The Politics of 1070 & the Supremes

[sirs]

SCOTUS will be presented with yet another debacle facilitated by the Obama Administration (Here's hoping Fast & Furious will make it a trifecta), that being AZ's SB 1070, the legislation passed by the Legislation (representatives of the state of AZ), and signed into law by the Executive branch, its Governor, but whose implimentation was being prevented by the Judiciary, at the behest of the Federal Goverment.  The system of checks & balances in full view.

Now, while Obamination Care was clear violation of the Constitution, with its mutated end-around the Commerce clause, and while I fully support what AZ was trying to do, from a legal standpoint, this is likely to fail.  Enforcement of immigration law IS the domain of the Fed, not the State.  By that simple construct, SB 1070 is the state overextending its authority, per the Constitution

But here's the rub, we know why folks in AZ, as well as multiple states across the country, have been implimenting their versions of 1070...THE FED IS NOT PERFORMING ITS FUNCTION IN ENFORCING IMMIGRATION LAW.  Despite the occasional "raids", its been quite the contrary in fact, supporting the notion of open borders, under the guise of compassion and humanity, and screw the consequences, not to mention THE LAW

So, does SCOTUS have some role in facilitating that the Fed perform their Constitutional duties.  While most of the country would want them to, under these circumstances, it would seem no.  Their role is specific in dealing with conflicting laws that have reached them, or in deciding if an action by someone(s) passes constitutional muster.   SB 1070 is pretty much the latter, and under the constitution, its the Fed's job to enforce immigration law, not the states'

Am I wrong?

[Plane]

  I like your point.

   If the Supremes prevent Arizona and Alabama from enforcing the Fed law , will they make it possible of the states to sue the Fed for the losses they find the fed responsible for ?

[sirs]

  I like your point.

Why thank you sir

  If the Supremes prevent Arizona and Alabama from enforcing the Fed law , will they make it possible of the states to sue the Fed for the losses they find the fed responsible for ?

In this country, anyone can pretty much sue anyone for pretty much any reason.  But your question hits the crux of the problem.....be it Arizona or Alabama, States are not authorized to enforce Fed law, so as such they really would have no standing in a lawsuit.  At least I don't think so.  Sure would be interesting to see it tried though, especially given Clinton's executive orders that largely requested state assistance in helping to enforce Federal immigration law 

[Plane]

  If state agencys must not enforce Federal Law this is news to me.

    Seems as if I remember State Patrollmen enforceing the 55mph limit while it was a national law.

    Is it really safe to plot treason or smuggleing currency or illeagal wepons right in frount of a county sherriff?

    If it is realy true that the Federal Law must be enforced only by Federal Agencys , then the States that suffer losses from the Federal failure to enforce standing statutes should have the right to sue for better enforcement from the proper agency elese be made whole by those agencys forfet of funds.

[sirs]

I'd opine what you're referring to here is law enforcement for the sake of enforcement.  Meaning a terrorist who's been found trying to plot a bomb by a local sherriff, is perfectly within his purvuew to arrest said terrorist before he kills anyone.  There's been no legislation by the state to authorize such an arrest. 

The issue here is a state pushing legislation that specifically undermines what the Fed is supposed to do.  While the Fed is grotesquely failing in that function, still, I don't believe, gives the state authority to supercede that function, with their own immigration law enforcement, specific to their legislation

I fully support the states' efforts.........I just think it'll fail when it gets to the Supremes.

[sirs]

Majority of Americans Support SB 1070 as it Heads to the Supreme Court Today

Arizona's SB 1070 anti-illegal immigration bill heads to the Supreme Court today for arguments. The legislation has been dubbed one of the nation's "most controversial" and most "anti-immigrant" laws in the country, but the truth is, the legislation really isn't controversial at all. SB 1070 simply allows local law enforcement, the same officers who deal with the criminal consequences of illegal immigration everyday, to ask people regardless of skin color, for proof of citizenship after a crime has been committed .  Predictably, as soon as SB 1070 passed and was signed into law by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, we saw emotional responses, dangerous behavior and accusations of racism from the Left and radical open border groups like Derechos Humanos and La Raza. We saw similar responses from President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who all made uneducated statements about the legislation before they even read the bill. Also, shortly after its signing, a federal judge slapped down the bill's most crucial language and Eric Holder filed a lawsuit against the state known as United States v Arizona.

The administration's responses:

The administration says the law, and Arizona's approach of maximum enforcement, conflict with a more nuanced federal immigration policy that seeks to balance national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, human rights and the rights of law-abiding citizens and immigrants.

Obama:

The president said, “you can try to make it really tough on people who look like they, quote, unquote look like illegal immigrants. One of the things that the law says is that local officials are allow to ask somebody who they have a suspicion might be an illegal immigrant for their papers — but you can imagine if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona, your great, great grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen.”

Napolitano:

Napolitano Admits She Hasn't read (in detail) SB1070


But what does Arizona think?

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signs SB 1070 Immigration Law - Cavuto


Not to mention, the majority of Americans support the legislation and want the Supreme Court to uphold the law according to a new Quinnipiac poll.

A 68 percent majority said they supported the law, against only 27 percent who opposed it. Asked whether the Supreme Court should strike it down, 62 percent said no, and only 27 percent said yes.

So is there any precedent for this kind of legislation? Not exactly, but based on the fact that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arizona on a law that allows the state to require employers to verify citizenship of job applicants, the court has shown it is not opposed to giving the states some form of control over immigration policy. Governor Jan Brewer is in Washington today and will be in the court room for arguments. Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever will also be in the room. If the Supreme Court does decide to uphold SB 1070, ruling coming in June, other states that have passed similar legislation to control their illegal immigration crisis, will surely ask that their lawsuits from the Justice Department be dropped.

We shall see