from the Constitutional Law Professor Blog

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I don't have to. You've got thousands of posts right on this very enlightened, family based website proving you're nothing more than a hysterical narsicist.

And, you're proving that it takes one to know one, idjit.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

And, you're proving that it takes one to know one, idjit.

You are fun to bother.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You are fun to bother.

You're not worth bothering. At least I'm not so dumb to start a whiny thread commanding people who don't think like me to leave the country. What a wimp-azz thing to do.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

You're not worth bothering. At least I'm not so dumb to start a whiny thread commanding people who don't think like me to leave the country. What a wimp-azz thing to do.

Either your underwear or your bun is too tight.

In either case, I recommend gin as an antidote. Or good quality weed. Take your pick.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Either your underwear or your bun is too tight.

In either case, I recommend gin as an antidote. Or good quality weed. Take your pick.

Funny, I never noticed you before you "bothered" me. Never cared what you thought or read any of your posts. Now, your 15 minutes is up. Back to obscurity you go.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Funny, I never noticed you before you "bothered" me. Never cared what you thought or read any of your posts. Now, your 15 minutes is up. Back to obscurity you go.

Having been banished by the banshee, Johnny and Hadji retreat to the confines of her kingdom.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Having been banished by the banshee, Johnny and Hadji retreat to the confines of her kingdom.

Apparently, I have been living rent free in your head for a while without ever knowing it. Buh bye, nobody! Your bait is an epic fail.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

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

There is no guarantee that the Feds will win on the pre-emption tactic, a catch-all tactic long used by the Feds when they want something done their way.

The Arizona law does not necessarily contradict Federal law. Recent decisions by the Supreme Court have been favorable for State laws to exist with Federal laws.

I would not wager which way the decision will come down despite what your copy and paste says.

Have you studied constitutional law? I'm just curious where this authoritative voice of yours comes from?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Have you studied constitutional law? I'm just curious where this authoritative voice of yours comes from?

Why do other people have to constitutional scholars to disagree with you, bro? You're not one either, but seem arrogantly sure that your pov is the right one.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Sofiyya

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

Why do other people have to constitutional scholars to disagree with you, bro? You're not one either, but seem arrogantly sure that your pov is the right one.

He expressed his opinion in an authoritative manner without articulating anything of substance and did so as if he seems to know something about legal preemption, so I'm curious. Perhaps he's a law professor?

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

Is SB1070 Preempted?

Another legal challenge to the law is that federal immigration law preempts the state law. The doctrine of preemption simply means that federal law (made by Congress) is higher than state law (made by Arizona or any other state) and therefore preempts, or trumps, the state law. In fact, the supremacy clause in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

There are two kinds of preemption. If a state law makes it impossible for someone to comply with both state law and federal law, it is called a conflict preemption. If, however, a state law merely says the same thing as a federal law, but Congress has thoroughly dominated that field of law, it is called field preemption. In either case, the state law is invalid.

Critics say that SB1070 can be challenged on both preemption grounds. Steven D. Schwinn at John Marshall Law School argues that Congress has created a "comprehensive federal scheme" in Title 8 of the U.S. Code that regulates the "treatment of aliens" (non-citizens). Therefore, he argues, SB1070 is invalid because of a field preemption.

Schwinn also argues for conflict preemption, because Title 8 allows state and local officers to "arrest and detain" unauthorized immigrants only if they also have a prior conviction for a felony. SB1070, on the other hand, authorizes arrests for unauthorized immigrants who have committed "any public offense that makes them removable from the United States."

http://www.crfimmigr...-of-immigration

Edited July 11, 2010 by El Buscador

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Either your underwear or your bun is too tight.

In either case, I recommend gin as an antidote. Or good quality weed. Take your pick.

You should suggest she visit the underwear thread. Her thong may be a size too small.

I have learned much about underwear today!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You should suggest she visit the underwear thread. Her thong may be a size too small.

I have learned much about underwear today!

I would suggest that some folks brains are too small and lives are so dull that they feel a need to mess with folks who aren't wasting time on them.

[Atencio 43]

He expressed his opinion in an authoritative manner without articulating anything of substance and did so as if he seems to know something about legal preemption, so I'm curious. Perhaps he's a law professor?

As you said I gave my opinion.

What is your authoritative knowledge?

You want me to find some legal experts to copy and paste as well?

Here you go:

The provision of the law that many have focused on is the one makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry registration documents on his person. They fail to mention that an individual is only guilty if he is in violation of 8 USC sec 1304(a) or 8 USC 1306(e). Those provisions have been around since 1940, making it a crime to fail to register or carry certain documents. The state statue literally refers to those federal statutes. A person can only be guilty under the state statute if he is guilty under the federal statute.

The principle that protects the Arizona law is the legal principle of concurrent enforcement. This has been recognized by several courts, including the 9th Circuit. It holds that a law is not conflict-preempted if the state law prohibits the same behavior that is already prohibited by federal law. Similarly, if a state officer acts in a way to assist the federal government in that action, he concurrently enforces what is already prohibited under federal law.

That principle guides any interpretation of S.B. 1070.

The controlling Supreme Court precedent is 1976′s De Canas v. Bica. In that case, the Supreme Court recognized states may enact legislation to discourage illegal immigration within their jurisdictions. The mere fact that a state law concerns illegal immigration or affects immigration in some way does not render it pre-empted.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Atencio