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]

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. ”

And?

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Red herring is red herring.

Re: And?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And you miss the point entirely. This law usurps the fourth and fourteenth amendments. Not that the Right-Wing cares overmuch about the 4th Amendment as it is, though......

Re: And?

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

It doesn't do that.

Repeat as often as necessary.

Re: And?

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Truth be damned, you'll repeat your mantra as often as necessary...

Re: And?

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Exactly what you're trying to do. At least you're admitting it in your own special way.

Re: And?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

So explain to me why it doesn't, and also explain to me what constitutional provisions this violates, given that the Constitution allows this kind of case to go before the USSC itself.

Re: And?

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

I don't have to prove a negative. If state laws that criminalized activity/enforced federal laws by definition (as Obama and Holder are maintaining) then there couldn't be any state laws against bank robbery, etc.

This will garner a huge smack down from whatever judge has to explain the Constitution to our resident "Constitutional scholar". *eyeroll*

Re: And?

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Absent proof that it does any reasonable person can and should decide that.

At least in a law-abiding society.

You've got the correct approach, bro:

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

A lie repeated 100 times becomes truth. A known fact.

Re: You've got the correct approach, bro:

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

A tactic successful 98.3% of the time.

[puf-almighty.livejournal.com]

Eh. Also from Wikipedia:

Arizona HB 2162
On April 30, the Arizona legislature passed, and Governor Brewer signed, House Bill 2162, which modified the law that had been signed a week earlier, with the amended text stating that "prosecutors would not investigate complaints based on race, color or national origin."[22] The new text also states that police may only investigate immigration status incident to a "lawful stop, detention, or arrest", lowers the original fine from a minimum of $500 to a maximum of $100, and changes incarceration limits from 6 months to 20 days for first-time offenders.[17]

Have you read the bill? It's scary, and I have no doubt that it's being used to fuck with people who don't necessarily deserve to be fucked with, just like a lot of other laws. But it doesn't explicitly legalize racial profiling.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

We've already been through this...

lawful stop is a bit of a low threshold for asking immigration status.
You can be "stopped" for failure to signal to change lanes.


and you seem to forget that Sheriff Joe already has had numerous run-ins of discrimination cases with his department, so it's more than "possible" people will be f**ked with by these laws.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Since we've already been through this you have no excuse for claiming it is about racial profiling.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

So you basically ignored everything I just said above...

typical.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

I correctly concluded that you learned nothing about the law, logic and the Constitution from the last time this subject was brought up.

You've had ample time to demonstrate that the law violates this or that magical belief you have but for some reason you haven't.

Oh yeah, because you don't have any evidence to support your nonsensical claims.

[puf-almighty.livejournal.com]

You mean it is more than possible that Sherriff Joe is being used to fuck with people.

And I agree that the problem is that you can be stopped for too much.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

and yes, I have read the bill....

you can be "stopped" for almost anything under this law, and once stopped -- the interrogation is on.

Again, considering the history in Arizona leading up to this point -- it is not "academic" that this law *may* be abused....it's pretty forgone that it will be abused.

Dont forget American citizens will be harassed by this as well....and wrongfully so.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Again, your fevered imagination about what might happen is neither fact nor evidence.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I can guarantee you they won't be stopping any blond people who speak a foreign language.....ironically I doubt they'd arrest Cameron Diaz under a law like this.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Since they can't determine language until after a stop has been initiated they won't be stopping anyone because of what language(s) they speak.

[xforge.livejournal.com]

Nope, they'll be stopping brown people who have dark hair and brown eyes.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

You'll be as wrong about this as you are most everything else.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

You... you mean... i can go to Arizona now?