Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,807,244 times
Reputation: 3587
Advertisements
So Eric Holder, the Attorney General, is making the following argument:
Arizona cannot enforce a law against illegal immigration because only the Federal government can handle illegal immigration.
Taking Holder's stupid logic a step further would render the following:
1. If you rob a Post Office, the state cannot prosecute you for armed robbery because the Post Office is covered by Federal law. Not only can they not prosecute you but the local police cannot even arrest you.
2. States cannot prosecute any drug offenses because drugs are under Federal law.
3. If a conservative terrorist group blows up a Federal building, the state cannot prosecute the crime.
The Federal government, to my knowledge, has never made such a stupid legal argument before. I guess you would accept such stuff from Holder because he is not the brightest bulb on the string but the judge should laugh this out of the court room.
He and obama are doing this for purely political reasons. Since his amnesty initiative is basically dead in the water, he needs to pander to the hispanics, hoping to rile them up in time for the midterms.
His miscalculation: A huge majority of Americans approve of the AZ law and in all likelihood, he will be riling them up as well.
DO NOTICE, holder/obama are NOT claiming discrimination, which is what they've been using in the hyperbole about the law.
He and obama are doing this for purely political reasons. Since his amnesty initiative is basically dead in the water, he needs to pander to the hispanics, hoping to rile them up in time for the midterms.
His miscalculation: A huge majority of Americans approve of the AZ law and in all likelihood, he will be riling them up as well.
DO NOTICE, holder/obama are NOT claiming discrimination, which is what they've been using in the hyperbole about the law.
They were in the press. And that is what the people heard and read.
That is what stuck in their minds...random discriminary stops with a demand for papers (remember Obama gave the example of an Hispanic family going for ice cream being stopped to have their papers checked ?)
Very misleading, very untrue...but that is what the people heard and that is what they believe.
So Eric Holder, the Attorney General, is making the following argument:
Arizona cannot enforce a law against illegal immigration because only the Federal government can handle illegal immigration.
Taking Holder's stupid logic a step further would render the following:
1. If you rob a Post Office, the state cannot prosecute you for armed robbery because the Post Office is covered by Federal law. Not only can they not prosecute you but the local police cannot even arrest you.
2. States cannot prosecute any drug offenses because drugs are under Federal law.
3. If a conservative terrorist group blows up a Federal building, the state cannot prosecute the crime.
The Federal government, to my knowledge, has never made such a stupid legal argument before. I guess you would accept such stuff from Holder because he is not the brightest bulb on the string but the judge should laugh this out of the court room.
They were in the press. And that is what the people heard and read.
That is what stuck in their minds...random discriminary stops with a demand for papers (remember Obama gave the example of an Hispanic family going for ice cream being stopped to have their papers checked ?)
Very misleading, very untrue...but that is what the people heard and that is what they believe.
Well yeah, but when the Fed had to make their case, they suspiciously left that part out, the part they have been demagoguing.
He and obama are doing this for purely political reasons. Since his amnesty initiative is basically dead in the water, he needs to pander to the hispanics, hoping to rile them up in time for the midterms.
His miscalculation: A huge majority of Americans approve of the AZ law and in all likelihood, he will be riling them up as well.
DO NOTICE, holder/obama are NOT claiming discrimination, which is what they've been using in the hyperbole about the law.
It is true that a large portion of the American people approve of the law. It is also true that most Americans consider jobs the top priority. So not only does this rile up Americans on this issue, it also will take focus off what Americans really care about at a critical time - jobs and the economy. Kind of like don't ask when it came out - an issue that takes the focus off the pressing agenda and will end up getting the folks riled squared.
So Eric Holder, the Attorney General, is making the following argument:
Arizona cannot enforce a law against illegal immigration because only the Federal government can handle illegal immigration.
Taking Holder's stupid logic a step further would render the following:
1. If you rob a Post Office, the state cannot prosecute you for armed robbery because the Post Office is covered by Federal law. Not only can they not prosecute you but the local police cannot even arrest you.
2. States cannot prosecute any drug offenses because drugs are under Federal law.
3. If a conservative terrorist group blows up a Federal building, the state cannot prosecute the crime.
The Federal government, to my knowledge, has never made such a stupid legal argument before. I guess you would accept such stuff from Holder because he is not the brightest bulb on the string but the judge should laugh this out of the court room.
Actually, a lot of legal experts don't think it's quite so stupid. This is not a black and white case; there are some good arguments on both sides. But there is precedent from a Constitutional and legal standpoint for Holder's argument, so it's not really so implausible as it may seem to the average layperson.
It sounded to the Law Blog like we were heading toward a big federalism showdown. So we turned to Karl Manheim of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and Erwin Chemerinsky of UC Irvine Law to pregame it for us. Their response: the law is DOA.
The Arizona law appears to be “facially unconstitutional,” Manheim said. “States have no power to pass immigration laws because it’s an attribute of foreign affairs. Just as states can’t have their own foreign policies or enter into treaties, they can’t have their own immigration laws either.”
States have long attempted to regulate immigration and in some instances the federal government successfully challenged state laws in court, including in the 1800s, Manheim said.
But then again, I've read some other professors claiming that the law could make it, in their opinion. It will be interesting to see what they end up deciding.
Last edited by ambient; 07-07-2010 at 02:03 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
