Was the Supreme Court's Decision on Arizona's Immigration Law Appropriate or Unjust?
SodaHead News
2012/06/25 20:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
266 votes
|
|
48% | |||
|
293 votes
|
|
52% | |||
The Supreme Court has finally come to a decision concerning Arizona's controversial immigration laws, put into effect in 2010. They struck down most aspects of the law, chiefly those dealing with how illegal immigrants are punished. However, the Court upheld the most controversial part of law -- the part that requires officers to check immigration status at lawful stops under reasonable suspicion.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The national government has significant power to regulate immigration. Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermined federal law." Do you think the Supreme Court handled the case appropriately? Or did it use its power unfairly?
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The national government has significant power to regulate immigration. Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermined federal law." Do you think the Supreme Court handled the case appropriately? Or did it use its power unfairly?
Top Opinion
-
Lord Emperor of Dune 2012/06/25 21:12:01Appropriate
+21It's appropriate that they check, but unjust that they aren't just dumped back out into the desert. Every dollar we spend mollycoddling illegals is a dollar that could be spent on an American in need. Why don't we treat illegals like they are illegal?
Although the case in question is the Arizona immigration law, the real issue is the federal government's deliberate non-enforcement of its own laws.
As Kennedy says, "...the state may not pursue policies that undermined federal law." That would make sense -- if the federal government was actually enforcing the law. What the SCOTUS does not address (at least not in this case) is the concept of the federal government undermining federal law. If the federal government abandons its duties, what happens then?
but i see a storm cloud moving in on this subject if the Obozo One gets re-elected!!!!
its till broken gang. need to stop the influx of illegals for the dems program of new illegal voters.
I hope I'm wrong.
If it happens, it'll make the Civil War look like a cakewalk.
But I just don't see people staying willing to keep going the direction America seems intent on now.
But yes, I think it will happen. I think if it does not, we are all screwed.
Article 1, Section 8 - POWERS OF CONGRESS. Deals with Naturalization, not the same as border enforcement at all.
Article 4, Section 4 - REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. Deals with the Federal Government being OBLIGATED to protect each of the several states from INVASION.
Amendment 10 STATES RIGHTS.
You should reference them. Arizona and Jan Brewer were very much within their Sovereign State RIGHTS.
And FYI, reference also U.S.C. Section 8. Congress already DOES have these laws on the books, how to deal with Foreign National Aliens - and the Fed WON'T adhere and follow them!
Now this!!!: http://www.washingtontimes.co...
The Washington Times is a rightist neo-con rag, with no more integrity than Breitbart's blog. Doesn't really matter what you post anyway, the high court has spoken.
And DUH-UH they ruled that way, because if Arizona were allowed to make immigration law, then all states could write their own laws. Then you would have a patchwork of different immigration laws in every state. It's under FEDERAL authority for a reason.
You also seem to think you've read the Constitution. The Supreme Court and NO ONE ELSE interprets the Constitution. Did you read that part of the Constitution Einstein?
EDIT: Awwww you lost the debate so you blocked me and ran away, just like a typical conservative jerkoff. If you're a sore loser over a little debate, what on earth are you going to do when Obama wins in November AGAIN...you're a pathetic whiny little b*tch.
The Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Tenth Amendment says only certain things are regulate by the state, . Plus, on several rulings, the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the idea that the states can nullify federal law.
In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), in United States v. Darby 312 U.S. 100 (1941), in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992),the Supreme Court of the United States held that federal law prevails over state law due to the operation of the Supremacy Clause, and that federal law "can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes . . . ." Thus, state laws purporting to nullify federal statutes or to exempt states and their citizens from federal statutes have only symbolic impact.
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. ...
The Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Tenth Amendment says only certain things are regulate by the state, . Plus, on several rulings, the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the idea that the states can nullify federal law.
In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), in United States v. Darby 312 U.S. 100 (1941), in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992),the Supreme Court of the United States held that federal law prevails over state law due to the operation of the Supremacy Clause, and that federal law "can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes . . . ." Thus, state laws purporting to nullify federal statutes or to exempt states and their citizens from federal statutes have only symbolic impact.
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So, this is a federal issue, not state. Learn how to read.
He's right from the looney bin.
Last time I checked, the Constitution does not mention immigration.
Which means the feds have absolutely no authority here. Except what we allow them to steal from us.
May I refer you to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It says all Naturalized Citizens. That means people that were NOT born in the United States, which means IMMIGRATION.
No state has the right to make immigration policy .......period.
Anyway the Constitution does mention immigration so you were quite mistaken in that respect.
We *each* interpret the Constitution. And decide how long we're going to let the Supreme Court keep getting away with letting the rest of the federal government destroy our freedom and totally ignore the Constitution.
As long as the evils are sufferable, we will keep suffering them.
Pretending it isn't evil because some statists in black robes said so is just pathetic.
On a somewhat related note, I can't help but express my dismay at SHs who can't write the words "Citizens United" w/o their lips curling in scorn at what they feel is the manifestly unprincipled bias of the majority decision therein, who now turn to many of their SH confreres who were disappointed by the Arizona case and say "Well, the Court has spoken, isn't it great that now we know what the real law is?'