe place to be. Furthermore, how many Americans should die before the problem on the mexican border is addressed? I would consider 1 american to be too many…

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 30, 2010 9:58 AM
Comment #304872

Baretta9 - what exactly does this law do to make the border more secure?

Posted by: tcsned at July 30, 2010 2:55 PM
Comment #304874

Some estimates I have read put the number of illegals in this coutry at between 20 and 30 million. Can anyone tell us with a straight face that the feds are doing their job well?

It’s the politicians that keep these illegals coming and here. The solutions are simple and the politics are difficult.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 30, 2010 3:38 PM
Comment #304880

David Limbaugh in Townhall writes, “Heather Mac Donald exposes Judge Bolton’s acquiescence to the Obama administration’s “carefully cultivated fiction” that the administration’s primary motive with the lawsuit was to prevent the application of the law to legal aliens. The judge ignored uncontroverted testimony and legal briefs from Arizona officials stating that only people who were reasonably suspected to be illegally in the country would be required to prove their legal status. So to protect legal aliens from a law that doesn’t apply to them, she refuses to apply the law to illegals.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 30, 2010 4:50 PM
Comment #304882

Royal Flush,

Please tell me how you know whether someone is here illegally or legally by looking at them.

Posted by: gergle at July 30, 2010 5:21 PM
Comment #304883

Royal,

So just how do we determine what “reasonably suspected” means?
This is another in a long line of incredibly ambiguous terms like “legal contact”.

These terms entirely subjective.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 30, 2010 5:24 PM
Comment #304884

gergle…apparently you haven’t read the AZ law…it doesn’t say or imply what you suggest.

Rocky…have you ever served on a jury? The word “Reasonable” is used in our judicial system by judges everywhere. Are you also having a problem with the word “suspect”?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 30, 2010 5:30 PM
Comment #304885

Royal Flush,

The truth is that business interests want there to be illegals available for cheap labor. Both parties know this, and have acted accordingly. Reagan did amnesty and nothing much has been done since that time to stem the tide, except for the 2 billion dollar fence that is so easy to go around it’s a major joke. Both parties are paying lip service to illegal immigration control. I don’t feel we are being overrun. There has been an infusion of young labor into this country over the past 40 years. Construction and other industries have thrived on it.

You either want the government to crack down on corporations that hire illegals by throwing a few CEO’s in jail, or you are simply ranting about something that you either can’t comprehend how to deal with, or fear the economic consequences of paying workers minimum wages and benefits. You can’t have it both ways. The solution is obvious, but no one want’s to do it.

A Fence is an expensive joke. There has been no real problem with an invasion from Mexico. It doesn’t called for a militarized border. It simply requires a party willing to go after unscrupulous business practices. Neither party is willing.

Posted by: gergle at July 30, 2010 5:35 PM
Comment #304887

gergle wrote; “The solution is obvious, but no one want’s to do it.”

That’s exactly what I wrote above. gergle, if there are 20 to 30 million illegals here in the US please explain why that is not an invasion. Would 50 or 100 million be needed to meet your definition?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 30, 2010 5:43 PM
Comment #304888

Royal Flush,

I’m simply applying logic to your statement. You made a clear direct statement that defies logic. Maybe you should read the law.

The New York Times has a editorial,yesterday, that clearly explains the problems with the law. It burdens the justice system, burdens legal immigrants, rewrites national immigration policy, and refocuses enforcement efforts in inefficient ways. It’s a stupid law, with a political impetus and possibly a corrupt impetus, if Stephen’s article is correct.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/opinion/29thu1.html?scp=1&sq=showdown%20arizona&st=cse


Knee jerk reaction to immigrants is popular but so was internment of the Japanese, as was the annihilation of Native Americans, at the time. History will hold the correct action is to knock down this law.

Posted by: gergle at July 30, 2010 5:47 PM
Comment #304890

Royal Flush,

It’s not an invasion. There are no cross border skirmishes going on, or have their been. I’m not talking about the occasional drug-pin/cartel ventures. I’m talking about a military term. They didn’t come overnight, and were invited by US employers.

Posted by: gergle at July 30, 2010 5:50 PM
Comment #304891

I read the AZ law some time ago and the times article you referenced yesterday. I didn’t really expect anything different from NYT and certanly don’t agree with the article?

Regarding a definition of “invasion”…thanks for the non answer.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 30, 2010 5:58 PM
Comment #304892

The judge simply gave a legal opinion based on the case presented to her. She doesn’t have a dog in this fight. It isn’t that she wants or doesn’t want to do anything.

I’m referring to powerful business interests, as well as a tradition in the US and Mexico, with easy/no hassle border crossing.

I think it’s a waste of resources to build fences and stir up enforcement agencies. It also stirs up racism which is no stranger to the border or the history of the Southwest US.

Posted by: gergle at July 30, 2010 5:59 PM
Comment #304893

Sorry gergle…your last post wasn’t read before my last post.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 30, 2010 6:00 PM
Comment #304897

The judge simply gave a legal opinion based on the case presented to her. She doesn’t have a dog in this fight. It isn’t that she wants or doesn’t want to do anything.

I’m referring to powerful business interests, as well as a tradition in the US and Mexico, with easy/no hassle border crossing.

I think it’s a waste of resources to build fences and stir up enforcement agencies. It also stirs up racism which is no stranger to the border or the history of the Southwest US.

Posted by: gergle at July 30, 2010 6:10 PM
Comment #304898

I’m assuming the judge in question is a Democrat? If not why would she acquiesce to anything suggested by the current administration. And, it is hinted at by a poster or two here that she is not only Democrat, but a stupid Democrat to boot. They think she stunk up her findings by not reading all the briefs, and not considering much pertinent information. Which means she knew she was going to be overturned going in. Wow!

Bah! What nonsense…

Posted by: Marysdude at July 30, 2010 6:13 PM
Comment #304899

gergle wrote; “They didn’t come overnight, and were invited by US employers.”

Years ago migrant workers crossed our borders to help with planting and harvest time and then went home. They didn’t stay as there were no government benefits that gave them a reason to remain. Today, it is not only jobs that attract them but the many free benefits our political class has seen fit to provide from our tax dollars.

If the jobs go away so will the illegals…I believe we agree upon that. In addition, we should reduce the government benefits that cause them to stay.

Perhaps you may not wish to call millions of illegals here in the US an invasion. I do!!! I suppose one could name it an illegal “presence” if one wanted to be politically correct. Liberals are fond of calling them “undocumented” workers. What a farce.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 30, 2010 6:16 PM
Comment #304900

dude, I agree…bah humbug.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 30, 2010 6:18 PM
Comment #304904

“if there are 20 to 30 million illegals here in the US please explain why that is not an invasion.”

In a report released this year, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimated that there were approximately 10.8 million “unauthorized” aliens residing in the US as of January 2009. That represented a drop of approximately 1 million from the previous year figure of 11.6 million. The majority reside in the states of California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina…

Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2010 6:54 PM
Comment #304905

Rich, I am too lazy to check your report from DHS. Let’s say it’s accurate. Is 10 million not an invasion? Let’s suppose just for illustration that there were no illegals in the US today. And, tomorrow, 10 million illegals somehow came across our border in one day. Could that then be characterized as an invasion?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 30, 2010 7:03 PM
Comment #304913

Royal,

“Rocky…have you ever served on a jury?

Yeah, actually I have. Reasonable doubt, and all that.

The point is that while the Arizona law is written to be purposefully ambiguous, there is only one nationality that seems to be the target here, and that nationality doesn’t much stick out in a crowd of Latinos.

