Fuhrer Obama's Administration Officially Legally Challenging Arizona's SB1070

[FaithfulandTrue 6]

the laws need to be followed.. period .. we pay these enormous fees for these applications and then others don't pay anything and can stay and nothing said... oh brother where art though

[SMOKE 1,426]

It is well within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Attorney General's office to challenge any state law that is believed to be unconstitutional. Those who support the SB1070 should have nothing to fear if they truly believe the law is constitutional. I think they are worried because they know when leading constitutional scholars have stated they believe SB1070 is unconstitutional, the law won't hold up to legal scrutiny when challenged in court. Good for the Obama Administration for standing up for our beloved Constitution. God Bless this country and the principles it stands for.

no BS. facts only please.

why hasn't the suit been filed yet? on what grounds will the suit be filed? what is unconstitutional about it?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

no BS. facts only please.

why hasn't the suit been filed yet? on what grounds will the suit be filed? what is unconstitutional about it?

Obama and Holder would have to read it first to tell you that.

[Pooky 3,844]

I think they are worried because they know when leading constitutional scholars have stated they believe SB1070 is unconstitutional, the law won't hold up to legal scrutiny when challenged in court.

Does this sound like they're worried?

State officials say immigration law is backed by legal precedent

By Kyle Peterson - The Daily Caller | Published: 06/19/10 at 12:16 AM | Updated: 06/19/10 at 5:27 PM

After Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accidentally let it slip during an interview that the Department of Justice would bring a lawsuit against Arizona challenging its recently passed immigration law, state leaders say they are confident that SB 1070 will be upheld.

“We will prevail,” said Russell Pearce, the state senator who sponsored the legislation. “I vetted this bill very, very carefully, anticipating a lawsuit, and making sure we wrote it right.”

Although the details of the Justice Department’s lawsuit have not yet been announced, former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas said any challenge to SB 1070 would most likely center around the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

“Those critics rely on the argument that Congress has preempted the states from regulating illegal immigration,” said Thomas, who is running for attorney general. “Unfortunately for them, that’s not what the federal courts have ruled.”

Thomas said that proponents of previous anti-illegal immigration bills have successfully used the precedent set by the 1976 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in De Canas v. Bica as a defense against legal challenges.

“We have had a number of challenges to our human smuggling law, our employer sanction law, our voter ID law, passed by the [Arizona] voters in 2004. They’ve all been upheld,” Thomas said. “The Justice Department will be going against this steady stream of cases that we have won in both federal and state court — unless they have come up with a brilliant new theory that basically invalidates the Supreme Court and other case law we’ve relied on.”

Thomas said a lawsuit could target provisions specific to SB 1070, but he noted that the majority of the bill would likely remain intact even if such a suit succeeded.

“It should just cut down that portion,” Thomas said. “If there were an ancillary part of the law that they had trouble with, they could strike that down and leave the rest alone.”

For Pearce, it is clear that any federal lawsuit would rest primarily on ideological — not legal — ground.

“The grounds basically are, ‘I don’t like the bill,’” Pearce said. “They have an agenda. That agenda is to not allow enforcement of these laws that have been on the books for 50 years.”

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s office has already mounted a defense of the law.

“Our attorney general has no intention of enforcing our laws on the illegal alien issue,” Pearce said. “Knowing his opposition to 1070, we put it in the bill that the governor would lead this effort.”

Pearce said that several legal groups have offered to help defend the law pro bono and that over $45,000 in private donations has been raised to help defray defense costs.

Thomas said that “no one should underestimate the minds of the U.S. Justice Department in coming against Arizona,” but that he is “confident that 1070 will be upheld if we have proper legal representation and the will to go into court and fight for it.”

Brewer did not know of the Justice Department’’s imminent lawsuit until she learned about it like most observers — through the press coverage of Clinton’s interview.

“This is no way to treat the people of Arizona,” Brewer wrote in a statement. “To learn of this lawsuit through an Ecuadorean interview with the Secretary of State is just outrageous. If our own government intends to sue our state to prevent illegal immigration enforcement, the least it can do is inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation.”

Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard’s office declined to comment. Gov. Jan Brewer’s office could not be reached for comment by press time.

Link

[ziia 9]

Obama's administration is suing the sate of Az for enforcing the laws-this is prety sad! If a state has got to build a fence on its own territory because of the violence that comes from S border and because the administration won't cooperate and send the national guard, but instead decides to sue the state of AZ for doing its best to protect its citizens, it sure looks to me that the priorities of this administration are prety messed up. The majority of people support and admire AZ's grabbing the matter into its own hands. I would be extremly surprised to see this president re-elected.

