For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
Federal Lawsuit Against Arizona Expected To Be Filed Today
Written By : William Teach

Oil is beginning to wash up on Florida beaches, and is still streaming out of the blown pipe. Unemployment is not getting better, and more and more economists are worried not about a double dip recession, but, the next Great Depression. HHS is missing deadlines to implement ObamaCare (that’s a good thing, it just shows they are all talk and no do.) Iran is moving closer to the atom bomb. Consumer confidence is down. And so many more problems. Yet, the Department of Justice, the same one which blew off prosecuting the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation (a slam dunk case), will go ahead and attempt to stop a law meant to reduce lawlessness. Priorities

The Justice Department has decided to file suit against Arizona on the grounds that the state’s new immigration law illegally intrudes on federal prerogatives, law enforcement sources said Monday.

The lawsuit, which three sources said could be filed as early as Tuesday, will invoke for its main argument the legal doctrine of “preemption,” which is based on the Constitution’s supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes. Justice Department officials believe that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility, the sources said.

Look, I’m no lawyer. I’ve never claimed to be one. But, I can read, and the Constitution was written for everyone, and this seems to be pretty easy to understand (Article VI)

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

Supreme law. Yes. Agreed. As long as they do not violate the Bill Of Rights, and, in this case, the 9th and 10th Amendments. Just because Los Federales make a law, doesn’t mean it is supreme. Furthermore, there are two ways to look at the supremacy clause, one which is that there is no reason why the States can’t take a federal law and make it stronger, which is what Arizona did. Furthermore, the clause says that the laws made must be in line with what the Constitution allows the federal government to enact, but, that is a separate subject (health insurance mandate, anyone?).

Let’s say the federal government passes a law that states that no more than 6 unrelated people can live in one home (not sure if there is a federal law for real on this). It would be perfectly legal for a state, let’s say, North Carolina, to make the restriction 5 (which is actually the law in NC.) Then, a college town, say, Greenville, NC, makes it 3 (actual law.) Does the supremacy clause mean that NC and Greenville must allow 6? Or simply mean they cannot go higher than 6? From my POV, they are following the law, just making it more restrictive for their own purposes.

Oh, hey, here is a duty Los Federales are charged with

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

Hmmmm. Interesting. Let’s go back to the last paragraph of Article VI

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

So, if Los Federales have legal laws that require they enforce illegal immigration laws, and are tasked with repelling invasions into our country, perhaps Arizona should sue the Obama administration and Congress for failure to properly follow their own laws. After all, the Arizona law is basically a state version of the federal law.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach

This could get interesting.

0
  • Dondaddy1

    I can see why you are a Constitutional lawyer!

    • Christopher_Taylor

      Foul, ad hominem appeal to authority. Ten yards, first down!

  • Dondaddy1

    “Look, I’m no lawyer. I’ve never claimed to be one”
    Then ,stop ranting about you can’t grasp or studied!

    • airfr8er

      Flagged for causing the average IQ of the comment section to drop.

  • Mr. EMT

    Obamao said it was going to be impossible to secure the border.
    He is going to do everything to make sure of that.
    Same could be said of the oil spill and economy and job loss and everything else he has touched.

    • Dondaddy1

      Troll droppings

      • Mr. EMT

        I feel like I was standing on a corner… and a moron drove by at 80 mph and said something out of his window and didn't slow down.

      • mightysamurai

        Considering there were no warcrimes, I imagine nothing at all would happen to President Bush.

      • Mediumheadboy

        Seriously, what's your native tongue, troll? It sure as fuck isn't English.

        • Mr. EMT

          pothead is his native tongue

    • whats_up

      Keep it up birther, keep harping on that BC.

      • Trench_Raider

        Damn it…I hit the “like” button instead of reply. Let it be known that I would never willingly award a “like point” to anything a known troll like crthns/idpanicman/whats_up.

        TR

      • Mr. EMT

        I will until someone can prove he even has one and is in fact eligible to be president.

  • Lee

    This whole issue is a FAIL on so many levels. The federal government has ignored it's responsibility for decades, and states which border Mexico are paying the price. There was a mass amnesty granted in the mid-80's, and at that time the stated premise was that we'd grant anmesty and then fix immigration and secure the border. Only amnesty happened. A few years ago, there was another push for amnesty. The public put up a huge stink because, unlike the 80's, they were aware this was happening. So the Bush administration backed off and instead threw the bone of a “border fence.” After several years, there's only a few miles of fencing and zero funding (Congress in the Bush administration didn't fund it, and neither has Congress in the Obama administration). In 1 1/2 years under Obama, we still have nothing being done. The responsibility falls on both parties because both had the authority and mandate to do this. Both lacked the will, and both failed. Arizona enacts the federal law at the state level, and the federal government is going after them? This is absolutely indefensible.