Clarence W. Dupnik is the Sheriff of Pima County, Arizona.

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704342604575222420517514084.html

“Those who look “suspiciously” like illegal immigrants will find their liberty in severe jeopardy and their pursuit of happiness disrupted—even if they are citizens or have lived, worked, paid taxes, and maybe even have served in our Armed Forces for decades.
When used in a law-enforcement context, “reasonable suspicion” is always understood to be subjective, but it must be capable of being articulated. In the case of identifying illegal immigrants, the ambiguity of what this “crime” looks like risks including an individual’s appearance, which would seem to violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause. Such ambiguity is especially dangerous when prescribed to an issue as fraught with emotion as that of illegal immigration.”

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 30, 2010 8:13 PM
Comment #304922

Rocky,

I’m afraid all that will fall upon deaf ears…it ain’t what the opposition wants to hear. They don’t want to know that illegal immigration is on the way down. They don’t want to hear that border crime (this side) has been going down for twelve straight years. They don’t want to hear that our current President has issued orders that has ended up sending more illegals back home in the last eighteen months than the previous President had sent back in four years. They don’t want to hear it because it does not fit their pre-conceived mold. What a bunch of nit-wits.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 30, 2010 10:29 PM
Comment #304926

Marysdude,

Yeah, I know but it had to be said one more time.

And this time it’s from the Wall Street Journal, and they can’t say it’s from some “liberal” source.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 30, 2010 10:57 PM
Comment #304928

This link should give you the whole story

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704342604575222420517514084.html

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 30, 2010 11:06 PM
Comment #304935

Beretta9-
We are a nation lead by laws. Let’s say for the sake of argument you’re right about the outcome. I’m asking what legal principles would support that decision. How would conservative justices justify that, as you hope they will?

Or, are you telling me they will rewrite the constitution to suit them, to suit their agenda? Is such rhetoric about Originalism and strict construction merely the conservative movment’s way of running interference for an agenda that it doesn’t care about the constitutionality of?

I’m asking you to honor the constitution and explain the principles of your argument.

Royal Flush-
Do you know what the basis of your high estimate are? If I’m not mistaken the 11-12 Million alien estimate comes from official government sources. As for talk of an invasion?

Yeah. It’s being done by the 101st Mexican Lawnmower brigade, backed by the 48th “Diaper Blaster” Ecuadorian Nanny Artillery.

Give me a break. We’re not seeing bloody running skirmishes on the border. Mexico is not in a state of war with us. It is what most people call it: immigration. not the legal kind, but they aren’t conquering territory, inflicting mass casualties and damage, or anything as warlike as that.

We can pretend like there’s a war going on down Mexico way, but if we’re going to do it, we ought to do it right: Let’s all put tin pots on our head, bring out the cap guns and pretend like there’s a war going on at the border.

The Problem, as I see it, is that we have a policy built on anti-immigrant sensibilities from the 1920’s, and protectionism from later. We’ve set the price on doing things the right way high, and then during the last few decades turned a blind eye and let the businessfolks of the nation get away with cheating on the labor market by hiring lower priced illegal immigrants.

In other words, we make it easier for people do to the wrong thing than the right thing. That’s never been a successful formula for an effective policy. The gradient should be “Good is easier than bad.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 31, 2010 12:44 AM
Comment #304936

Royal Flush,

I’m reading a book on counterinsurgency by David Kilcullan. Invasion is a term of specific meaning in the use of military tactics, which I used in referring to militarization of the border. This is not an issue of Spain or Mexico sending troops into Texas or making cross-border raids.

I suppose you could say the US invaded Texas based on your use of the word, although that would be a misuse of the word, in my opinion.

Posted by: gergle at July 31, 2010 1:19 AM
Comment #304937

SD:

The left has no regard for the Constitution. Why would you even act like conservatives are violating it? The left believes the Constitution is an evolving document, and changeable at the whim of any liberal judge. Have you ever heard of judges who write law rather than interpret it? They are called activist judges, and the left defends them as being good for the country. The left acts so righteous and holy when it comes to the law. Like the Pharisees of days gone by. Pharisee is a good name for the left. They had no regard for God’s law and the left has no regard for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You would defend men who work for Obama, as they try to find ways to circumvent the law. Giving illegal aliens amnesty, invoking GW laws through the EPA. There are things being done by Obama and his crew that are making the Congress null and void and you defend him and in he same breath say you are defending the constitution. This is sick and an outright lie.


Stephen, you may fool some people with your lengthy dissertations, but I know what you are and how you stand. Obama is a socialist and his goal is the destruction of America, as we know it. The funny thing is, he even told America what he was going to do. I fear we will never survive. If Jesus Chris does not soon return, there will be a coming day when people like you will say to their grandchildren, “I can remember when we were a free nation”…

But it will be too late, because all our God given rights will be gone… We will be no more than a 3rd world banana republic, the thing that the left is fighting to accomplish. With a tinhorn dictator running the show. IMHO, Obama is no different than Chavez.

Tell me, just out of curiosity, have you ever questioned anything a democrat politician has done, or have you always blindly defended them?

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 31, 2010 1:27 AM
Comment #304941
but I know what you are

Yikes!!!

I haven’t laughed so hard in quite a while.

The zombies have invaded. Let’s hope chris saves us.

I wish I could ignore sound logic and reasoning, and justify my behavior so easily. (not really)

Posted by: gergle at July 31, 2010 3:21 AM
Comment #304942

Royal Flush,

I am not suggesting that 10.8 million is an insignificant number. However, it is not 20 to 30 million. Further, the number has decreased in recent years. Violence is also down on the border. The number of illegal crossings is dramatically down. The number of illegal deportations is dramatically up. Work place enforcement is dramatically up. Criminal prosecutions are up. That is the factual context within which to evaluate the Arizona law and federal efforts.

Posted by: Rich at July 31, 2010 6:02 AM
Comment #304944

gergle,

“I wish I could ignore sound logic and reasoning, and justify my behavior so easily.”

I don’t know, it’s hard not to admire a comment that is so larded down with virtually every right wing wacko talking point, and, at the same time, be so devoid of actual fact.

It’s almost as if it came from some parallel universe where logic and ignorance have been locked in a titanic fight to the death, and ignorance won.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 31, 2010 10:39 AM
Comment #304945

“Invasion” is a new one, and I bet soon to be the next right-wing word of the day. One thing the right has done extremely well, if we’re talking for political gain, is bastardize the language and frame issues in ways that make it hard to refute if you take their logic as rational. They latch on to emotional pleas, then try to paint those that have the gall to disagree with irrational thought as “unpatriotic” or “socialists.”

“What?! You want to do nothing about an INVASION?! It’s an INVASION!” I can see the TV campaign ad now. “We’re being invaded, and the Democrats want to do nothing about it!”

Scary part is, despite the intellectual dishonesty, it wins elections.

Posted by: boomxtwo at July 31, 2010 10:46 AM
Comment #304958

Beretta9-
The Constitution was not written for one party or faction to exploit. Rather, it was written so that people of different parties and factions would be forced to compete and work out differences, rather than one party or another holding unquestioned power.

Nobody died and made the Republican Party conservators of the one true vision of constitutional government. I think it’s pretentious.

As for the Pharisees? The Pharisees in the bible were portrayed as being excessively fond of the law. Go read through their encounters with Jesus, look at their questions. Listen to what Paul has to say about the law.

I mean, part of the point of the whole Good Samaritan parable was that the others were passing to the other side of the road to avoid blood contamination that would keep them out of the temple, while the unclean outcast Samaritan took care of the fellow.

