The Fed Sues Arizona: Will They Win?
Futureman
2010/07/06 20:54:59
|
|
|||||
|
4 votes
|
|
16% | ||
|
17 votes
|
|
68% | ||
|
4 votes
|
|
16% | ||
The Justice Department is now filing a lawsuit against the state of Arizona and demanding that they revoke their recent controversial immigration law. The grounds for the lawsuit is that Arizona's law is unconstitutional.
"The states are not permitted to set their own independent immigration policies, with varying and potentially conflicting enforcement systems and priorities. Were a number of states to act as Arizona has and strike out on their own, federal immigration policy and enforcement efforts would be crippled,” writes Assistant Attorney General Tony West, Attorney Dennis K. Burke, and others.
Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky stated this concerning the actions of the Justice Department, "Suing the people of Arizona for attempting to do a job the federal government has utterly failed to execute will not help secure our borders."
What's missing from McConnell's statement is the justification of the law to be constitutional.
The question here is not whether or not you agree with Arizona's immigration law, but whether you think the Justice Department has a case. It's interesting to note that not once does the lawsuit address the issue of racial discrimination - which has been the focus of many in opposition of the law.
Do you think the Justice Department will win in its lawsuit against Arizona?
Tags: Arizona, immigration, Jan Brewer, Justice Department, lawsuit, case, Mexico, constitution, unconstitutional, boarder control, discrimination, immigrants, citizenship, law, bill, 2010.
"The states are not permitted to set their own independent immigration policies, with varying and potentially conflicting enforcement systems and priorities. Were a number of states to act as Arizona has and strike out on their own, federal immigration policy and enforcement efforts would be crippled,” writes Assistant Attorney General Tony West, Attorney Dennis K. Burke, and others.
Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky stated this concerning the actions of the Justice Department, "Suing the people of Arizona for attempting to do a job the federal government has utterly failed to execute will not help secure our borders."
What's missing from McConnell's statement is the justification of the law to be constitutional.
The question here is not whether or not you agree with Arizona's immigration law, but whether you think the Justice Department has a case. It's interesting to note that not once does the lawsuit address the issue of racial discrimination - which has been the focus of many in opposition of the law.
Do you think the Justice Department will win in its lawsuit against Arizona?
Tags: Arizona, immigration, Jan Brewer, Justice Department, lawsuit, case, Mexico, constitution, unconstitutional, boarder control, discrimination, immigrants, citizenship, law, bill, 2010.
Top Opinion
-
Fef 2010/07/06 21:00:11No. The case the Justice Department is making about Arizona's law being uncon...
+6President Obama and AG Eric Holder have slightly backed off the issue once they read the actual 10-page law. I don't see how they can call it unconstitutional since it mirrors federal law. But, the Democrats and Obama will challenge the law since they want to push "comprehensive immigration reform" to get more Democrat votes.
Succeed from the union if Feds won't do their job. I'm sure Texas will follow then more of us can get onboard. Its time take this country back and steer it back on coarse rather than going over the cliff.
He doesn't care about federal law pre- empting state law or he'd go after all of the sanctuary cities with laws prohibiting law enforcement from enforcing federal law on this. The AZ law doesn't contradict federal law and the AZ law doesn't provide for law enforcement doing anything but asking for documentation and informing the feds. In my opinion it is in line with federal law.
The best idea I've heared is to hold the next thousand illegals entering the U.S. and put them in Prison for one year. The next thousand get 2 years in prison for first offense, those with 2-4 offenses get 5 years in prison for each offense, and anybody that has been caught more than five times gets 50 years! that should stop and the rest will leave! Problem solved because the ones in prison will be doing hard labor working on chain gangs in the fields to pay for their time in prison. No More Free Rides! No Whinning Allowed because this will apply to any illegal caught in this from any country!
TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > § 3002
Prev | Next § 3002. Definitions
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the "Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia." This is also known as the "Act of 1871." What does this mean? Wel...
TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > § 3002
Prev | Next § 3002. Definitions
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the "Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia." This is also known as the "Act of 1871." What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land.
What??? How could they do that? Moreover, WHY would they do that? To explain, let's look at the circumstances of those days. The Act of 1871 was passed at a vulnerable time in America. Our nation was essentially bankrupt — weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Civil War itself was nothing more than a calculated "front" for some pretty fancy footwork by corporate backroom players. It was a strategic maneuver by European interests (the international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the neck (and the coffers) of America.
The Congress realized our country was in dire financial straits, so they cut a deal with the international bankers — (in those days, the Rothschilds of London were dipping their fingers into everyone's pie) thereby incurring a DEBT to said bankers. If we think about banks, we know they do not just lend us money out of the goodness of their hearts. A bank will not do anything for you unless it is entirely in their best interest to do so. There has to be some sort of collateral or some string attached which puts you and me (the borrower) into a subservient position. This was true back in 1871 as well. The conniving international bankers were not about to lend our floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a brilliant way of getting their foot in the door of the United States (a prize they had coveted for some time, but had been unable to grasp thanks to our Founding Fathers, who despised them and held them in check), and thus, the Act of 1871 was passed.
In essence, this Act formed the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Note the capitalization, because it is important. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, moved right in and shoved the original "organic" version of the Constitution into a dusty corner. With the "Act of 1871," our Constitution was defaced in the sense that the title was block-capitalized and the word "for" was changed to the word "of" in the title. The original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers, was written in this manner:
"The Constitution for the united states of America".
The altered version reads: "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA". It is the corporate constitution. It is NOT the same document you might think it is. The corporate constitution operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it is the same parchment that governs the Republic. It absolutely is not.
http://www.serendipity.li/jsm...
So who is really UnConstitutional?
I hope the Justice Department fails.
Nothing wrong with the bill, leave it alone.