    • Dondaddy1

      Your post is the one stating the true about the immigration troubles,
      but, Arizona overpowering the federal government is unconstitutional.

      • mightysamurai

        You silly boy, how is Arizona “overpowering” the federal government? States have the power to enforce laws too, last I checked.

        • Christopher_Taylor

          Well, look the left hasn't quite figured out what this is all about yet but they just know that Arizona is bad, and since the Obama administration is making this argument, they believe that it must absolutely be a good one. So they are trying to echo it like a two year old repeating daddy without knowing what they're talking about.

          Give them a day or so to read lefty blogs and send the emails around and they will get their talking points worked out and coordinated.

  • Trench_Raider

    I have two thoughts on this topic:
    -I actually welcome this legal challenge. The line of attack the goverment taking in it's lawsuit is the weekest one they could have pursued as the states enforce federal law all the time. Unless they get some pro-criminal activist judge, they feds are likely to loose this one. In any event, given the high degree of support the law has with the majority of Americans, this lawsuit will only help to hurt the Obama admin and his dem allies by extension…..that's always a good thing. More importantly, the sooner the AZ test case clears the courts, the sooner other states are likely to follow AZ's lead and pass similar laws. Over a third of the country is poised to enact similar laws. The whining from the pro-criminal left is going to be amusing when that happens.
    -No matter what you think about the AZ law you have to admit this: in the end it's the federal goverment's fault it came to this. Their decades of willfully ignoring the problem an refusing to even agressively enforce the laws that are already on the books have led to the sorry state we find ourselves in. It was only a matter of time until some border state that has been bearing the brunt of the invasion with it's high costs, increased crime, and demographic damage decided to take a stand and take matters into it's own hands. Thus being the party most culpable for the law in the first place, I feel the feds have no moral high ground to complain about it being enacted.
    But since when did being morally in the wrong stop leftists from doing something?

    TR

    • Dondaddy1

      Troll droppings

      • northerncanuck

        bark bark little moonbat

      • Mr. EMT

        Most of us are a lot more familiar with the United States Constitution, its framework, and its intent than you are.
        Especially since the group you come from does not care for intent, only interpretation.
        In this case, you are utterly clueless as to the topic matter.
        You appear to be implying that law enforcement is not allowed to enforce laws that they witness being broken.

        • Trench_Raider

          You appear to be implying that law enforcement is not allowed to enforce laws that they witness being broken.

          Indeed.
          If the AZ law is somehow “unconstitutional”, then what about when local or state cops make arrests for bank robbery? How about kidnapping? How about inter-state crimes, or any number of other federal laws that local and state law enforcement enforce and make arrests for on a regular basis?
          No matter what you think about the AZ law, you have to admit that the “it's unconstitutional because it's something reserved for for the federal goverment to alone enforce” is a very, very weak case.

          TR

      • http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

        Clean up on aisle 9, trolls shitting everywhere.

      • Trench_Raider

        And we should care about some troll who is posting as an unregistered “guest” (ie is not a legitimate member of the forum), why?

        Run along, little boy. The adults are talking here.

        TR

      • Mediumheadboy

        What is that even supposed to mean? Does anyone have a troll-to-English dictionary?

  • http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

    I rarely throw the “troll” word around, but, seems as if Dondaddy fits the bill, since all he/she can offer is insults, but no actual adult, rational, discourse.

    • Mr. EMT

      Common trait amongst basement dwelling momma's boys who's life has no meaning and therefor what they offer in political debate has that commonality.

    • http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

      since all he/she can offer is insults, but no actual adult, rational, discourse.

      And all wrapped up a cocoon of run-on sentence fragments to boot! No point in even trying to talk with it.

      • mightysamurai

        “Run-on sentence fragment”? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

        • http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

          Oh, hell, Sam, maybe. :)

          How's this:

          'strung-together fragments of sentences tied together with poorly conjugated verbs and liberally sprinkled with numerous misspellings'

          Doesn't really roll off the tongue, that.

    • Trench_Raider

      With all due respect, then why have no not deleted his posts then, William?
      The trolls continue to cause trouble on the ste because it gives them a venue. Kill their posts on site and most will just go away. Not all, certainly, but most.