The Pharisees challenged him about healing on the Sabbath, even blinded themselves to the miracle of Jesus restoring sight to the man born blind, because it happened on the Sabbath.

Jesus’ teachings were all about transcending the mere following of religious rules, to do good, to do justice, to fulfill all the other virtues that folks all too often pretend to through habit and empty ritual.

Who here insists on things being done their way, even though the consequences for it are terrible? Who here is willing to paralyze the ability of our government to do good for it’s citizens, and repair its legacy, just so they can get things done by their rules?

The sick and outright lies? Death Panels. The Smearing of Shirley Sherrod. The constant din of Republicans calling a man who nationalized no business a socialist. The fulisade of insanity coming from the outer reaches of Glennbeckistan. Glenn Beck’s hawking of Gold coins whose price is twice that of their melt value, a poor investment for anybody looking for a hedge against inflation.

Those are just a few.

I reason with people by way of those lengthy dissertations. I don’t simply pack my paragraphs with quips and smug statements of political dogma, and expect people who have sense to just spontaneously agree.

I expect to have to earn my persuasion of others. I don’t believe I’m simply entitled to it.

If Jesus Christ does not return soon… I’m a Christian, but I believe Jesus when he says that even he doesn’t know the hour and the day. Meanwhile, Others and myself serve as stewards in his absence. Will we be prodigals, wasting our inheritence from our ancestors and our Lord, only to be left speechless when asked what we did with it?

The Republicans certainly botched their stewardship of the economy and the budget. They point their fingers at the Democrats, but they’re responsible for most of the shortfall in revenues and the permanent rises in spending. They made the decision to cut taxes even as they headed into war, an unheard of decision.

Until you realize it wasn’t somebody else’s fault, you can’t repent of what you did. Your people are still pushing that Bush Tax Cut, disastrous as that was, fiscally. If you acknowledged that, you’d likely reconsider it.

Unfortunately, the Conservative movements become very much about reconsidering nothing. To reconsider would be to acknowledge all the things the doubters said, to give your rivals opportunities to win public approval at your expense.

The thing is, though, nobody has complete control over what other people think, and so rather than acknowledge the evidence that influences other’s thinking, you close yourself off, floating yourself free of both the constraints of acknowledging what others believe, and the benefit. The Republicans have become badly synchronized with the rest of the country, out of steps with times and public opinion..

Tell me, just out of curiosity, have you ever questioned anything a democrat politician has done, or have you always blindly defended them?

Rangel can take a hike for all I care. So can Ben Nelson. So can Blanche Lincoln. Traficant was a joy to see leave. That Jefferson guy was dead to me the first I heard of the money in the icebox. I think Republicans are idiots when they rally behind folks who get their hand caught in the cookie jar. There’s not much use to it. Tax irregularities I can understand, so long as they pay up and get square, but we Democrats are generally tired of the folks who care more about what Big Corporations think, tired of the people who make things difficult for us by putting us to shame.

Republicans, meanwhile, seem to think shame is a liability. I don’t think so. It’s a survival trait. Those without shame are also without judgment. Those without judgment build a case against themselves.

Democrats have little patience left for corruption in their party. Republicans should develop the same lack of patience, because otherwise it’ll be open prostitution on K street, and the GOP will be right back where it is now.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 31, 2010 1:24 PM
Comment #304965

Mr. Daugherty’s comments formerly were just boring repetition of his liberal positions. Now, it appears to me, they have morphed into sermonizing. One thing that hasn’t changed however in his comments, is his obvious unChristlike hatred for Reps and conservatives. One would almost beleive that his comments carried the same weight as Papal Bulls.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 31, 2010 3:04 PM
Comment #304968

Good go see that attacks on the messengers are still against the rule here…………..

Posted by: jane doe at July 31, 2010 3:50 PM
Comment #304970

Flush….can you sit there and say that this in no way sounds like the rants and taunts leveled on here by the party of “right”???

“One thing that hasn’t changed however in his comments, is his obvious unChristlike hatred for Reps and conservatives.”

Posted by: jane doe at July 31, 2010 3:54 PM
Comment #304971

jane…nope…but I can comment on Mr. Daugherty’s sermon without being UnChristlike. To say someone’s comments are boring or sermonizing is opinion, not hatred. And, Jane, I believe I critized his comments not the messenger.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 31, 2010 4:05 PM
Comment #304973

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/28/on-arizona-and-immigration-judge-ignores-rule-of-law/

“Judge Bolton failed to give the State the respect it was due on this issue. Indeed, it is strong evidence of an activist judge straining to find a way to stop a law that she does not like from a policy (not a legal) standpoint. It is also completely contrary to federal law that specifically requires federal officials to “respond to an inquiry by a…State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual.” (8 U.S.C. §1373). How can Judge Bolton rationally conclude that Arizona is placing an impermissible burden on the federal government to respond to citizenship verification requests when federal law mandates that the feds respond to such requests? The judge’s reasoning is foolish – she is treating the Obama administration’s enforcement priorities (or lack of enforcement priorities) as if they are federal law. Arizona’s law does not conflict with federal immigration law, although it may conflict with the Obama administration’s policies. But policy conflicts do not result in federal preemption. Judge Bolton’s reasoning also conflicts with a very recent First Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Estrada v. Rhode Island, that upheld the right of state law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of individuals detained for other reasons such as a traffic stop, as well as other precedents.

The judge also temporarily halted Arizona’s attempt to make it a state crime for an alien to not carry alien registration papers despite the fact that under federal law ((8 U.S.C. § 1304), all aliens are required to “at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration” issued by the federal government. Contrary to Judge Bolton’s view, there is no violation of the Constitution because a state has added state penalties on top of federal penalties for the same offense. Otherwise, it would be unlawful for states to punish possession of illegal drugs since that is already a federal offense. Unfortunately, this type of tortured reasoning is applied by the judge to other provisions of the Arizona law.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 31, 2010 5:17 PM
Comment #304974

SD:

There was a point being made when I made reference to the Pharisees. You better read your bible again; the Pharisees were sticklers when it came to the Law. They could tell everyone else how to obey the Law and could quote it verbatim, but they did not follow the Law:

‘Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.’

To a biblical novice like yourself, this means they could tell someone else how to live, but they did not follow their own rules. Sounds kind of like liberals, doesn’t it?

“Mat 23:5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
Mat 23:6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
Mat 23:7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.


Mat 23:28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.”

In fact, I would suggest you read the entire 23rd chapter of Matthew. You might learn that there is very little difference between liberals and Pharisees… As to your other explanations of Icripture, I might say, by your comments, you have no idea what you are talking about.

“The sick and outright lies? Death Panels.”

Isn’t obamacare patterned after the British healthcare system? Do they have “death panels”, or maybe I might ask, do they have panels that decide who gets healthcare?

These two links make another college liberal look like an idiot:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2009/08/12/stephen-hawking-defends-british-health-care-system-against-u-s-conservatives.aspx

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/british-national-health-service-in-trouble/

Unless Stephen Hawking had money, in England he would be sent to Dr. Kevorkian.

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 31, 2010 5:30 PM
Comment #304975

Good response Royal Flush. Once again, the facts are presented, but don’t expect the emotional, liberal girley-men to be effected by facts.

