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

[usekh.livejournal.com]

I might have some faith, but then I actually read up on the daily abuses by policemen. Seriously, every new power police get they abuse. How can you argue otherwise unless you are blind to what is going on? I mean do you read news papers? watch the news? even if you never get beyond corporate media it is all over.

[kenderkin.livejournal.com]

Yes....I actually do read up on what's going on. I don't just listen to the main stream media spout their negative comments and their only reporting the negative news.
You do realize that there are a lot of really GOOD things that happen in this world. More so than the negative. But since that doesn't bring the ratings, the news doesn't cover it.

Hate to break it to you....but for every one bad cop, there are 100 doing their job to the best of their ability. Saving our lives. Protecting our streets.

Maybe YOU need to actually figure out what's going on in the world around you. There's much more good than bad if you just look.

[miniaya.livejournal.com]

I agree with you! :D This comment wins the gold star for the day. (http://s19.photobucket.com/albums/b158/mini852/?action=view&current=1040078pjtfxwjzwi.gif)

The existence of good does not negate the existence of evil, and vice versa.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

And even if your estimate of 1 in a hundred is right (and I suspect that it is) it's still far too many in and of itself, much less entrusting the civil liberties and rights of an entire state to a vague new law that reads like its designed to encourage racial profiling.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

That's not much comfort to those who have had their dog shot by abusive policemen. Or their grandmother tasered. Or been beaten up, and imprisoned for their trouble. Or killed for interfering with police run drug dealing syndicates

Police should be given the absolute minimum of power as they have shown they can't be trusted with it. We don't live in a happy shiny world. We cannot presume that police will not abuse powers, because it is factually evident that they do.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

The thing is, can you really find probable cause in someone not being able to procure a driver's license upon request? (for some other offense other than driving without a license?) I've left the house multiple times after leaving my wallet in my old pants. I've just been fortunate not to have been pulled over when that's happened, but if I had been, there's no more evidence to suggest I'm guilty of anything more than simply driving without a license, which I should be charged with.

Barring anything which can be assumed to be probable cause of being in the country illegally, other factors will filter into the estimation, and they won't be pretty. They're not going to investigate every person without ID. The good cops will avoid using the law rather than run the risk, neutering any of its intended effect, and the bad cops will abuse it, and cost the state in legal fees. This is pretty much a nightmare waiting to happen, if it doesn't get struck down first. It's an ill-conceived attempt to solve a problem.

[miniaya.livejournal.com]

Just because you have a differing opinion then someone doesn't mean you should be condescending and rude.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

Asserting that police abuse their powers is not an opinion. It is a matter of record.

[miniaya.livejournal.com]

Agreed, but insinuating that someone is out of touch with reality just because they have a different viewpoint is condescending. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, and I apologize if you didn't, but when I read your comment that is how it sounded. And by no means am I trying to imply that I am better, or have never made rude comments. Because goodness knows I've been rude to several people on here. ^^;;

[usekh.livejournal.com]

If they pretty much admit they ignore reality, then well having it pointed out is probably what you should expect.