      TR

    • UFKA_Smithwick

      I have noticed that this site is extremely tolerant of differing views. Which is a great thing; an echo-chamber is boring and offers no opportunity for education.

      However there is a difference between a legitimate opposition and idiots just being disagreeable to get attention. Folks like D-Vega are actually offering their opinion. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't but it always seems like a legitimate opinion.

      This Dondaddy guy is simply an idiot. He offers nothing and doesn't advance the conversation or even offer an intellectual challenge.

      He needs to go.

      • Trench_Raider

        And here you have hit on what has historically been one of the biggest problems with this site: it's waaaay too tolerant of even the most overt of trolls.
        Like you state, tolerating opposing views is a good thing. The fact that any opposing view is permitted here makes this site morally head and shoulders above all the major leftists blogs who ban opposing views as a matter of course. I don't think any conservative regular here would want to see all the leftists expelled and this place turn into a right wing version of DU. I certainly value the opposing views and actually get along well with some of the more “house broken” leftist regulars.
        But I hate trolls.

        The problem is that for whatever reason a troll, no matter how overt his status is, has to REALLY become a serious problem for his posts to start disapearing and him to eventually get banned. I put it down to hawkins taking the luadable goal of not censoring opposing views to an extreme…erring on the side of caution if you will. Others think he purposely encourages trolling to pump up his post count and site traffic. I'm not convinced that's the case. Either way, the staff here are way too soft in dealing with these children. (and most are indeed young people, as is the case with most 'net trolls)

        I had high hopes when the site was reorganized a few months back as the staff were pretty good about removing troll posts quickly. There have even been a couple of bans on here since the change. But since then they gone back to their old ways of ignoring the troll problem. Hell, it's gotten to the point I rarely even bother with the “report” button as nine times out of ten it does no good.
        Ah well. What can you do? The best thing is to just point out the fact that the offending person is a troll and should not be taken seriously (the whole don't feed the troll line of ignoring troll posts does not work in the real world) and move on.

        TR

      • Mr. EMT

        Eh, I used to think Vag gave his opinion…
        Then when I offered him several opportunities to give his opinion, and not talking points that are given to him, he failed each and every time to do so.

  • UFKA_Smithwick

    The federal government has already ceded large sections of the border to mexican drug cartels.

    Obviously they cannot be trusted with this task.

    And if states don't do it the next line of defense will be private citizens with guns.

    Do you find that preferable Mr. Obama?

    Perhaps he empathizes with non-americans wishing to come here and take jobs from real americans all the while costing this country billions and making life worse for the average citizen.

    • Mr. EMT

      Citizens have been left on their own along the border for about a decade now to make whatever treaty with cartels they can.
      The government has not been protecting the citizens for a long time and I would have to say that yes Obama is very happy with that since any citizen caught defending their life and property from illegal aliens risks federal prosecution by doing so.

  • the_hawk

    I would REALLY like to see how the Justice Dept. is going to get around this little nugget:

    In 2002, the Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel issued a legal opinion that “concluded that state police officers have “inherent power” to arrest undocumented immigrants for violating federal law.” That opinion is still in place and is the basis of authority that the Arizona law was written on.

    If Justice tries to reverse that now, it will only look bad for them. Judging by their actions so far, they are just tone-deaf enough to try anyway.

  • http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

    FYI, apparently, editing and deleting comments in the WP admin panel doesn't wipe them out from showing up in the posts. Have to to it another way, which I do not have access to. Sorry!

    • Trench_Raider

      If you can edit the content of a member's post then have you thought of simply altering his text to read something like “Troll post deleted by moderator”?
      Would that work?

      TR

      • http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

        Tried that. With Disqus, the comments that are visible can only be deleted/modified by authorized people. While they show up in the admin panel, and I can modify and delete, the ones you see are somewhere else.

        When John comes back from vacation, I'll ask him about it.

  • TakeBackOurCountry

    The SECOND American Civil War has begun. Are you on the side of freedom-loving American citizens who want to protect our country, or on the side of the lunatic-left d-crat socialists?

Advertisement
Featured Video

Ed Klein on ‘The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House’

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

40 Of The Most Bad-Ass, Masculine, Manly, Alpha Male Quotes Of All Time
50 Things Every 18-Year-Old Should Know
Politically Correct Fairy Tales
Why Men Are Becoming Wimpy, Video Game Playing Slackers Who Don’t Want To Get Married
Horror You Will Never Get Out Of Your Brain Again: Bronies
The 10 Best Obama Ate A Dog Images From Around The Web
Advertisement
User Info