This actvist judge in AZ is simply playing a game and appeasing her socialist messiah. This ruling will never hold up in the SC. Of course the 9th circuit will also vote with the messiah. The governor of AZ should have ignored the judge and forced a Constitutional crisis. The obama admin would have been scrambling then…

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 31, 2010 5:40 PM
Comment #304976

Mr. Daugherty’s comments formerly were just boring repetition of his liberal positions. Now, it appears to me, they have morphed into sermonizing. One thing that hasn’t changed however in his comments, is his obvious unChristlike hatred for Reps and conservatives. One would almost beleive that his comments carried the same weight as Papal Bulls.
Ya….guess you’re right………..nothing personal there at all.

Posted by: jane doe at July 31, 2010 5:47 PM
Comment #304977

Or here either…. but don’t expect the emotional, liberal girley-men to be effected by facts. , from beretta.

Posted by: jane doe at July 31, 2010 5:51 PM
Comment #304979

Thanks B9, I find so many would-be legal scholars on this blog but none of them seem to have the time to think things thru or even bother to read what they disparage.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 31, 2010 5:58 PM
Comment #304981

Royal Flush,

Did you even bother to read your first link?

If not I would suggest you go back and read the whole thing including Hawkings’ comment.

If I were you I wouldn’t congradulate myself too soon.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 31, 2010 6:24 PM
Comment #305038

What also wins elections may be this:

[Phoenix, AZ.] Don’t be fooled. The way the media plays the story, it was a wave of racist, anti-immigrant hysteria that moved Arizona Republicans to pass a sick little law, signed last week, requiring every person in the state to carry papers proving they are US citizens. I don’t buy it. Anti-Hispanic hysteria has always been as much a part of Arizona as the Saguaro cactus and excessive air-conditioning. What’s new here is not the politicians’ fear of a xenophobic “Teabag” uprising. What moved GOP Governor Jan Brewer to sign the Soviet-style show-me-your-papers law is the exploding number of legal Hispanics, US citizens all, who are daring to vote — and daring to vote Democratic by more than two-to-one. Unless this demographic locomotive is halted, Arizona Republicans know their party will soon be electoral toast. Or, if you like, tortillas. In 2008, working for Rolling Stone with civil rights attorney Bobby Kennedy, our team flew to Arizona to investigate what smelled like an electoral pogrom against Chicano voters … directed by one Jan Brewer. Brewer, then Secretary of State, had organized a racially loaded purge of the voter rolls that would have made Katherine Harris blush. Beginning after the 2004 election, under Brewer’s command, no less than 100,000 voters, overwhelmingly Hispanics, were blocked from registering to vote. In 2005, the first year of the Great Brown-Out, one in three Phoenix residents found their registration applications rejected.

With the advent of paperless voting machines and the selling of political purges of voter lists to private corporations, one cannot assume that the chicanery of Florida in 2000 is dead.

Posted by: gergle at August 1, 2010 1:43 PM
Comment #305045

Is anyone here still reading posts from the three little trolls? Why do you bother? I figured if I ignored them they’d go away, but they still have an audience, so here they remain. They get their data and facts from a Cracker Jack box, and spew ugliness in all directions left of Ann Coulter. I’ve been suspended twice for far less than these yahoos perform thirty time a day.

David, I know…I’m suspended, so you don’t need to inform me. Thanks for not removing this last bowel movement of mine.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 1, 2010 5:04 PM
Comment #305052

Royal Flush-
It’s interesting how you have to characterize my argument instead of responding to the points themselves. People characterize what they do not want to bother dealing with on a detailed basis.

As for Christian behavior? Sadly, politics has a way of wearing on all side’s spiritual calm. I will not claim I’m much of a saint, but I have read the bible, and am familiar with much of the New Testament, thanks to my time at Baylor University, which required me to take a bible survey course.

On the subject of the excerpted article? The Estrada case is not so clear cut. Picture this: An officer pulls over a van for an illegal lane change. When he pulls it over, he finds about fourteen, fifteen people in the back. He asks them for identification. Few speak English, few have valid identification. Of the four who do, Two have IDs issued by the Guatemalan Consulate. He checked the immigration status after he discovered these facts, not before as a matter of course. This is how we properly define reasonable suspicion, by the collection of facts that amount to cause to ask the question.
The judgement notes this precedent:

(“[W]hile an officer’s actions must bear some relation to the purpose of the original stop, he may shift his focus and increase the scope of his investigation by degrees if his suspicions mount during the course of the detention.”).

When he asked the question, he had already been given good reason to suspect an immigration crime had taken place. As the case would have it, they essentially admitted that yes, they were illegal aliens.

Or, as the case presents it:

By the time that Officer Chabot demanded that Plaintiffs follow him to the ICE Providence office, two Plaintiffs had essentially admitted on their behalf and on the behalf of the rest of the passengers, that they were in the country illegally.

This wasn’t the officer simply asking somebody for their papers when he stopped them for no other reason, this was an Officer who got increasingly suspicious as the evidence began to accumulate. He didn’t ask them for proof of citizenship until after mounds of evidence had piled up that they were illegal, including two IDs that would indicate that the people possessing them were foreign nationals.

What the authors fail to do, when citing this case, is to explain to the reader all the steps that had to take place in order to turn this from a traffic stop to a an Immigration inquiry. Also, there wasn’t any law that said this had to be. There was simply the developing situation which I think most people here would agree indicated that the crime was strongly likely.

Here’s what an Arizona publication had to say on the matter that the authors refer to in the body of that paragraph:

Section 2 of S1070 requires law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of suspected illegal immigrants, and states that police must check the immigration status of anyone who is arrested before they are released. Bolton wrote that the federal government is likely to succeed in its claim that S1070 is preempted by federal law because U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is likely to get myriad requests from Arizona law enforcement agencies, which would divert federal resources away from the agency’s priorities.

“The number of requests that will emanate from Arizona as a result of determining the status of every arrestee is likely to impermissibly burden federal resources and redirect federal agencies away from the priorities they have established,” Bolton wrote.

I think the point there would be that the tail would be wagging the dog on enforcement here, the requirements of fulfilling all those requests keeping the Federal Agencies from actually doing their job. Processing all those claims takes resources.

And by all accounts, The Obama Administration is actually catching and deporting more people, contrary to the authors’ assertions. It’s not as if they’re standing around whistling dixie.

However, you will have a whole bunch of people, including legal residents, held up under circumstances where they’d otherwise go free in a timely manner.

She also ruled that S1070 will place an unncessary burden on legal immigrants whose detentions will be prolonged while police check their immigration status, especially because the law puts pressure on police officers to “enforce the immigration laws vigorously.”

“Legal residents will certainly be swept up by this requirement,” Bolton wrote.

The wording of Section 2 is problematic, Bolton wrote, because it does not explicitly say that arrestees’ immigration status must be checked only when there is a reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally. And she noted that policies such as the Tucson Police Department’s “cite and release” policy, under which more than 36,000 people were cited and released at crime scenes in 2009, technically count as an arrest.

Here we see the issue being that the law would essentially make status checks both obligatory and intrusive, even in situations where we didn’t have the Estrada case’s well understood standards for reasonable suspicion. Law enforcment could and would be doing checks on people who really had shown no sign of being illegally there.

That’s part of the irony of the citation: the Officer in that case actually built up a pretty good cases before switching from the traffic stop to the unrelated immigration issue. Here, all those steps really wouldn’t matter.

The Rest of the decision pretty much says what I’ve said: The Federal government must be alone in having an immigration policy, in being the main enforcers of the law. The States and local governments can and will be delegated to, but the Federal government’s law is supreme on the subject.

As for this:

The judge’s reasoning is foolish – she is treating the Obama administration’s enforcement priorities (or lack of enforcement priorities) as if they are federal law.

