Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Judge Stays Parts of Arizona Law

Judge Stays Parts of Arizona Law
Thread Tools
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2010, 02:23 PM
 
If the feds don't have the resources to defend the border, they won't have the resources to defend the ruling. Arizona should force a constitutional confrontation and enforce the new law despite the ruling.
( Last edited by Orion27; Jul 28, 2010 at 05:46 PM. )
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2010, 03:22 PM
 
And Arizona should overthrow the US government and secede.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
TheoCryst
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2010, 04:39 PM
 
Honestly, I almost expect a major confrontation. Hopefully it doesn't come to that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it does.

I spent thirteen years in Arizona, so my speculation has some observations to back it up. And I'm not fully convinced that, if the SCOTUS strikes down the law (which I fully expect them to do), that Sheriff Joe will just go home with his tail between his legs and accept their ruling.

Any ramblings are entirely my own, and do not represent those of my employers, coworkers, friends, or species
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2010, 04:54 PM
 
This will really piss off the voters. What else can the Dems do to lose elections? does Obama know he isn't upholding his oath of office? Making the AG NOT enforce these laws is a bad move, and will be back to haunt them in November.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2010, 07:11 PM
 
There's a federal judge in Arizona named 'Obama'?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2010, 07:29 AM
 
Duh... The Obama admin obviously influenced the AZ judge. I guess If AZ's law in somehow flawed, then isn't the Federal law flawed?
I still hope other states will adopt the AZ law and lets see how uniform the judgments from those activist judges across the country are.
     
kylef
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Northern Ireland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2010, 09:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
There's a federal judge in Arizona named 'Obama'?


Advocates of the new law have screws loose. Overlook the preamble and first amendment and just see the second amendment (not that the latter has anything to do immigration - but I can't help but notice most advocates are Reps).
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2010, 09:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Duh... The Obama admin obviously influenced the AZ judge. I guess If AZ's law in somehow flawed, then isn't the Federal law flawed?
I still hope other states will adopt the AZ law and lets see how uniform the judgments from those activist judges across the country are.
Do you know how federalism works? Sovereign powers are divided between the federal government and the states. If a state is doing something that the federal government is supposed to do, then the state's actions are flawed, even if those actions at the federal level are not flawed. The court's ruling in this case agreed with the Obama administration's claim that AZ's law would interfere with federal law enforcement.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2010, 10:27 AM
 
Parts of the law was stayed until further ruling. Big deal. We all know this is far from over and I'd rather just see this go the SC and have precedent set and be done with it.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2010, 12:20 PM
 
From Mark Levin - Constitutional Lawyer, etc:

Mark Levin: An Abominable Decision | Facebook


An Abominable Decision


This is a typical example of a judge stating the correct legal standard, but then ignoring it and applying the test in a fashion completely divorced from the facts of the case in order to reach a predetermined decision.

First, the court states correctly that the sort of constitutional challenge brought here — a facial challenge — is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully. It requires that the plaintiff (here the federal government) must demonstrate that the law can never be applied in a constitutional fashion. The test cannot be met with hypothetical arguments — yet that is exactly what the court relies on in its ruling: the assertion that the AZ law will impose an impermissible burden on law enforcement, which is to determine the legal status of a person detained pursuant to the AZ law on the reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. The court does not provide any empirical basis to support its conclusion. It’s pure supposition.

As the court notes, the burden a party must meet when engaging in a facial challenge of a given statute is established in United States v. Salerno. The court pays lip service to Salerno at the beginning of its analysis on the “likelihood of success on the merits,” but then proceeds to ignore the Salerno principles.

The court cites Salerno when it notes: “A facial challenge must fail where a statute has a ‘plainly legitimate sweep.’” In deciding a facial challenge, courts “must be careful not to go beyond the statute’s facial requirements and speculate about ‘hypothetical’ or imaginary cases.” Then the court doesn’t even attempt to actually analyze the provisions it overturns within the Salerno context, except in one instance — in fn. 18 — where it upholds a provision of SB 1070.

Distinguish the facial challenge from an as-applied challenge. At one point the court engages in a hypothetical example, when it talks about a potential unfair burden on a legal alien failing to have a dog on a leash, wondering whether he could be detained and subject to an impermissible burden for not carrying his papers under that circumstance. (The court talks about John Doe, a legal alien from Chile who was walking his dog without a leash and was stopped by Sheriff Smith and detained at the local jail for eight hours while his status was checked. It didn’t actually happen.)

The judge also worries that increasing the time a person is detained while his immigration status is being determined might be unconstitutional. Again, pure speculation. (Moreover, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has already found that such a delay is permissible where there is reasonable suspicion to check a person’s status.)

In the bulk of its legal analysis, the court applies a selective reading of the case to an incomplete reading of the statute. In particular, respecting the provision related to confirming a person’s legal status, the court largely ignores the requirement that law-enforcement officers are able to confirm a person’s legal status only where there is a reasonable suspicion that a person is in the country illegally. The judge essentially omits the reasonable-suspicion component of the law and concludes that the act implements a new set of immigration rules particular to Arizona, in violation of a case called Hines v. Davidowitz.

