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.
Anyway, enough attempts at derailment. I'm interested to see how this rules.
Even if California is found to be in violation of federal law by a lower court, why would the Supreme Court need to rule? If California is not found to be in violation of federal law, who is going to argue a case before the Court...California? The federal Government?
Not every immigration issue is a constitutional question.
Even if California is found to be in violation of federal law by a lower court, why would the Supreme Court need to rule? If California is not found to be in violation of federal law, who is going to argue a case before the Court...California? The federal Government?
Not every immigration issue is a constitutional question.
Did you read "all" anywhere in any of the above? Did you read "every" in any of the above? If it's heard it's heard. I truly hope that it is.
Even if California is found to be in violation of federal law by a lower court, why would the Supreme Court need to rule? If California is not found to be in violation of federal law, who is going to argue a case before the Court...California? The federal Government?
Not every immigration issue is a constitutional question.
The ruling today is EXACTLY my point. We (as in anti-illegals) need to force EVERY case to the Supreme Court and make them rule on it. Sooner or later maybe the Feds will act if they see enough "ruling" and support to act.
The ruling today is EXACTLY my point. We (as in anti-illegals) need to force EVERY case to the Supreme Court and make them rule on it. Sooner or later maybe the Feds will act if they see enough "ruling" and support to act.
I was confused when I heard of this ruling, because I knew that Arizona was following federal law so I didnt think it was the Obama Admin bringing the suit...
Quote:
The heart of Thursday's decision centered on a few words in a 1986 federal immigration law. It said states and localities could not impose "criminal or civil sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ … authorized aliens."
Correction to the quote..."authorized aliens" reads "unauthorized aliens" in the federal law[ 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(2)].
.
Arizona was following federal law by imposing revocation of licences...This was a bad suit by the feds. The suit was brought by the US Chamber of Commerce.
Last edited by 1751texan; 05-26-2011 at 07:35 PM..
Kris Kobach, the constitutional lawyer who has been the intellectual if not the actual author of many of the state immigration enforcement laws, was elated by the court’s recent decision.
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.
