1070 already working (legally, rated, money)

[Ritchie_az]

The funny thing, to me, is the law (1070) is 10 pages long. The judge's preliminary verdict is over 30 pages long. Was there really that much to say about it?
As Ponderosa has said, most of the law remains intact. Some portions have been blocked for now to be ruled on later. It will be interesting to see the picture more clearly when the dust settles.

[Ritchie_az]

1st grade pol science: federal > state > county <> city (its a toss between city and county in practice)

That's actually not what the Founding Fathers intended. It was supposed to be state > federal > county > city. The constitution set aside some very specific and limited roles of the federal government, and said all other powers belong to the states. Over the last 90-100 years, the feds have been overstepping their bounds and giving themselves power that was never meant to be theirs. And we've let them.

[acrylic]

Originally Posted by cityrover

seriously?!

for the same reason AZ cannot declare war on costa rica (as much as you want to). you arent a country.

1st grade pol science: federal > state > county <> city (its a toss between city and county in practice)

There are certain rights and laws that should be up to the state and not dictated by the federal government.

Declaring war and immigration laws are two completely different things to compare.

[DR1665]

What if we took all the unused photo radar cameras off the highways and put them along the border...

[justNancy]

People are always talking about The Constitution when they're screaming about free speech or carrying guns, but they never refer to it as a contract, which is what it is. It's a contract that binds an individual state to the Union. Remember the Preamble? "In order to form a more perfect Union." The 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution guarantees States Rights only if they do not violate the Constitution or any Federal laws.

[Isitmeorarethingsnuts?]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

Arizona Immigration Law: Judge Puts Hold on Key Provisions - ABC News

I'm wondering, if reasonable suspicion was "temporarily blocked", does that mean they don't even need that? Or will some other wording take it's place, like "doubly-extra-reasonable suspicion"? Or something else entirely?
I don't mind that the part requiring federal immigration papers be carried was "temporarily blocked", because legal aliens are required to do that under federal law anyway.
What else was "temporarily blocked"?

I am not a lawyer and haven't even watched Perry Mason for several years but I think I agree with you on this. It may not be as important what she took out as what she left in.

If reasonable suspicion is out but the Federal Law is still in, that seems interesting. And if sancutary cities can be fined, that too seems interesting. And if LE can be sued for not enforcing the law...could be very interesting.

I'm anxious to hear from someone with more of a legal mind than my own, but it seems like some pretty controversial issues remain intact.

I'm wondering if citizens couldn't sue Dept of Homeland Security if they are involved in a traffic accident with an illegal and suffer damages since Homeland security isn't securing the border.(just an example) I've read that you can't sue the Feds as a whole but you can sue departments of the government. Again, my lack of legal knowledge so please, no one hold me to it, I've already stated I'm unsure.

The ruling may not have been all of what Arizona wanted or needed but it seems as though it may show some progress. JMHO

[cityrover]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

That's actually not what the Founding Fathers intended. It was supposed to be state > federal > county > city. The constitution set aside some very specific and limited roles of the federal government, and said all other powers belong to the states. Over the last 90-100 years, the feds have been overstepping their bounds and giving themselves power that was never meant to be theirs. And we've let them.

thats a different issue and a bill giving local uneducated le the power of god while giving repubs votes in the upcoming elections is NOT the way to solve this, the illegals or any other issue come to think of it

[cityrover]

Originally Posted by acrylic

There are certain rights and laws that should be up to the state and not dictated by the federal government.

Declaring war and immigration laws are two completely different things to compare.

No.

The states do not decide who they let in or who they kick out of the country. Free movement within the country is inherent.

At the national border, it is the federal governments explicit jurisdiction to manage the flow of goods and people.

they are the same in the sense that a state gets to do n e i t h e r

[Ritchie_az]

thats a different issue and a bill giving local uneducated le

No need to call law enforcement officers "uneducated". Just because you don't agree with 1070 doesn't mean you should belittle police officers.

The states do not decide who they let in or who they kick out of the country.

Arizona does not kick anyone out of the country nor did 1070 give them that right.

[acrylic]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

Arizona does not kick anyone out of the country nor did 1070 give them that right.

Exactly.



So that's why it's so worrisome to me that state laws can be shot down and modified like that. Especially since it's a constitutional law.

What will the federal government do next?!