« | »

Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of AZ Law

From the Wall Street Journal:

Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of Arizona Law

June 25, 2012

The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona’s tough-immigration law but struck down others as intrusions on federal sovereignty, in a ruling that gave both sides something to cheer in advance of November elections where immigration is a major issue.

The court backed a section of the Arizona state law that calls for police to check the immigration status of people they stop.

That section was one of four at issue before the high court. The others make it a crime for immigrants without work permits to seek employment; make it a crime for immigrants to fail to carry registration documents, and authorize the police to arrest any immigrant they believe has committed a deportable offense. Those other three provisions were struck down.

And here we thought it was illegal to work in this country without a work permit. Apparently, we were mistaken.

By the way, what will this do to the prosecution of companies that hire illegals?

Five justices were in the majority choosing to strike down the three provisions. Dissenting justices argued that the whole law should have been upheld.

Roberts and Kennedy joined the liberals. (Which is disconcerting.) Kagan was recused. And Justice Alito wrote the dissenting opinion.

Lower federal courts blocked the four provisions from taking effect after Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed the measure in 2010. The courts agreed with the Justice Department that the undermined federal authority over immigration

So if the federal government decides to no longer enforce a law, the states cannot enforce it themselves.

Which will just encourage Mr. Obama to pick out more laws to nullify by simply ordering them to no longer be enforced.

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, June 25th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

4 Responses to “Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of AZ Law”

  1. GetBackJack says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but the federal establishment literally is the collected will of the States united. It was and is the States which gathered together and formed the Federal to act in their collected interests where one state cannot alone do so. The federal apparatus would have no authority nor power were it not for that power and authority ceded (on loan, and temporary) by the States which are sovereign … whereas the federal government is not.

    Even the Supreme Court serves at the Will of the States.

    And the Supremes just beclowned themselves with ignorance of their own station.

  2. GetBackJack says:

    Scalia agrees with me – from his 22 page Dissent …

    “Must Arizona’s ability to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcement—or, even worse, to the executive’s unwise targeting of that funding?” Scalia asked. Later, he added: “What I do fear—and what Arizona and the States that support it fear—is that ‘federal policies’ of nonen­forcement will leave the States helpless before those evil effects of illegal immigration.”

  3. Mithrandir says:

    Consequences for not enforcing the law? None.

    ♦ Republicans COULD cut off funding to departments who decide they don’t want to do their job.
    ♦ Republicans COULD cut off funding to EVERYTHING unconstitutional regarding the funding of the toys enjoyed by the executive branch.
    ♦ Republicans COULD enact and enforce an “abuse of power act” in which an authority not submissive to the president, could come in and charge/remove people from office instead of this unenforceable “high crimes and misdemeanors” philosophy.

    ♦ A constitutional convention for force through laws such as amending the anchor baby controversy, term limits, balanced budget etc.

    ♦ Passing a law making it a crime (with real-real-REAL actual mandatory penalties) for federal employees who do not enforce national security interests such as border / immigration control.

    • BUT NO. Republicans just stand around and passively do nothing. Instead of putting their foot down and making real punishment for such behavior, they (as usual) coddle liberal tantrums and try to be “the adult in the room.” Why the small but dictatorial executive thumbs its nose at the legislative branch, the criminals run wild. So much for the legislative being the most powerful branch of the three…..”The People’s Branch.”

    ► F.Y.I. comparisons between the leadership philosophy of Obama and King Charles the First:

« Front Page | To Top
« | »