As I understand it, an Executive Order carries with it the force of law, as do Agency regulations and rulings. Congress delegates the power to determine the federal rules on things to those Agencies.

To treat them as if they carry the force of federal law is not unreasonable. It’s imperative. The Executive Branch must have the discretion, within the law, to determine how federal law is carried out. When the states have an undue influence on this, they’re treading on dangerous ground.

Some other interesting points that conservatives should take away from this:

Chin said numerous cases back up the notion that judicial conservatives are wary of letting states intrude into federal immigration law. The high court ruled in favor of the federal government when similar issues were raised in 1941 and 1956.

Bolton cited the 1941 case numerous times in her injunction order. In that case, Hines v. Davidowitz, the court struck down an immigrant registration system established by Pennsylvania.

Chin said a 1999 case, Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, further strengthened federal authority over immigration issues. Justice Antonin Scalia, an icon to conservative judiciary watchers, wrote in the majority opinion that, “Congress has established an integrated scheme for deportation proceedings, channeling judicial review to the final order, and deferring issues outside the agency’s authority until that point.”

“Challengers of SB 1070 could build their arguments almost entirely on the opinions of Justice Scalia,” Chin said. “Most of (the people who want greater state role in immigration issues) are not lawyers and they’re relying on Kris Kobach, and he has this theory that he’s advancing. But it’s not a theory that is accepted by courts. It’s the theory of legislators who listened to his advice.”

Kobach is a Kansas-based lawyer who helped write S1070.

Legal experts said that when Bolton decides the case on its merits – the state is asking that the injunction be lifted while the case proceeds through the district court – her ruling would likely use similar arguments as the injunction.

The Republicans are following the misinformed fringe on this. People with Theories. Theories won’t win these cases, though, precedent and constitutional law will, and both are pretty clear.

Beretta9-
The complaint is about a superficial attitude towards God’s laws that’s more self-serving than anything else. He was complaining about people who literally trumpeted their piety on the street corner to be rewarded for it by approving onlookers, of people who made big shows of their fasting and almsgiving so that everybody would know what great Godly people they were.

That’s the important part of many of these stories about the healing of the blind man and the Samaritan. Sure, avoiding blood impurity by not dealing with the guy on the side of the road who was half-beaten to death fit the Mosaic law in some sense, but it violated the spirit of the law.

I’m not going to get into a big argument trying to use my religion to accuse the Republicans of being hypocrites. I find that rather distasteful, myself. But I would argue that like the Jews and later Gentiles that Jesus would be talking to the message should come in clear to us that it’s not just the orthodoxy to political theories and judicial theories that matter, it’s what comes of these things. I think we should err on the side of keeping the purpose and the spirit of the Constitution intact.

That means both rejecting hairsplitting arguments that attempt to yield a given interpretation by convoluted argument, and by rejecting slapdash legal reasoning that, like the convoluted argument, would divorce the interpretation of the law from its actual sense.

Here, Republicans keep on emphasizing that if the Federal Government falls short, states are entitled to act in its stead on the subject. But nowhere in the constitution does it say that states can do that, at least with an enumerated power.

On such grounds, the constitution is crystal clear: there aren’t going to be additional immigration policies, there is going to be a national one, and it’s going to be the law of the land. If you don’t like it, take up legislation in Congress, which has the authority to legislate on such matters. Quit trying to push states rights past their constitutional boundaries.

Lastly, on the matter of Healthcare, “Obamacare” leaves so much in the hands of private businesses, especially with the mandate that one must buy that insurance, than any comparison with the Single Payer, State-run healthcare system, as if they were even remotely similar, would be pointless.

Also, on the matter of your links? Well, the first is about a Conservative who claimed that if Stephen Hawkings were British, he’d be, in so many words, subject to a death panel himself.

Unfortunately for the commentator, Hawkings is a British Citizen who long relied on and praises the NHS system as having saved his life and kept him alive. So, I don’t know what your point was with that, that was one that got quite a few chuckles on my side of the aisle.

As for the other? Well, the issue here is that you have an essentially Conservative Tory Government axing healthcare benefits. Wow. Who’da thunk it? Question is, how much they can cut before people give them a piece of their minds. Republicans and other species of conservatives should not nurse the thought that they can push all the austerity on the poor and middle class forever without risking a backlash. It’s one thing to propose cuts in spending and everything, it’s quite another to carry them out, without political repercussions. I mean, was it any wonder that Republicans in Washington were cowards about backing up their rhetoric with action? The British Conservatives can manage this because they’ve got control. There are no filibusters, no real votes like we have, where individuals can depart from the party line. If you’re the majority, you set all the policies, call all the shots.

So, the question is, how does this pertain to Obama’s policy, which is nothing like the NHS, and Obama’s government, which operates nothing like the British Parliamentary system, especially with Conservatives in charge?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 1, 2010 8:57 PM
Comment #305054

SD
You know perfectly well AZ was not setting policy. I really don’t care how you spin, spit or s… it. You policy crap is just that crap. Nobody has argued about policy at the nationalist level or state level. So take your policy stuff and put it in the porta potty nearest you.

Posted by: tom humes at August 1, 2010 11:31 PM
Comment #305055

SD
You are in love with that supremacy clause schtick. There are a lot of variables in every case like this. Like when the nationalist government abdicates its responsibility. Get your fortune cookie out on that one, Super Dreamer.

Posted by: tom humes at August 1, 2010 11:34 PM
Comment #305056

gergle
This is AZ not TX. If your boys want to do random stops go ahead. We don’t do it that way in AZ. Presuming that the law will be violated by law enforcement is a bad gamble on your part. It is a simple law and one that is hard to violate. Maybe it would not work in TX, but that’s another day and another story. This is today in AZ.

Posted by: tom humes at August 1, 2010 11:42 PM
Comment #305057

SD
your 9%-81% figures are just bold face fraud. Nobody has put out those kinds of numbers that has any credibility. Consistently 60-70% favor the AZ law. That is reported by left-right-middle and even some that are lost in the shuffle. That means your aren’t even dealt into the game.

Posted by: tom humes at August 1, 2010 11:46 PM
Comment #305059

SD
What’s the title of your pamphlet? I missed that.

AZ passed a law that employers were to not hire IA’s. If they knew they were hiring IA’s they were subject to prosecution. So far the courts have upheld the law. Is not that also law enforcement involving IA’s? So far nearly 40 business have been prosecuted and not one found innocent of knowingly hiring IA’s and no appeals.

Is not that also doing the nationalist governments job?
That is splitting hairs from a horses ass and done by the liberals trying to say something about nationalist government responsibility under the Obama reign. Those clowns should all get outta the business while they have a chance. Which may be why they wanted the unemployment payout extended, so they will be covered after the first of the year.

Posted by: tom humes at August 2, 2010 12:19 AM
Comment #305072

“Oath or affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Yes folks, that is the oath Barry took when he was sworn in as President of the United States.

Article 1 Section 10-
“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, UNLESS ACTUALLY INVADED, OR IN SUCH IMMINENT DANGER AS WILL NOT ADMIT OF DELAY.”

Article 3 Section 2-
“In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, AND THOSE IN WHICH A STATE SHALL BE PARTY, THE SUPREME COURT SHALL HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.”

Article 4 Section 4-
“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion;…”

Posted by: tom humes at August 2, 2010 11:41 AM
Comment #305073

tom humes-
I would just start out by observing that anytime a legislature writes law, it is making policy, especially when it writes law to deal with an important issue and make substantial changes to the law about it. Any assertion to the contrary has its definition of the world policy seriously confused.