Edited June 20, 2010 by ziia

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Obama's administration is suing the sate of Az for enforcing the laws-this is prety sad! If a state has got to build a fence on its own territory because of the violence that comes from S border and because the administration won't cooperate and send the national guard, but instead decides to sue the state of AZ for doing its best to protect its citizens, it sure looks to me that the priorities of this administration are prety messed up. The majority of people support and admire AZ's grabbing the matter into its own hands. I would be extremly surprised to see this president re-elected.

It's a question of constitutionality and in this case, the U.S. Attorney General believes that SB1070 violates our U.S. Constitution. States can't create laws to undermine our Constitution.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

It is well within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Attorney General's office to challenge any state law that is believed to be unconstitutional. Those who support the SB1070 should have nothing to fear if they truly believe the law is constitutional. I think they are worried because they know when leading constitutional scholars have stated they believe SB1070 is unconstitutional, the law won't hold up to legal scrutiny when challenged in court. Good for the Obama Administration for standing up for our beloved Constitution. God Bless this country and the principles it stands for.

On what grounds will they challenge it on, Steve?

Will they tell the court that they don't want states to enforce federal immigration law? Why, then, does ICE promote 287g, a federal program that enlists and trains local police to identify suspected illegal-immigrant criminals in jails and on the streets in partnership with the feds? They have trained officers in 29 states to identify and detain suspected criminal aliens? The 2010 budget for this program is $68 million dollars, and has grown each fiscal years since its implementaton.

That is precedent on Arizona's side.

How will they state to the court that their prejudice against SB7010 was sternly expressed in formal venues even before any Justice Department of Hoomeland Security official had read the AZ law and understood its particulars? Will they say they are simply opposed to immigration law enforcement because of its potential to racially profile, which explains why they haven't sued any jurisdiction, like San Francisco, which openly disregards immigration law and touts itself as a sanctuary city, and also explains why they have done nothing to explain why they refuse do anything to help Arizona.

If they are against enforcement of immigration law in Arizona, and actions speak louder than words, then they come before the court guilty of fraud and neglect in the oath they took to defend and preserve the sovereignty and laws of this nation, the expressed duty of the federal government.

How will they concede the fact that the law in AZ disallows racial profiling, and requires a law to be broken before an officer can approach the subject for questioning when they continue to deny that fact. They oppose profiling, but are expected to enforce federal law which allows racial profiling, and permits federal immigration law enforcement officers to approach a suspected illegal without provocation.

Will they be prepared to discuss what other federal laws should be ignored by the states?

I'm afraid that this bumbling bunch of strongarm bullies have put a foot in their own mouths re the issue of illegal immigration with the majority of the population, and they have screwed themselves with their arrogance and refusal to deal fairly and directly with Arizona, even as they prompt foreign offenders to storm our meager gates. If they were doing the job they were elected to do, they may have a leg to stand on, but they are so routinely amateurish and soporific that they severely hurt their own case before they built one against AZ.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

It's a question of constitutionality and in this case, the U.S. Attorney General believes that SB1070 violates our U.S. Constitution. States can't create laws to undermine our Constitution.

He stated that just before admitting he hadn't even read it. Holder is a joke. So is Napolitano. They are bad jokes on us because what is truly unconstitutional is the way they want to neuter states so they cannot protect themselves while ignoring the need for protection and failing to do what we pay them to do.

Sorry to say it, but you're becoming a joke, too, Stevie. No one in their right mind could believe all the sh!t you do, much less post it daily for all to see.

Edited June 20, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Pooky 3,844]

It's a question of constitutionality and in this case, the U.S. Attorney General believes that SB1070 violates our U.S. Constitution. States can't create laws to undermine our Constitution.

The Attorney General better hurry up and read the damn thing before this goes to court.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

On what grounds will they challenge it on, Steve?

California's Prop 187 was struck down by a Federal Judge as mostly unconstitutional. Texas has a similar law that was also ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS (Pyler v. Doe). What is consistent among these cases was that enforcement of immigration law is the jurisdiction of the Federal Gov't. While proponents of SB1070 claim the law only reinforces existing federal law, the fact is that it goes beyond federal law by providing local law enforcement to detain anyone they suspect is here illegally.

Supporters of SB1070 shouldn't fear a court challenge though, if they truly feel this law is constitutional as it will be up to the courts who will make the final decision and not the Obama Administration.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

California's Prop 187 was struck down by a Federal Judge as mostly unconstitutional. Texas has a similar law that was also ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS (Pyler v. Doe). What is consistent among these cases was that enforcement of immigration law is the jurisdiction of the Federal Gov't. While proponents of SB1070 claim the law only reinforces existing federal law, the fact is that it goes beyond federal law by providing local law enforcement to detain anyone they suspect is here illegally.

