If The Obama DOJ Is Interested In “Supremacy”, When Will They Sue California?

If Obama, Eric Holder, and their politicized DoJ is truly interested in arguing that Arizona’s tough illegal aliens law violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution, I wonder, will they apply this same clause across the board? That’s what the law is about, holding every party accountable for violating the law. First, though, let’s start with this little tidbit found at NumbersUSA (via Michelle Malkin)

The Supreme Court has stated clearly and often that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress “plenary power” over immigration policy, meaning that Congress has virtually unlimited authority to regulate immigration into the United States. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says that federal law supersedes conflicting state law. In immigration matters, the courts have consistently held that this means that states may enact immigration-related laws that go as far as, but no further than, duly enacted federal laws, except in areas where Congress has specifically preempted state action. (The primary example of Congress preempting state action is 8 U.S.C. 1324b(h)(2), which prohibits states and localities from “imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens,” which is why states and localities must tie E-Verify mandates to the issuance of business licenses.) Congress has not preempted state or local action regarding any of the federal laws that the new Arizona law seeks to enforce, so long as the state law goes no further than existing federal law. The Arizona law was drafted meticulously to ensure that it complies fully with the U.S. Constitution and with federal immigration laws.

Moving past the illegal immigrants portions, this is stating that federal laws must be followed by the States, no more, no less. Laws can’t be tougher, and they can’t be weaker. So, when will the DOJ file lawsuits against California and 13 other states for violating federal medical marijuana laws? Consider

Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance, defined as having a high potential for abuse and no medicinal value.

Using, selling, growing, and/or possession of marijuana is against federal law. It is treated (for right or wrong, I could personally care less if you smoke pot, doesn’t affect me) the same as cocaine, LSD, and heroin, among others. Yet, 14 states have laws allowing it. Sure seems like they are violating the “supremacy clause,” so, we will see the federal lawsuits from Obama’s DoJ soon, right?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

10 Responses to “If The Obama DOJ Is Interested In “Supremacy”, When Will They Sue California?”

  1. John Ryan says:

    you personally could not care if your fellow citizens break the law ?? is that just this one or does it apply to all Federal laws ?

  2. Otter says:

    Since the Arizona law UPHOLDS federal law, ‘lil LIAR, do YOU believe that it should be enforced? Or do you care if illegals break it right and left?

  3. Lee Thomas says:

    This is a dog and pony show. Arizona is right and Obama is wrong. There is nothing wrong and its been plainly spelled out in many previous court decisions, Including the Supreme court, that the states have the right to ask about your right to be in the country when conducting other business.

    The DOJ loses. This is about showing the Hispanics that Republicans hate them and that their only course of action is to join the hate the right campaign.

    Thats all this is. Dog and pony show intended to make Hispanics hate Republicans and be forever Democrats.

  4. […] William Teach: Sue California! […]

  5. Big Al says:

    These are strange times. How can so many so called “Americans” be such ignorant bigots?

    This is supposed to be a free country. Not a place where you are asked to see your “paper” if you look different or possibly here illegally.

    Why don’t they stop the businesses from giving them jobs? Isn’t there already a law that prohibits the hiring of illegals?

    The country is starting to smell like republican farts.

  6. Otter says:

    Yo! big al! Next time you buy cigarettes, do NOT show them your driver’s licence!

  7. It is a free country, Al, so far as it is also a Nation Of Law. What part of “they are here in this country illegally” is not clear to you?

    You should “your papers” all the time, for all sorts of things. Try not showing your id next time you take a flight, or write a check at a store. Or if you are pulled over for speeding.

    In fact, you are getting rather hysterical over the false meme that police can simply ask for “the papers” of people they think might be illegal. In fact, they would be asking everyone for said papers, because there would have already been lawful contact, such as pulling someone over for speeding. After that, they could ask potential illegals for their visas. All legal by federal law.

  8. […] Mafia in the North. You will notice that the “concerns” of the Obama Administration isn’t consistent with other positions already […]

  9. gitarcarver says:

    This is supposed to be a free country. Not a place where you are asked to see your “paper” if you look different or possibly here illegally.

    This would be known as a “strawman argument.”

    No one is asking you for papers based on how someone looks. No one is asking you for papers if you are “possibly here illegally.” The law says there must be legitimate legal contact prior to the policeman asking for proof of residency. That means, Al, that if the police stop a car for running a red light, ask for a license and that person doesn’t have license because they are here illegally, they can be handed over to the Feds. What part of that bothers you?

    Why don’t they stop the businesses from giving them jobs? Isn’t there already a law that prohibits the hiring of illegals?

    Can you walk and chew gum, Al? The key to this is to hit both the people who are here illegally AND the businesses who knowingly hire illegals. If the government cannot do both at the same time, we are in deep trouble.

    If you want to pick on the businesses that hire illegals, why are you demanding compliance with one law while dismissing another?

    At least conservatives are consistent that both laws should be enforced.

    Your consistency?

    Now so much.

  10. Trish says:

    What time is hell freezing over? ’cause I am fairly sure that the federal government will never sue these immoral, overtly defiant and illegal states that allow sanctuary cities. They will be allowed to continue to destroy their economies and harbor criminals as long as they wish.

    What part of “illegal” alien does our new friend Big Al not get?

    What part of the enormous financial and social service burden that illegal aliens unload upon these cities and states, does Big Al not get?

    What part of it’s not just poor well meaning Mexican families (in fact they are the minority) who come across the border, does Big Al not get?

    What part of the large numbers of Mexican drug cartels, middle easterners sneaking in under cover and just run of the mill criminals come across the border each year, does Big Al not get?

    Wait, does Big Al come from America? Does he live in the greatest nation on earth, or is one of those people who don’t believe we ARE the greatest? Well if we are NOT so great, then why the heck do so many these folks stream over our porous borders each day and night?????????

Bad Behavior has blocked 9234 access attempts in the last 7 days.