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

[miniaya.livejournal.com]

I evaded the question because it deviated from the topic at hand (my original comment). Whether you are for or against the law is irrelevant, having several lawsuits (that are exactly the same) all challenging the law is a waste of time and money. Period.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No, you evaded it because you refuse to answer it. Now, answer the damn question. Will Cameron Diaz or Cote de Pablo be the more likely target? And Brown v. Board was a Supreme Court decision that was in response to lumping together multiple independent cases, too......

[miniaya.livejournal.com]

No, you evaded it because you refuse to answer it.

No, I evaded it for the reason I stated. Why would I lie about that?

Now, answer the damn question.

Alright. I think if you are here legally then it doesn't matter.

And Brown v. Board was a Supreme Court decision...

I'm not familiar with that case. I have to research it.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

"Alright. I think if you are here legally then it doesn't matter."

I always have a problem with this. It's just another repackaging of "if you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about" line of reasoning.

It's only "ok" if you assume you don't have the right to be left alone, or the presumption of innocence. Which of course, you as well as everyone else, is entitled to out of respect for the dignity of your person.

[miniaya.livejournal.com]

I understand what you are saying. I just wrote that down as a half assed response to underlankers because he was bugging me to give him an "answer". The truth is I don't have an answer because I can see it from both sides. Something *needs* to be done because there is clearly a problem, but how we go about it...well... that is debatable. Personalty I am a fan of building a fence around the border, but that isn't going to happen so... *shrugs*