ext_38958 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
reality-hammer.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2010-07-06 04:50 pm
reality-hammer.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2010-07-06 04:50 pm
Entry tags:
Obama sues Arizona
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.
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.
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.
no subject
Federal Law Regarding State and Local Police Enforcement of Immigration Laws
Legislative provisions relating to civil immigration law enforcement by state and local police were included in two 1996 laws, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA).
AEDPA authorized state and local police to arrest and detain persons who are unlawfully present in the United States after being deported and who have “previously been convicted of a felony in the United States.” These persons would be deportable based on their criminal behavior, and their re-entry into the U.S. is itself an immigration crime.
IIRIRA authorized state and local police to enforce civil immigration laws in two very specific situations. IIRIRA amended an earlier version of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that outlined state and local police roles in addressing a “mass influx of aliens.” The law now authorizes state and local police to enforce civil immigration laws when all of the following conditions are met: there is a “mass influx” of foreign nationals; the situation requires an immediate response from the federal government; and federal officials obtain the consent of the state or local supervising department.
IIRIRA also established a mechanism whereby the attorney general could delegate immigration law enforcement authorities to state and local police, provided the officers have undergone adequate training and have entered into a formal agreement with the Department of Justice. A Memorandum of Agreement is required between the state or locality and the Justice Department before the former can exercise any new immigration law enforcement powers. The MOA process (specified in section 287(g) of the INA) includes safeguards designed to ensure the integrity of local enforcement of federal civil laws and specifies that such arrangements are possible only when they do not supersede state or local laws that prohibit such arrangements. Each agreement is also very specific about what laws police can and cannot enforce. (http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/Backgrounder-StateLocalEnforcement.pdf)