As for the Supremacy Clause, it simply says that the Constitution is the law of the land, as are the laws made according to it. Immigration law, even by the conservative right, is considered to be the exclusive province of federal policymakers.

You tell me my numbers are bunk. I’d say click through the link. We’re talking different subjects here. The 9% figure represents how many people think it’s the highest priority. Logically speaking, there is nothing mutually exclusive about thinking a law is right, and thinking its unimportant, relative to everything else. The 81% represents those who think some path to citizenship, where illegal alien out themselves, pay a fine for their previous illegal status, among other things, would be a good idea. Those who support better enforcement against illegal aliens also are not mutually exclusive of those who have no problem with a conditional sort of forgiveness, short of deportation.

But even if sixty or seventy percent of people do agree with the law, that doesn’t matter. If we are consistent constitutionalists, then popularity shouldn’t offer a free pass for an unconstitutional law. Our Democracy is constrained by the constitution, and rightly so, because majorities can be wrong, or can overlook or not understand issues like the Federalization of power.

I’m not sure that most people get what Federalism really means, how it divides governmental functions between local, state, and national governments, how it divides powers, and bars some powers to each level.

Whatever a poll says about the popularity of a law, that law should not be written in such a way that it opens up a can of worms. I mean, the article I linked about the injunction talks about the number of states writing and considering such law actually being a motivation for cases like the one the Government’s brought against Arizona. If every state passes its own immigration laws, what happens to the consistent, uniform code that the Constitution demands?

What’s more, what would a legal immigrant have to deal with, if every state got its own separate code, complete with jailable offenses? There are reasons some powers have been strictly limited to the Federal Government, and this is one of the reasons that immigration has long been viewed in that fashion.

As far as Comment #305059 goes, Judge Bolton actually upheld that part, saying:

The provision on transporting and harboring aliens “does not attempt to regulate who should or should not be admitted into the United States, and it does not regulate the conditions under which legal entrants may remain in the United States,” Bolton said. “Therefore, the court concludes that the United States is not likely to succeed on its claim that [the provision] is an impermissible regulation of immigration,” she wrote. “Arizona’s nondiscriminatory statute is directed at legitimate local concerns related to public safety.”

That’s federalism for you. Frankly, I don’t disagree with it. The states do have some leeway on these issues. They just can’t push things too far, and start trying to rewrite immigration law themselves.

Let me conclude by saying one thing: the enumeration of power to the Federal government means it has both the authority to make law present, and to remove it. The Constitution says nothing about the devolving of Federal Powers to State Governments when the State Governments don’t like the Federal Government’s policies.

Besides, Obama is actually far outpacing the Bush Administration on enforcement, which goes to show you that talk is cheap. In fact, it’s drawn some criticism from the very folks you’d say he was kissing up to.

Folks on the Right nowadays have a bad habit of not paying attention. As such, they sometimes miss things, though by the way they talk, you’d think they had it all figured out. Democrats get things done, then Republicans provide the caustic commentary and do nothing much themselves to address the problem or find alternatives. Unemployment extensions are a good example. Republicans think anybody on public assistance is a mooch, but the fact is, if we weren’t paying people that money, we’d be feeling the pain of this economic downturn much more acutely.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 2, 2010 12:21 PM
Comment #305074

tom humes-
Comment #305072
The framers did not have as flexible a definition of invasion as you had in mind. They meant a real invasion, not a problem with immigration that some people use scary sounding words to sensationalize.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 2, 2010 1:20 PM
Comment #305088

SD

You are trying to convince me that the Mexican military on seeveral occasions and the Paramilitary of drug cartels, or millions of people of a variety of nationalitare are not invasionsies?

Hogwash.

They come across in battalions. That is an invasion!

And just because you like that word “policy” does not make your writings factual. Policy for you is a word that can spin the argument in your direction with a little luck.

I just showed you the Constitutional side of this issue and you like your next best phrase or word and that is the “supremacy clause”. There are Constitutional issues here and all you can say is “policy’ and “supremacy clause”.

“I’m not sure that most people get what Federalism really means, …”

How do you know what people know and think. Ok, just guessing. I acknowledge that.

“In fact, it’s drawn some criticism from the very folks you’d say he was kissing up to.”

Keep guessing wrong. Your credibility is in quick sand on this issue.

“Republicans think anybody on public assistance is a mooch, …”. You claim to document all those “facts”. Well this one is not a fact it is a fart.

If it is a fact that more IA’s are going back to their homeland that is good. It makes no difference who did or is doing better in the numbers game. Bush and Obama both were/are pathetic in dealing with the problem. The represent the lame of the lame.


Posted by: tom humes at August 2, 2010 4:00 PM
Comment #305090

tom humes-
There is a great deal of difference between an actual invasion of the Mexican Military, which of course would be an act of war, and former members of that military signing up with drug cartels.

There is a great deal of difference between largely disorganized civilian inflow after dirty, distasteful and dangerous but relatively well-paying American jobs, and an invasion.

Claims of invasion are just fodder for hyping anti-immigration politics. We do have a considerable problem here, but it’s done a disservice by the militarization of the dialogue. This is stampede language, not honest messaging.

As for policy? You seem to be trying to argue the term so you can get around the substantial, well supported argument that the Federal Government has well-established jurisdiction over this kind of policy. Frankly, I find that line of argument insulting to my intelligence, and so should the average reader. You cannot make this all into a matter of life and death and proclaim that the states should be able to take drastic measures themselves against illegal immigrants, and then turn around and say that what Arizona put into play, and what you’re arguing to defend isn’t policy. Legislation is policy, especially at this level of alteration of the pre-existing law.

I site the Supremacy Clause because it’s what makes the additional penalties your beloved laws try to put on immigrants unconstitutional. Federal Law on this subject, thanks to the Article One enumerations of the government’s power on immigration, is a power delegated to Congress. When the Federal government makes laws on this subject, those laws are the law of the land, according to the Supremacy clause, notwithstanding any state law or constitution.

So: Delegated, Enumerated Article One Power + Supremacy Clause = Federal Immigration law and authority wins in court over state attempts to legislate policy.

I keep repeating it because this is a damn simple argument that bears repeating, that doesn’t get any less true for its repetition.

If you are truly a strict constructionist, it’s time to move on. If you’re just pretending your erroneous claim is strict construction, or you think that somehow the magic court-case fairy will come along and sprinkle magic pixie dust on your legal arguments to get them past this obstacle, it’s time to stop kidding yourself.

People don’t seem to grasp that there is a peculiar logic to law, especially with our constitution and our division of powers, that is meant to get in the way of people just gettin anything and everything they want. People have a tendency to grab for power to get what they want, and sometimes they grab for more than they should have.

The constitution is meant to blunt this, and also make it difficult for entrenched interests to stay in power for unlimited times. Folks have to offer results, or expect to lose their office, ultimately. I think current corruption problems make it harder for this model to function, but not impossible if we choose to push hard enough.

But as a rule, I acknowledge where the system limits me and others, because those who don’t recognize where the ocnstitution and other law might get in their way are apt to waste their time doing rather unproductive things.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 2, 2010 5:33 PM
Comment #305093

SD
I have decided to move on but not because of your suggestion. It is because you refuse to acknowledge the Consstitution as I have cited. Instead everything is “policy” and “supremacy clause” and you can’t understand the viability of anything else. You have your head burried somewhere that will not let you see the light of day. My argument was simple and straight forward. You had to inject ass kissing as well as other out of the way things that had no bearing on the argument.

Again I ask what is the title of your pamphlet?