Supporters of SB1070 shouldn't fear a court challenge though, if they truly feel this law is constitutional as it will be up to the courts who will make the final decision and not the Obama Administration.

you are completely misrepresenting Plyler v. Doe here..... Of course, I would expect as much from you I suppose...

[ziia 9]

It's a question of constitutionality and in this case, the U.S. Attorney General believes that SB1070 violates our U.S. Constitution. States can't create laws to undermine our Constitution.

Whatever the case may be, they're basing their claims on suppositions that the authorities may abuse power. "Supposition" and "may" in the same sentence by no means creates a solid ground so powerful to cut off an immigration law from the books. The judges don't have a crystall ball to foresee the future before it hapens in order to win that argument...that's just my oppinon. The greater good of the people should be seeked...not so sure if the current state of affairs or maintaining the limbo road we've walked so far eyes closed or amnesthy for that matter will help prove just this administration has this country's citizens best interest in mind. I guess it will remain to be seen.

Edited June 20, 2010 by ziia

[Pooky 3,844]

California's Prop 187 was struck down by a Federal Judge as mostly unconstitutional. Texas has a similar law that was also ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS (Pyler v. Doe). What is consistent among these cases was that enforcement of immigration law is the jurisdiction of the Federal Gov't. While proponents of SB1070 claim the law only reinforces existing federal law, the fact is that it goes beyond federal law by providing local law enforcement to detain anyone they suspect is here illegally.

Supporters of SB1070 shouldn't fear a court challenge though, if they truly feel this law is constitutional as it will be up to the courts who will make the final decision and not the Obama Administration.

Again, why waste money challenging AZ SB 1070, when this administration can make the law irrelevant by enforcing existing Federal law, which, by the way, does not specifically preclude racial profiling and does not require Federal authorities to have legally stopped suspects prior to requiring proof of citizenship/legal residency?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

California's Prop 187 was struck down by a Federal Judge as mostly unconstitutional. Texas has a similar law that was also ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS (Pyler v. Doe). What is consistent among these cases was that enforcement of immigration law is the jurisdiction of the Federal Gov't. While proponents of SB1070 claim the law only reinforces existing federal law, the fact is that it goes beyond federal law by providing local law enforcement to detain anyone they suspect is here illegally.

Supporters of SB1070 shouldn't fear a court challenge though, if they truly feel this law is constitutional as it will be up to the courts who will make the final decision and not the Obama Administration.

Prop 187 and SB1070 are not analygous in any way. There is yet no right to immigrate illegally, as there is a right to be educated on the taxpayers' dime.

Did you miss what I posted about 287g? The federal government trains municipal law enforcement agencies to detain those who are suspected to be here illegally. I know you prefer to ignore what doesn't fit your increasingly narrow paradigm, but ICE's 287g website states the benefits of having local officers involved with federal immigration enforcement:

Benefits

•By working together, local and federal officers can better identify and remove criminal aliens – which is a tremendous benefit to public safety.

•One of the biggest benefits to our 287(g) partners is that they are able to better identify who they have in custody.

And, AZ's law doesn't disagree with this provision either:

Racial profiling

•Racial profiling is simply not something that will be tolerated; and any indication of racial profiling will be treated with the utmost scrutiny and fully investigated. If any proof of racial profiling is uncovered, that specific officer or department could have their agreement rescinded.

•In addition to the training these officers receive from their local departments, the 287(g) training includes coursework on multicultural communication and the avoidance of racial profiling.

The Obama administration feels that AZ's law is unconstitutional, but I'm sure they are too incompetent to prove it. Even if they do, courts don't always have the final say . . . thank God.

[ziia 9]

Prop 187 and SB1070 are not analygous in any way. There is yet no right to immigrate illegally, as there is a right to be educated on the taxpayers' dime.

Did you miss what I posted about 287g? The federal government trains municipal law enforcement agencies to detain those who are suspected to be here illegally. I know you prefer to ignore what doesn't fit your increasingly narrow paradigm, but ICE's 287g website states the benefits of having local officers involved with federal immigration enforcement:

Benefits

•By working together, local and federal officers can better identify and remove criminal aliens – which is a tremendous benefit to public safety.

•One of the biggest benefits to our 287(g) partners is that they are able to better identify who they have in custody.

And, AZ's law doesn't disagree with this provision either:

Racial profiling

•Racial profiling is simply not something that will be tolerated; and any indication of racial profiling will be treated with the utmost scrutiny and fully investigated. If any proof of racial profiling is uncovered, that specific officer or department could have their agreement rescinded.

•In addition to the training these officers receive from their local departments, the 287(g) training includes coursework on multicultural communication and the avoidance of racial profiling.

The Obama administration feels that AZ's law is unconstitutional, but I'm sure they are too incompetent to prove it. Even if they do, courts don't always have the final say . . . thank God.

Well said. They should just let the citizens cast their vote on it.