Obama sues Arizona

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Just when you think the Obama administration disregard for the rule of law couldn't get any worse it sets the bar that much lower.

The government contends that the Arizona law violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution, a legal theory that says federal laws override state laws. It is already illegal under federal law to be in the country illegally, but Arizona is the first state to make it a state crime and add its own punishment and enforcement tactics.

Gosh, in the same way that states pursuing bank robbers usurps the federal laws against bank robbery?

Obama & Co. also seem blissfully unaware that there are dozens of state laws against activities that are illegal at the federal level. Are they going to argue that all of them are invalid?

Obama and holder are giving the Constitution the middle finger and violating the rights of states that are clearly defined in the Constitution as well as ignoring the duties and limitations of the federal government contained in that document.

Do Obama and Holder really think they can pull off something so egregiously anti-American?

I'd love to see counter-suits from states that recognize the federalism defined by the Constitution and which object to the callous disregard for the rule of law being perpetrated by the Obama administration.

It will be amusing to see how many people who claimed that Bush was "shredding the Constitution" stand up and object to a real raping of the rule of law.

So is this the lowest Obama and Holder can go or will we see worse by November?

ETA: court decisions and DOJ analysis. If you read carefully there's an out for Obama to play: declare that immigration laws are not being enforced at the federal level so states cannot enforce them either. It's a move that would satisfy the extremists on his side but pretty much cause a political tsunami against Democrats who continued to support Obama.

Comments

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Ok, the Supremacy Clause says that even though the Federal government respects States Rights -- the rights of the States do not supercede Federal laws or protections.

The Arizona law which essentially legalizes racial profiling would be an attempt to supercede a number of Rights, aka Federal protections.

This is **upholding** the rule of law....not ignoring it.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Look - here's the text:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

“ 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. ”

"legalizes racial profiling"

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

The Arizona law doesn't do that.

Next?

8 U.S.C. § 1304 : US Code - Section 1304

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VII/1304

Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times
carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate
of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to
him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails
to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined
not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or
both.


That seems very similar to the AZ law.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The AZ law does not in any way supersede Federal law.

Chessdev speaks truth.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Not that RH will care: truth is his/her anathema.

[anadinboy.livejournal.com]

if its such a federal law AZ should insist the fbi investigate every illegal lol

[hey-its-michael.livejournal.com]

What's an "illegal"?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The Constitution states that the federal government is the superior authority to the state government. If Shrub had done this you bastards would have found 1,000 justifcations for it. Instead a Democrat seeks to uphold the law and you pitch bitch-fits about it. How shocked I am.

The only ones disregarding the law here are Jan Brewer and her company.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Here's a question for you who say this law is not racial profiling-would the Federal government define a woman who looks more like Salma Hayek or Cameron Diaz as "looking like an illegal immigrant?".

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

If Shrub had done this you bastards would have found 1,000 justifcations for it.

Wrong again.

Obama is violating the Constitution, not upholding the law. There is no law stating that the federal government should sue any state that chooses to enforce the law. That would be silly, wouldn't it?

[miniaya.livejournal.com]

There are already several lawsuits challenging this law. This is just politically motivated and a waste of taxpayer money.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Just like the Brown v. Board lawsuit was as well, I'm guessing? Or the case of Miranda v. Arizona? How dreadful, a federal government insisting that the 4th Amendment be enforced. Next thing you know this abomination termed the Rule of Law will mean we'll all be vowing to Comrade Lenin's corpse.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

They likely have standing issues, making it difficult for them to challenge on supremacy grounds.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

No, protecting the rights of citizens is NEVER a waste of taxpayer money.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

So is this the lowest Obama and Holder can go or will we see worse by November?

I certainly hope not. Anything you guys don't like I want Obama to do more of.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

"You guys"?

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

Seriously, every time I find myself becoming disappointed with how moderate Obama is being, I see how much the far right hates him, and I realize that he MUST be doing better than I thought.

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

I have already very carefully documented how AZ Bill 2162 mirrors federal law.

http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/521199.html

The OP made some excellents points back then.

Now to the specific charges against this law by the Federal Government

Profiling:

A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution

This text from the AZ law shows a greater respect than 8 U.S.C. § 1304 : US Code - Section 1304 which does not say that a Federal Law enforcement officer may not consider race,color, or nation of origin before demanding their papers that they must keep on them at all times, per the law.

Supremacy Clause would have to show me how the AZ law contracts the Federal law. I can not find t hat contractition. In fact, I believe they are pretty much the same law. With the caveat of the Powers to Arrest. However, this power has not always been solely in the hands of Officers who report to the Attorney General. In 1996, the U.S. trained local officers to enforce national immigration laws under the 287(g) program

I believe this is a classic case of demagoguery over leadership.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

So answer this question-if a group of blond illegal Latinas is talking next to a group of long-term citizens of the United States whose ancestors have resided here since before the Gadsen Purchase who are swarthy and dark-haired, who is more likely to be asked to show papers?

[jellomarx.livejournal.com]

Every time I think I'm out reality Hammer pulls me back in again.

"a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute" and that a conflict will be found either where compliance with both federal and state law is impossible or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 631 (1982).

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Looks like an unfounded lawsuit to me then.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

Right or wrong, the teacher isn't going to send the principal to detention.

[chemchick.livejournal.com]

Yeah this is kind of where I'm at.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Arizona isn't creating immigration laws, it is explicitly enabling state law enforcement personnel to enforce the laws established by the federal government.

This has been recognized by both the federal courts and the DOJ as valid wrt immigration.

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/immstopo1a.htm

[singlethink.livejournal.com]

1. Obama is not violating the constitution. Nobody has ever violated the constitution by filing a lawsuit. You can say it is political or whatever but don't be so melodramatic. It makes you look silly.

2. The law is barely in effect. I'd bet its a facial challenge to the law. The law outright bans racial profiling. I can't imagine this lawsuit winning on a facial challenge because facially it is constitutional. It might get struck down as an "as applied" case; however, I'm not sure because that would essentially be saying that the American immigration laws are unenforceable.

3. I'm not sure how this goes against the supremacy clause. The OP makes a good point in relation to this issue.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Obama is violating the Constitution by breaching the contract that exists between the federal government and the state of Arizona. Filing a lawsuit is not the sum total of his behavior.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Do Obama and Holder really think they can pull off something so egregiously anti-American?

That ^ made me laugh. Thanks. :)

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Didn't you know? Obama was sent by the commies to destroy Amurrkka! He's a spy!

[montanaisaleg.livejournal.com]

While I'm pretty sure this is a move motivated by political concerns more than anything else, how is Obama disregarding the rule of law? He's challenging it in court. That's very much within the rule of law. Heck, it's almost the definition of "rule of law." If the courts rule against him and he ignores their decision, that's disregard for the rule of law. If he didn't bother with a lawsuit and somehow tried to prevent the enforcement of the AZ law, that's probably disregard for the rule of law. But disregard for your legal opinion != disregard for the rule of law.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Obama, as a "scholar" of the Constitution should be aware that previous court decisions and the DOJ's own analysis support Arizona's actions. At this point in time Obama is violating the law by ignoring the federal government's obligation to execute existing laws.