Obama Regime Files Suit Against Arizona
by Big Dog on Jul 7, 2010 at 04:30 Political
The Obama regime has filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona declaring that its immigration law is unconstitutional. The suit claims that under the supremacy clause of the Constitution, the federal government is responsible for immigration and the states cannot have their own immigration policies.
The Arizona law mirrors the federal law but the Justice Department claims the Arizona law will cause problems for people who do not follow federal law:
The legal action represents a thorough denunciation by the government of Arizona’s action, declaring that the law will “cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents” while altogether ignoring “humanitarian concerns” and harming diplomatic relations. Yahoo News
Federal law already requires non citizens to carry their documents so how could any of them be harassed by the Arizona law?
The federal government is responsible for immigration and it is failing miserably. Obama refuses to secure the border until he gets immigration reform and while he dithers, people cross the border. His idea of security is to post signs telling Americans that it is not safe to travel in parts of Arizona because of illegals. This is not leadership.
If the feds have the Constitutional authority for immigration what is to stop a state from determining if you are in the state illegally? States should have the right to arrest people if they are in the state illegally. It would just so happen that the people are in the country illegally but Arizona is not trying to capture people in the country illegally, just those in the state illegally.
Why is it that Arizona is under attack from illegals and from our federal government? If the government was doing its job then the Arizona law would be unnecessary. Instead, American citizens are under siege from criminals, drug traffickers, and other illegals who drain us of our resources.
As for the concern over diplomatic relations, who cares? Mexico encourages its people to come here illegally and helps them do it and there is little concern from them when Americans are attacked or murdered at the hands of the illegals. That country certainly has no regard for our laws and no concern for diplomatic relations.
Good fences make good neighbors and we can solve most of the issue by putting up a wall that keeps them OUT.
Obama refuses to do his job because he wants immigration reform before he secures the border. He is concerned that closing the border will take pressure off the immigration reform issue. We have played this game before. Each time this country has granted amnesty it came with a promise of securing the border. Each time we ended up with more illegals waiting for the next amnesty program and an unsecured border.
NO immigration reform until we close the border.
And Arizona should keep right on going regardless of what the feds do. It is their state and they have a right to preserve their sovereignty.
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: arizona, ILLEGAL immigration, lawsuit, Obama
The federal suit can be invalidated easily, both on the grounds in the complaint and in general on grounds of both standing and breach of contract.
The suit is grounded in the supremacy clause, the commerce clause, and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. But the supremacy clause only addresses whether a state may make law that’s contrary to the Constitution and federal laws valid under it; the Arizona law only directs its peace officers to apply the requirements of the federal law, so there’s no conflict. The commerce clause has never been interpreted to apply to the borders of the country, and in any case, cannot be relevant to the movement of persons without associated commerce. The Fourteenth Amendment addresses equal-protection violations, but this requires a disparate-impact test that cannot be applied until the law has gone into effect. That makes the Fourteenth Amendment claim a bit like censoring the publication of a book “because it might cause a riot.”
As for standing, the federal government has no standing to sue a state for passing a law that hasn’t yet gone into effect; this is what judicial scholars call an “unripe controversy,” which cannot be adjudicated until some violation of federal prerogatives or Constitutional guarantees actually occurs. The breach of contract matter is even plainer: Washington has explicitly abrogated its responsibility to guard the states against invasion; many of those illegal entrants are armed. Therefore, the state of Arizona is within its rights as a Constitutional participant to resume those responsibilities on its own behalf — and strict interpretation of the contractarian basis of the Constitution would also free Arizonans from any burden of federal taxation until Washington should resume its proper duties.
The suit is a delaying tactic. It cannot be won on objective legal or Constitutional grounds. Obama and Holder need a corrupt Court to find in their favor. Failing that, they want to delay the Arizona law’s implementation until after the elections of 2012. Even that’s against the odds.
“Obama refuses to secure the border until he gets immigration reform…”
On what do you base this assertion?
“His idea of security is to post signs telling Americans that it is not safe to travel in parts of Arizona because of illegals.”
On what do you base this assertion?