Posted by: tom humes at August 2, 2010 7:19 PM
Comment #305097

Stephen,

The invasion is real. All those Mexicans who have been crossing the border for eighty years, in order to send some money to their families back home, have accumulated into in invading force that has to be reckoned with…even though many are dead already and many more are too old to do much, and the rest are women/children and too hungry to fight. Hardly any of them actually seek employment. There are becoming moles for the future takeover by Panco Villa, who is also dead…but, who’s counting?

Posted by: Marysdude at August 2, 2010 7:34 PM
Comment #305098

PS:

I think that if Cheney/Bush can invade Iraq because of Afghanistan, we should now invade Brazil because of Mexican illegal immigrants.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 2, 2010 7:36 PM
Comment #305099

SD,

I think your Constitutional arguments are a waste of time to people like Tom Humes who thinks the Constitution evolves and changes to match his philosophy.

I still think the 4th amendment arguments are much stronger than the supremacy ones. This law would create the situation whereby police would need to investigate the immigration status of everyone they come in “lawful contact” with. This is not just about vans full of non-anglophones pulled over for a traffic violation who are missing certain document. It also means a pedestrian who is picked up for questioning must be investigated. It means the victim of a crime must be investigated. It means the the 200+ year Constitutional policy of reasonable suspicion is out the door.

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 2, 2010 7:52 PM
Comment #305101

How many times and ways must Stephen define for you the supremecy clause before you accept or acknowledge it? Here it is….black and white, and keeps you from looking…. http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s105.htm
Because you can’t, or won’t acknowledge the existence and meaning of it, doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

Posted by: jane doe at August 2, 2010 7:57 PM
Comment #305106

Warped Reality
I have never believed in an evolving constitution. I have not even come close to expressing that.

Dream On

Jane Doe
I read the Constitution. I don’t need interpretation.

Posted by: tom humes at August 2, 2010 9:10 PM
Comment #305107

WR…..really?

Posted by: jane doe at August 2, 2010 9:14 PM
Comment #305108

If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck…

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 2, 2010 9:30 PM
Comment #305109

Warped Reality
“This law would create the situation whereby police would need to investigate the immigration status of everyone they come in “lawful contact” with.”

That is an assumption that has no value whatsoever. I will repeat. In AZ they seem to know this subject better and know how to do law enforcement on this subject better.

Whatever state you reside in may do things different. So be it.

Posted by: tom humes at August 2, 2010 9:35 PM
Comment #305113

Warped Reality-
The argument is not for his sake alone.

Tom Humes-
Show me the ****ing clause where it says federal powers, as enumerated in Section one, falls to the states when the federal governmetn doesn’t do a good enough job.

Here are the enumerated powers of Congress, where the constitution explicitly lays out what Congress can do:

Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

What do most of these provisions have in common? Many of them are powers essentially associated with the ability of a national government to rule. To coin money, to take out debts, to naturalize citizens, to raise armies, to set down intellectual property laws, so on and so forth.

And what the Supremacy Clause say?

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.

Enumerated power + Supremacy Clause = Arizona’s law is unconstitutional. It is not in Arizona’s authority under the constitution to take on the powers delegated to Congress in Article One, Section Eight. I mean, most people would not seriously argue what you’re arguing for any power listed above.

Nobody is arguing that California, if it doesn’t like the way the Navy’s being run, can appoint its own. Nor is Texas seriously arguing that it can print it’s own currency. Nor does Idaho claim that it can borrow money itself on the credit of the United States of America. There is no separate Patent, Trademark, and Copyright offices for New York State anymore than there’s a chance in hell that Rhode Island could declare its own war.

Yet Arizona argues that it can have it’s own Immigration policy, set laws itself punishing immigrants, deciding how those immigrants will be handled by the system.

The whole point of the Supremacy clause is to make it damn clear to the states that where the Federal Government has a power, it exercises it in mutual exclusion to any state attempt to tread on that territory. You CANNOT write your own immigration policy as a state. Maybe you can punish somebody who hires illegal aliens, or at least deny them certain privileges that are the state’s to give.

But immigration policy belongs to the Federal Government.

The Constitution’s my ****ing pamphlet.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 2, 2010 10:43 PM
Comment #305114

Article 1 Section 10-
“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, UNLESS ACTUALLY INVADED, OR IN SUCH IMMINENT DANGER AS WILL NOT ADMIT OF DELAY.”

Article 3 Section 2-
“In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, AND THOSE IN WHICH A STATE SHALL BE PARTY, THE SUPREME COURT SHALL HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.”

Article 4 Section 4-
“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion;…”

How do you explain away this part of the Constitution. You cited the basic area and left it dry. Try reading on.

If you are going to disregard parts of the Constitution, your argument is null and void. Those areas you cited are well acknowledged and I don’t dispute. There are other areas of the document that need to be considered and you have not done that.

Your ****** language doesn’t not intimidate me. I do read the anger in the star language.

Posted by: tom humes at August 2, 2010 11:31 PM
Comment #305116

tom humes-
Look, illegal immigration is a problem, but it’s not an invasion. Invasions are acts of WAR. Not acts of illegal employment. Hitler did not invade Poland so Germans could provide low wage competition for field hands. Japan didn’t invade Manchuria to mow their lawns. Persia did not invade Ancient Greece to send their troops to change the diapers of the babies of the Greek Aristocracy.

You’re making a mockery of the term, just so you can get your way constitutionally.

The invasion spoken of in the first one clearly involves the States building up what in that day were consider military forces. The provision is basically saying the states can’t do this unless somebody’s landing troops, and there’s no way that the Federal Government could get there in time.

Considering modern technology, that issue is pretty much obsolete. But instead of counselling a direct military response to this ACT OF WAR, you’re saying give the police new powers, and the courts and prosecutors of the states new punishable crimes.

There’s a bloody obvious disconnect in your logic. You say its a war, fine, its war. Start picking up guns and blowing people away. But if you’re just writing news state laws, creating policy by ordinary means, rather carrying out by other means, then you’re just a sensationalist whose argument is BS.

You’re using a fallacious appeal to fear in order to justify a response ironically inappropriate to the object of that fear. You are suggesting acts of law in response to what you claim to be acts of war.

Make up your mind. Either it’s not a war, and we’re writing policy here, or it is a war, and we’re taking up arms against a foreign power. Take your fricking pick.

As for the second one: read the previous paragraph, which your quoted paragraph indicates includes the cases where the Supreme court only has appellate Jurisdiction:

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

I believe that the constitution is normally interpreted to make cases between states original jurisdiction for the Supreme Court.

Article Four, Section Four is covered by my previous explanation as to why the invasion talk is just disingenous fearmongering. If it really is an invasion, what are you doing sitting aroudn writing laws? To arms! We have a war to fight!

If you are going to disregard parts of the Constitution, your argument is null and void.

How ridiculous can an argument get? Even if I were guilty of disregarding parts of the constitution, it just means we’re both wrong.

And since your being wrong would make Arizona’s law unconstitutional, My being wrong would have no effect.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 3, 2010 1:12 AM
Comment #305121

SD
You could not stand down if you wanted to.

What arrogance!!!!

Posted by: tom humes at August 3, 2010 12:36 PM
Comment #305135

tom humes-
You may call me arrogant, and for all I know, I am. But what I find arrogant is when a person insists on an argument’s truth with nothing else to back what they say than potshots at a person’s character.

I explain myself thoroughly, because otherwise, I don’t feel like I deserve credibility. You may not like it. You may think I’m stubborn as hell about it, and you might be right. But I don’t get this stubborn about things for nothing. I don’t like to be on shaky ground. I hedge when I’m on shaky ground.

