AZ immigration lawsuit says feds are all powerful, no States rights, no sov People

[free1]

WTF? Have the feds gone crazy?

All power comes from the sovereign People. Then to the States. Then to the federal government.

So if one of the governments fail to do something we the People delegated them to do, we still have that power and can use it whenever we want, even through the State.

But these judges are saying that the feds are the sovereign, over the States.

WHAT A JOKE!

Do you understand how important this lawsuit is? They can't be allowed to twist things to make it look like they are all powerful. THEY ARE A LIMITED GOVERNMENT!!!

ONLY A FEW POWERS WERE DELEGATED TO THEM!

Suit says - "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."

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/28/toobin-what-does-arizona-immigration-ruling-mean/

"violation of the separation of powers" - the feds violate that all the time, look at health care. And how does this apply? WTF? They have to really twist things to get that to apply!

"federal control of immigration matters" --- and where did they get the power to do that?

Judges like this should be removed from the bench.

[constituent]

"federal control of immigration matters" --- and where did they get the power to do that?

You're asking the right question, just in the wrong context imo. :)

[FBI_Exposer]

Have you READ the actual Arizona law?

It forces local governments to enforce federal law and if they dont ANYONE can sue the local governments into submission until they do enforce federal law.

Can you explain how that is a win for states rights? Are you nuts?

Anyway, apparently, all the ruling today did was remove any immigration enforcement and leave state citizens with the national id component of the law, which, of course, goes into effect tomorrow.

Who woulda guessed?

[Noob]

I thout AZ rejected the Real ID Act and a national ID. I guest all the States that rejected it are putting it in place throw the immigration debate.

[John Taylor]

Have you READ the actual Arizona law?

It forces local governments to enforce federal law and if they dont ANYONE can sue the local governments into submission until they do enforce federal law.

Can you explain how that is a win for states rights? Are you nuts?

Anyway, apparently, all the ruling today did was remove any immigration enforcement and leave state citizens with the national id component of the law, which, of course, goes into effect tomorrow.

Who woulda guessed?

That is not true.

[constituent]

Hey, you're back!

Believe it or not, I was completely bummed out when you got banned. :(

[John Taylor]

Hey, you're back!

Believe it or not, I was completely bummed out when you got banned. :(

Well thanks brother,

"It" happens. I think this site is semi-populated with hordes of 19 year old kids. (Which can be a good thing, but it seems like there are many, many, extremely juvenile people here incapable of sustaining a semi-coherent conversation without resorting to ad hominums).

I didn't know that anyone can call someone who opposes all taxpayer subsidization of all foreign regime, who opposes foreign aggression and adventures, and opposes the entire Strassian domestic and foreign agenda a "zionist neo-conservative warmonger" without incident, but when one identifes a shill for Hamas a "Hamas-cheerleader", the gloves come off. I should have been more restrained in my condemnation of the individual.

You live, you learn. :D

[constituent]

You live, you learn. :D


hahaha, "and then you get luvs!" :p :D

[John Taylor]

hahaha, "and then you get luvs!" :p :D

Haha, I guess.


Who doesn't like that?? :D

[free1]

Have you READ the actual Arizona law?

It forces local governments to enforce federal law and if they dont ANYONE can sue the local governments into submission until they do enforce federal law.

Can you explain how that is a win for states rights? Are you nuts?

Anyway, apparently, all the ruling today did was remove any immigration enforcement and leave state citizens with the national id component of the law, which, of course, goes into effect tomorrow.

Who woulda guessed?

Interesting twist on this. But it's still a fact that the People, then the States have the power to do the "enforcing", so it's arguable that they are not enforcing federal law, but State law.

On the other point, if they are legal they can get a State issued ID, and in AZ it's not a national ID, they rejected that. Unless something changed and I missed it.

[heavenlyboy34]

Interesting twist on this. But it's still a fact that the People, then the States have the power to do the "enforcing", so it's arguable that they are not enforcing federal law, but State law.

On the other point, if they are legal they can get a State issued ID, and in AZ it's not a national ID, they rejected that. Unless something changed and I missed it.

That's ended many years ago. Makes for amusing political theory discussion, though. :o

[MelissaWV]

I think you're confusing Real ID with e-Verify. They are not the same thing at all.

As far as the ruling, the wording is incredibly scary for States Rights cases in the future. I disagreed with Section 6 as it was written, and allowed to remain, but would have rather had it be challenged via a real case instead of being pre-empted in the legal equivalent of being prosecuted for a thought crime.

[FBI_Exposer]

Interesting twist on this. But it's still a fact that the People, then the States have the power to do the "enforcing", so it's arguable that they are not enforcing federal law, but State law.

On the other point, if they are legal they can get a State issued ID, and in AZ it's not a national ID, they rejected that. Unless something changed and I missed it.

That's actually not the case. The state law quotes federal law and literally forces the localities to enforce it. So, if you are subsuming the state to the federal government, again, can you explain how that is a states rights win?

On it's surface it's obviously the opposite, it's integration of the state into the federal government. It's federalization of local police, something the JbS has opposed, for example, since it's inception as being anti-american and necessarily totalitarian.

Take immigration out of this and think if it were any other federal law. You know EXACTLY what you're reaction would be and it wouldn't be favorable.

[FBI_Exposer]

I think you're confusing Real ID with e-Verify. They are not the same thing at all.


No, Melissa, don't change subjects. While REAL ID is a national id program. Not all national id programs are REAL ID. There are many, many national id programs. All feed the same national id database at the US Department of Homeland Security.

SB1070, one of the sections remaining standing after the ruling removes all prohibitions and restrictions on the state "sending or exhanging" license data for "any person, lawful or unlawful" with "any agency" of the federal government.

http://sonoranalliance.com/2010/06/18/arizona-immigration-law-national-id-for-arizonans/

Additionally, eVerify is a creation of the CFR. The CFR noted in their paper Toward a North American Union that a federal program would need to perform instantaneous employment eligibility verification in order to open the borders and know who is eligible to work.

The only way to do that is with a national id database (in this case an international id database) and hand over to the federal executive all administrative power to determine who is permitted to work and who is not, which is fine if you are talking only about ALIENS.

However, noted both by the CFR and SB1070 supporters, the federal government should have this power over ALL PEOPLE including law abiding citizens.

I have a problem with that. For one, because the constitution does not grant the federal executive with ANY power or authority to make ANY determination over whether law abiding citizens are permitted to work or not.