#1) This and this
#2) This and this
Does anyone find it strange that two American citizens sneak into a White House party and get hauled before Congress yet millions of illegals cross into Arizona and instead of going after them the Obama regime goes after the state? Isn’t it strange the regime will file a lawsuit against Arizona for upholding federal law but ignores sanctuary cities that violate the law?
Mr. Obama, give our borders the same intensity and scrutiny you give the White House. You don’t like people sneaking in there and Arizona does not like people sneaking onto its property.
The White House refutes Kyl’s remarks on the meeting and Kyl himself has already clarified he was not saying that was the specific stance of Obama though he did not backtrack as far enough to say his remarks were wrong.
Napolitano doesn’t seem to be saying that either, but rather saying secure is not a precondition to reform which is the other way around. I can see how that would imply they want reform before security but this gets tricky because the administration position is that the border is more secure now than ever before so I really can’t agree.
On the border signs, the signs weren’t put up on the recommendation of Obama and he’s actually called for more troops to be sent to the border. Brewer is distorting reality for political reasons.
Oh I get it. Brewer is distorting it for political purposes. Obama would NEVER do something like that.
He filed a lawsuit for political purposes.
He also is sending 525 National Guardsmen and whatever he ends up sending will be thousands fewer than requested.
I don’t understand why Obama has to do this. The NG belongs to the Governor. She could just deploy them and say to hell with Obama and DC.
Those signs wereput up on the recommendation of FEDERAL rangers of the BLM. They represent the federal government.
We can’t say that immigration is a federal issue and Arizona should not be involved and then say it is not the feds when the signs go up.
Obama is in charge of the feds. He is dragging his feet because he wants reform before the border is secure. So the regime refutes what was said and Kyl did not change his story. If Obama said it then it is his stance.
I believe Kyl before Obama. We have already caught Obama saying that something was not said or done and then shown it was said or done.
Lesson, tape record all conversations with Obama…
The border needs to be secured first. Americans demonstrated that this is what they wanted during the last attempt at amnesty. Obama needs to either secure the border or get out of the way and let the real men handle it.
I recommend Brewer call HER guard to the border with orders that the use of deadly force is authorized.
End of problem.
I am willing to bet that if Obama lived on the border this would be fixed.
But explain why he has a fence around the White House but refuses to put a wall up on the border…
“Brewer is distorting it for political purposes. Obama would NEVER do something like that.”
Did I say that? No.
“Those signs were put up on the recommendation of FEDERAL rangers of the BLM. They represent the federal government.”
Not every action by “FEDERAL” officials at a local level is the direct policy of Obama as the video you posted wants to imply. It’s like when you said MMS knew there were problems with the oil rig so therefore Obama knew and he ignored it. It doesn’t work that way and you know it. It’s one thing to say Obama is ultimately responsible. It’s another thing to claim that was Obama’s response.
I wouldn’t be surprised to find out those signs were put up before Obama took office just like the time Fox ran the article and bloggers had a fit saying Obama gave away a chunk of Arizona only to find out it had been closed in 2006 so the article was just taken down with no retraction and bloggers just let it scroll off with no mention.
“I believe Kyl before Obama.”
No surprise there. Yet, Kyl himself said he was not saying that was the policy of Obama and that to say otherwise was a misunderstanding of what Kyl was saying at the town hall. Apparently he meant that was the policy of the left in general and was not saying that was the policy of Obama. That’s his own words, not mine.
“I recommend Brewer call HER guard to the border with orders that the use of deadly force is authorized.”
The idea that crime is so bad around the border, or drug trafficking so bad, or illegal in general immigration so bad that it warrants deadly force? That’s a bunch of bull. But there’s never any shortage of conservatives willing to shoot and kill brown people for the illusion of safety in America, is there?
Oh Adam, you had to be the racist or play the race card didn’t you. Moron. No one said that deadly force would be authorized on brown people only and no one said that the orders were to shoot first and ask questions later.
Use of deadly force means that you may use deadly force if placed in danger or if people fail to follow your orders. i would not expect you to know that because you are too busy worrying about making up charges of racism. And those would be orders to use deadly force on anyone of any color that was a threat.
