If there’s any suit on shakier legal grounds than Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s suit challenging Obamacare, it would be U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s suit seeking to block the Arizona immigration law.
Oddly enough, Holder does not challenge the law based on any kind of illegal discrimination. Instead, Holder claims that, despite Arizona simply questioning illegal immigrants' status and doing so at its own expense, the law somehow places greater burdens on federal agencies charged with immigration enforcement thus “diverting their resources from high-priority targets.”
Oddly enough, Holder does not challenge the law based on any kind of illegal discrimination. Instead, Holder claims that, despite Arizona simply questioning illegal immigrants' status and doing so at its own expense, the law somehow places greater burdens on federal agencies charged with immigration enforcement thus “diverting their resources from high-priority targets.”
If it's not enough that immigration enforcement is not among the Administration’s “high-priority targets," which is in itself a very disturbing admission, Holder adds insult to injury by grossly overstating both the Administration's efforts at border control and the impact of the Arizona law.
Oh, wait, maybe it’s just that Holder didn’t read the law yet.
Press release. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/July/10-opa-776.html
Complaint. http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/az-complaint.pdf
Brief in support of prelimary injunction http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/pi-brief.pdf
Press release. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/July/10-opa-776.html
Complaint. http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/az-complaint.pdf
Brief in support of prelimary injunction http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/pi-brief.pdf
Lloyd - do you really want to live in your own world?
ReplyDeleteThis is a simple case. The Federal govt is empowered IN THE CONSTITUTION with Immigration - and not the states.
Isn't that what the Fed Govt case is?
What part of the Constitution do you not agree with?
I thought you conservative types argued for strict reading of the Constitution?
Or is that only for the things you want and then you switch the argument the other way around when it suits you?
:-)
Obviously, you didn't read the Arizona law either. It's not controlling immigration like the Feds are supposed to do, but, rather, simply requiring documentation of legal status.
ReplyDelete"....simply requiring documentation of legal status"
ReplyDelete... of what? US residency?
which is defined in the Constitution as a power reserved to the Feds..... The Supremacy Clause
So there is an Arizona Law to enforce a Federal Law?
and we have this going on at the same time that Cuccinelli is saying the Feds can't deduct payroll taxes for health care even though they can for SS and Medicare?
You guys claim to be "strict" Constitutionalists but in reality it appears to me that ya'll just want to rule the way you want to .. and hang the Constitution.. if it gets in the way..
tsk tsk
Larry, show me the specific provision of the AZ law that conflicts with anything in federal law.
ReplyDeleteLloyd - wouldn't this be like the local cops arresting someone for breaking any Federal Law?
ReplyDeleteSo you set up a local "sting" to catch folks cheating on their Federal Taxes or violating Interstate commerce laws?
Besides that - are you going to tell me that the protocol that Arizona is using to determine who might be illegals is the same protocol that the Feds use?
and if the Feds used it would it be subject to racial profiling restrictions?