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.
This could get interesting.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU
Teach does your phone store assist illegals in communication ? If you suspected someone of being in the USA illegally would you still help them by transacting any business with them ?
You know Ryan, you have asked that ridiculous question before and it has been answered so many times that it doesn’t bear repeating.
At this point one can only assume that you are either too locked into a belief or too stupid to understand the answer.
Either way, for the rest of us, the resulting conclusion that you’re nothing more than a mindless troll is the same.
Actually Teach the Bush administration had no intention of prosecuting a criminal case against the 2 New Black Panthers. The “case” was a civil one that they were hoping to have an injunction brought against them to stop future incidents. However, since the National New Black Panther Party had already booted the local Philly chapter out it would probably have been considered moot at that point anyway.
linked!
Actually Teach the Bush administration had no intention of prosecuting a criminal case against the 2 New Black Panthers.
Patently false. The weapons charges were proceeding against the Black Panthers when a plea agreement was reached.
The “case†was a civil one that they were hoping to have an injunction brought against them to stop future incidents.
Your point?
The Civil Rights Act calls for civil complaints when there is no violence. In other words, you don’t have a clue as to what happened and why.
However, since the National New Black Panther Party had already booted the local Philly chapter out it would probably have been considered moot at that point anyway.
Actually it wouldn’t because the complaint would have been against the two individuals as well as the organization.
So what we have here is you supporting voter intimidation without repercussion.
Nice.
Typical too.