Hines is an old case dealing with a vastly different Pennsylvania law. Here’s what the Hines court correctly concluded: “The question whether a state law is invalid as conflicting with Federal laws touching the same subject is not to be determined according to any rigid formula or rule, but depends upon whether, under the circumstances of the particular case, the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”



The Pennsylvania act required every alien 18 years or over, with certain exceptions, to register once each year; provide such information as is required by the statute, plus any “other information and details” that the Department of Labor and Industry may direct; pay $1 as an annual registration fee; receive an alien identification card and carry it at all times; show the card whenever it may be demanded by any police officer or agent of the Department of Labor and Industry, and exhibit the card as a condition precedent to registering a motor vehicle in his name or obtaining a license to operate one. The Department of Labor and Industry is charged with the duties of classifying the registrations for “the purpose of ready reference,” and furnishing a copy of the classification to the Pennsylvania Motor Police. Nonexempt aliens who fail to register are subject to a fine of not more than $100 or imprisonment for not more than 60 days, or both. For failure to carry an identification card or for failure to show it upon proper demand, the punishment is a fine of not more than $10, or imprisonment for not more than 10 days, or both.

“Our conclusion,” said the court, “is that [the challenger of the PA law] is correct in his contention that the power to restrict, limit, regulate, and register aliens as a distinct group is not an equal and continuously existing concurrent power of state and nation, but that whatever power a state may have is subordinate to supreme national law.” Hines does not support the court’s conclusion respecting the AZ statute. That case clearly deals with an entirely new legal regime. AZ’s statute merely complements the federal statutory scheme.

Amazingly, today’s decision does not provide any substantive analysis of the very high standards required for mounting a successful facial challenge. The judge thinks certain events or difficulties will occur, and then uses her thoughts as a substitute for empirical evidence. The fact is that the AZ law does not create any new or additional federal responsibilities. It does not establish any new or inconsistent obligations for aliens legally or illegally residing in or otherwise found in Arizona. And. unlike the Hines case so prominent in the court’s ruling, Arizona’s law does not establish any new or extra forms, registration procedures, or other obligations for aliens, legal or illegal.

Respecting preemption, which is the substantive core of the federal government’s case, once again the court presents no evidence in support of its conclusion that AZ is likely to impermissibly interfere with federal law on multiple fronts, including the requirement that aliens carry papers or that state and local law enforcement may undertake constitutionally proper inquiries into the legal status of those they stop. AZ isn’t requiring the federal government to do anything. The federal government can choose not to take AZ’s calls and not cooperate. The court has essentially parroted the federal government’s claims about burdens.

Moreover, the federal government does not “occupy the field” in any event. Indeed, as a matter of federal law and long-standing practice, it encourages states to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law — both in practice and law. In fact, it relies heavily on them.

Federal preemption can be either express or implied: express where the Constitution says so (declaration of war), implied by conflict with federal law. In the immigration context, implied preemption exists only 1) if a statute falls into the narrow category of a “regulation of immigration”; 2) if Congress expressed “the clear and manifest purpose"”of completely occupying the field and displacing all state activity; or 3) if the state regulation conflicts with federal laws such that it “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress” (De Canas v. Bica). Federal immigration law does not preempt AZ law, and the authors of the AZ law were well acquainted with the pitfalls they needed to avoid — and avoided them.

I think the word “abomination” does not overstate this court’s decision.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2010, 03:02 PM
 
Is anyone actually surprised by this ruling? It's a no-brainer that immigration law enforcement is under federal jurisdiction per the Constitution.

IMO ... the framers of the Arizona law never expected it to go into effect. Its purpose is to be a political football ... and in that respect it has performed spectacularly.

OAW
     
kylef
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Northern Ireland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2010, 06:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
IMO ... the framers of the Arizona law never expected it to go into effect. Its purpose is to be a political football ... and in that respect it has performed spectacularly.

OAW
Could not agree more. Like any deal anyone tries to make, you start off above expectations and then make it appear like you "settle" and appease for what in fact you wanted originally. In this case, they presented their case a little too overwhelmingly. Democracy at its best or worst?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2010, 07:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Is anyone actually surprised by this ruling? It's a no-brainer that immigration law enforcement is under federal jurisdiction per the Constitution.

IMO ... the framers of the Arizona law never expected it to go into effect. Its purpose is to be a political football ... and in that respect it has performed spectacularly.

OAW
If it takes a few games of football to get our fed to do what they are supposed to, by law,then I'm all for it. Even if it means watching the executive branch draft a judge to be runningback.

Haven taken several legal courses back in the day, I don't see where the preemption doctrine negates the Arizona law. Arizona isn't usurping federal authority but complementing it. If this goes to the SC, the law will be upheld.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2010, 01:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
If it takes a few games of football to get our fed to do what they are supposed to, by law,then I'm all for it. Even if it means watching the executive branch draft a judge to be runningback.

Haven taken several legal courses back in the day, I don't see where the preemption doctrine negates the Arizona law. Arizona isn't usurping federal authority but complementing it. If this goes to the SC, the law will be upheld.
Well if it gets to the SCOTUS we shall see. In the meantime, "securing the border" will take massive resources. Consequently, the more interesting question to me is ... in an era of whopping deficits are those who advocate for this actually serious enough to spend the money that it will take to do so? Or are they just talking?

OAW
     
Orion27  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2010, 01:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Well if it gets to the SCOTUS we shall see. In the meantime, "securing the border" will take massive resources. Consequently, the more interesting question to me is ... in an era of whopping deficits are those who advocate for this actually serious enough to spend the money that it will take to do so? Or are they just talking?

OAW
One of the shared powers of States is law enforcement. Arizona seems willing, by popular demand, to do it's share, absent the Federal government. Arizona law is nearly identical to Federal law by design. The biggest difference, upon which the Federal judge hung her beret, the penalties for transgression were less severe than that provided by the Federal statute.
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2010, 01:33 PM
 
Personally, I believe in unbinding literal enforcement of the constitution as our founding fathers wrote it.*


*Except in instances when I disagree with it.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:10 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,