But here? Here, I feel I’ve got you pretty much in check. But you’re unwilling to admit it. Instead, you concede the ground without really admitting it, and instead try even more convoluted arguments, such as turning the population of illegal immigrants into some kind of invading force so you can appeal to other parts of the constitution.

But really, those parts have absolutely nothing to do with what you’re pushing, because a true invasion wouldn’t be responded to by a state law being passed. A true invasion would be an act of war which would be fought against as an act of war. If it’s so calm that you folks feel like trying to legislate the problem away, obviously you think civilian authorities are sufficient to the task, in which case, talk about invasion is just sensationalizing the issue, and it doesn’t rise to a credible Constitutional justification. The whole point of that provision you cite is to give the states the power to bring up armies only when the Federal Government couldn’t get there in time. Otherwise, they were forbidden to do that.

That provision is best understood in terms of a nation where travel took days at best, and organizing an army could take months. In modern terms, it’s unlikely that the US would ever fail to respond to a real invasion long enough for this provision to matter.

Oh, you say, but it’s a real invasion!

No, you don’t believe that. If you believed that, you would calling for us to declare war on Mexico. That’s the proper response to somebody who really attacks us.

Since what you’re trying is immigration reform by way of state law, you clearly think it doesn’t rise to that level. In which case, you’re screwed, because under Constitutional law, immigration is an enumerated federal power, and the supremacy clause leaves no ambiguity as to who rules the roost on that matter, whether they fulfill or neglect their duties.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 3, 2010 5:38 PM
Comment #305162

The boat has left the harbor and you are not on it.
Good bye and Good Luck. I hate saying that because it is a paraphrase of Edward R. Murrow.

Posted by: tom humes at August 3, 2010 7:31 PM
Comment #305167
Warped Reality “This law would create the situation whereby police would need to investigate the immigration status of everyone they come in “lawful contact” with.”

That is an assumption that has no value whatsoever. I will repeat. In AZ they seem to know this subject better and know how to do law enforcement on this subject better.

Whatever state you reside in may do things different. So be it.

WRONG!

I have provided evidence from sources in AZ to demonstrate the veracity of my conclusions on multiple occasions over the past few months. You either have been blind or willfully ignorant of the links that I post. I will link to a month old comment of mine with the appropriate links: Here.

Read all three links before you post again. Sorry if I come off as terse, but this must be the twentieth time I have linked to evidence showing that “lawful contact” is a term much broader than simply checking drivers pulled over for traffic violations. Checking the status of traffic law violators is already routine. There is no need for a new law to do this. What the AZ law does is provide powers to police that were previously withheld. For example, the power to check the status of people who have innocent, but lawful contact with police (witnesses, victims or even someone asking directions).

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 3, 2010 7:45 PM
Comment #305185

WR

The law has been in effect less than a week. And your telling me you have evidence that “lawful contact” just aint gonna work. Well I’ll be darn. How brilliant. But wrong. The law has to establish whether a law enforcement officer can do thus and so in determining how far to go in determining whether he has an IA or not. If in a traffic stop the driver shows an AZ driver license and all other things are normal, the officer will not pursue anything to do with immigration. If you think that is not truthful, you need to apologize to every law enforcement officer in the state of AZ which of course you would not have the cajones to do. The law only establishes what the officer cannot do in positive terms. You may or may not have read the law. Now you are acting as if you know how to judge how the law will be played out. You are a real brilliant guy.
In the case of someone not involved in a traffic stop but is a witness to a violation, the officer would want some ID and if the person cannot produce some legal ID, the person would be questioned further to determine why he did not have ID. If the person can give proof of legal residency, that is it. The officer will not pursue the immigration question. That is what they are trained to do. I have several law enforcement friends and that is how they have been informed how to behave while at work. You people who create suppositions really are playing a game and you will not win. You can guess all day long on how you think this is a dangerous law or unconstitutional law or whatever tickles your fancy, but is all a make believe world. And it certainly fits your blog name of Warped Reality.

Posted by: tom humes at August 3, 2010 10:32 PM
Comment #305203

“In the case of someone not involved in a traffic stop but is a witness to a violation, the officer would want some ID and if the person cannot produce some legal ID, the person would be questioned further to determine why he did not have ID.”


And thus ends the willingness of witnesses to come forward.


Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 4, 2010 7:56 AM
Comment #305220

tom humes-
If you want to know why the judge put an injunction on and is likely to strike down the lawful contact provision, all you have to do is realize just how many lawful contacts that Police in Arizona might have with those people, realize that all of those people are going to have to wait on ICE status checks while the Police are dealing with them, and the ICE is going to have to spend the time and resources to do those checks all the bloody time.

So, in the mean time, for each police officer, you see added time to each lawful contact they might have with those people, wasting their time, and the state’s manpower and money.

For each legal immigrant, that’s time they spend detained, time beyond what most lawful contacts would have them detained. If you read that case I linked to concerning the Estrada case, you’ll find that length of detention in these cases is of great concern, in terms of civil liberties.

Lastly, of course, there is the sudden, massive diversion of resources for the ICE from what it’s set its policy to do, to checking tens of thousands of these lawful contact inquiries.

If you’re aiming to screw up the federal immigration system, if you’re aiming to put undue burdens on legal immigrants, and law enforcement officers, you’re batting a thousand here.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 4, 2010 1:02 PM
Comment #305230

SD

Your are making up arguments that do not exist. Legal residents will have a DL or other ID that shows they are a legal resident.

Other states have been doing what AZ enacted a law to do. AZ has been doing it for a long time.

And for legal opinion I will not rely on a TX essayist whose credibility on this issue is in the toilet.

Posted by: tom humes at August 4, 2010 3:29 PM
Comment #305232

tom humes-
Calling me an essayist is not an insult to me, as it is to you. I based my style of blogging on my style of writing, which I developed writing essays in College.

So, I am an essayist. I freely admit it, and it is what I set out to be. I don’t do blurbs.

But saying my credibility is in the toilet?

For what reason? You haven’t mounted a convincing counter argument to any of my objections. You just keep dodging the question, trying to find esoteric exceptions.

And for your information, your law will require ICE checks broadly enough and often enough that the courts think it will be a strain on the system.

If you don’t want to rely on my legal opinion, fine, but rely on somebody outside of the conservative movement, while you’re at it, because some folks in your movement have a better understanding of manipulating news stories than they do the workings of the Constitution.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 4, 2010 4:41 PM
Comment #305241

SD

I was not trying to insult you with the essayist thing.

You can have the last meanless word on this post.

Posted by: tom humes at August 4, 2010 6:26 PM
Comment #305258
In the case of someone not involved in a traffic stop but is a witness to a violation, the officer would want some ID and if the person cannot produce some legal ID, the person would be questioned further to determine why he did not have ID.

I frequently leave my house without my driver’s license or other ID if I’m not driving. This is when I walk/bike and/or take public transportation. I live in MA, but if I lived in AZ, you are saying that if I witness a crime while biking and reported it to law enforcement, a police officer would have to investigate me as an Illegal Immigrant. I’m sorry, but that’s not going to fly. As a naturally born American Citizen, I have every right to move about the country without carrying any documentation. I can only be stopped and searched if there is a warrant or other probable cause. Any departure from that is a step down the road to Tyranny.

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 4, 2010 9:43 PM
Comment #305263

You people are experts at adding to what someone says. But we all have to excel at something.

Posted by: tom humes at August 4, 2010 11:17 PM
Post a comment