You, the true racist, assumed all the law breaking was by brown people so they would be the ones shot. Racist Adam.
The idea that it is not that bad? Are you out of your drug addled mind? People have been killed on the border. Is that not bad enough for you?
How about you move down there and let us know how bad it is or are you like Obama, an armchair moron who knows better than the governor and the people living there how bad it is?
Yes, deflect about some story that might or might not be true about land being given away. Kyl did not claim Obama never said what was stated. You report that Kyl did not say it was Obama’s policy. Policy? No, it is his political tact, not policy. He wants immigration reform before securing the border. Kyl has not changed his stance on that being said.
The MMS knew there were problems, they were reported to the Coast Guard and the logs indicate the WH was notified. How could he not know?
“And those would be orders to use deadly force on anyone of any color that was a threat.”
Sure. We may have to shoot any old white guy illegally crossing that Mexican border…I get it.
“No, it is his political tact, not policy.”
That’s just word play now. The trouble is Obama doesn’t believe the border needs the kind of security your side is calling for. It’s not the same as saying he wants to wait and he’s certainly not holding anything “hostage” as conservatives have said. He thinks reform is more important and he’s sure not going to support building some crazy fence and ordering deadly force. He’s asked for troops and he’s asked for more money to increase border patrols.
“The MMS knew there were problems, they were reported to the Coast Guard and the logs indicate the WH was notified. How could he not know?”
You’d need to present those logs before I believed it.
You seem to think that my side is calling for crazy things to secure the border. Not at all and you know it. We have been trying to get a wall built since amnesty was granted the last two times. Each amnesty came with promieses of no more amnesty and a wall, amnesty happened but a secure border didn’t. Now we want the border secure before we work on anything else.
The idea of securing the border with armed persons with use of deadly force orders (make sure you understand what that means before you get your panties in a wad) came after the federal government refused to do its job.
It does not matter if Obama thinks the border needs the security or not, he does not live there and he does not have to deal with the problems. What matters is that he listen to the state and do what it says. His opinion is of little concern because he does not live there and does not know what is going on.
Not holding hostage? You have failed to tell me why he is suing Arizona for upholding federal law and ignoring the sanctuary cities who ignore the law. Which one would a prudent government work to end? And why is he not suing Rhode Island? That state asks immigration status during traffic stops and arrests those here illegally and send them to ICE. Same thing Arizona wants to do and Obama has a fit.
Perhaps if he were to worry about enforcing the law instead of thwarting it…
He has no credibility in the issue. Sue those following the law and ignore those not following it. Ignore the invasion from the south, and invasion that includes many criminals, drug dealers, and human traffickers and attack a sovereign state.
He will lose this battle in court and look like a fool.
Tell that racist Holder to go after the states that are allowing illegals to come in and offering them sanctuary. I guess he won’t do that because he protects the people with brown skin. Maybe if all the illegals claim to be part of the NBPP they would not be prosecuted for crimes.
Maybe Holder just wants to kill all the crackers and some of their babies too.
I get it- WH liars saying they didn’t lie? And we are supposed to believe the liars?
Arizona’s law mirrors the Federal Law- it just “empowers” (there- a good “liberal” word you should understand), the state and local police to do their job with more efficiency- the ONLY reason Hussein wants illegals in is for the votes he thinks he will get- believe me, the way he is sinking in the polls, he is doing everything short of outright bribery to get votes (and I think he MAY be doing that, too).
Arizona is contributing to our society by doing the job the Feds don’t want to do.
Adam you want to call someone a racist and you are on the most racist side there is!
Adam is the racist here, if he truly believes that there would be indiscriminate target practice on the border- the use of deadly force would be justified if the Border Patrol were fired upon by drug runners trying to keep their drugs, or coyotes trying to keep their human cargo intact, and their butts out of jail.
And they SHOULD be justified in doing so- these are FOREIGN NATIONALS INVADING OUR COUNTRY in order to supply people like Adam with drugs or illegal lawncare.
An invading force should be fired upon- so perhaps they cease invading, don’t you think?