All the news that's fit to print...
 

This didn't make it to Fox.
Thought you'd like to know.


The Obama administration is facing harsh backlash from several lawmakers today
after filing suit against the state of Arizona over its controversial
immigration law.

The Justice Department today filed suit against the state's law, which makes it
a state crime to be in the country illegally, arguing that it unconstitutionally
usurps federal authority to enforce immigration laws. Republicans and some
Democrats say that while immigration is a federal issue, Arizona should not be
punished for acting in response to the federal government's failure to meet its
responsibility.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee,
and 19 other Republicans in the House sent a letter to Attorney General Eric
Holder today saying that the suit against Arizona's law "reflects the height of
irresponsibility and arrogance."

"Arizona has taken a reasonable, constitutional approach to dealing with a
problem that has been ignored by the Obama Administration," the letter says.
"This lawsuit reveals the Obama Administration's contempt for immigration laws
and the people of Arizona. It reveals contempt for the majority of the American
people who support Arizona's efforts to reduce human smuggling, drug trafficking
and illegal immigration."



http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...68-503544.html
--

Richard Lamb

All the news that's fit to print...
 

"cavelamb" wrote in message
...

This didn't make it to Fox.
Thought you'd like to know.


The Obama administration is facing harsh backlash from several lawmakers
today after filing suit against the state of Arizona over its
controversial immigration law.

The Justice Department today filed suit against the state's law, which
makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally, arguing that it
unconstitutionally usurps federal authority to enforce immigration laws.
Republicans and some Democrats say that while immigration is a federal
issue, Arizona should not be punished for acting in response to the
federal government's failure to meet its responsibility.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the top Republican on the House Judiciary
Committee, and 19 other Republicans in the House sent a letter to Attorney
General Eric Holder today saying that the suit against Arizona's law
"reflects the height of irresponsibility and arrogance."

"Arizona has taken a reasonable, constitutional approach to dealing with a
problem that has been ignored by the Obama Administration," the letter
says. "This lawsuit reveals the Obama Administration's contempt for
immigration laws and the people of Arizona. It reveals contempt for the
majority of the American people who support Arizona's efforts to reduce
human smuggling, drug trafficking and illegal immigration."

You either obey the Constitution or you don't. Apparently Lamar Smith
doesn't give a damn, as long as he gets the result he wants. He's certainly
in no position to judge what's constitutional or not in this case.

This one could be a close call but "the height of irresponsibility" for the
federal government would be to let it go unchallenged. At it's root,
Arizona's law is a clear challenge to Article III Section 2. The feds are
obligated to challenge it.

--
Ed Huntress

All the news that's fit to print...
 

On 07/06/2010 05:37 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...

This didn't make it to Fox.
Thought you'd like to know.


The Obama administration is facing harsh backlash from several lawmakers
today after filing suit against the state of Arizona over its
controversial immigration law.

The Justice Department today filed suit against the state's law, which
makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally, arguing that it
unconstitutionally usurps federal authority to enforce immigration laws.
Republicans and some Democrats say that while immigration is a federal
issue, Arizona should not be punished for acting in response to the
federal government's failure to meet its responsibility.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the top Republican on the House Judiciary
Committee, and 19 other Republicans in the House sent a letter to Attorney
General Eric Holder today saying that the suit against Arizona's law
"reflects the height of irresponsibility and arrogance."

"Arizona has taken a reasonable, constitutional approach to dealing with a
problem that has been ignored by the Obama Administration," the letter
says. "This lawsuit reveals the Obama Administration's contempt for
immigration laws and the people of Arizona. It reveals contempt for the
majority of the American people who support Arizona's efforts to reduce
human smuggling, drug trafficking and illegal immigration."

You either obey the Constitution or you don't. Apparently Lamar Smith
doesn't give a damn, as long as he gets the result he wants. He's certainly
in no position to judge what's constitutional or not in this case.

This one could be a close call but "the height of irresponsibility" for the
federal government would be to let it go unchallenged. At it's root,
Arizona's law is a clear challenge to Article III Section 2. The feds are
obligated to challenge it.

Oh Ed, Ed, Ed. You are being mislead by idealism!

The _only_ part of the constitution that matters is the part that
supports what you want to do _today_ -- all of the rest of it is just
filler, suitable for shredding up into confetti and using in parades, or
to insulate a house.

Ask any Republican lawmaker -- ask any Democrat lawmaker. Ask Jon
Stewart. Ask Rush Limbaugh. Ask George Clooney. Ask Glenn Beck.
Question them correctly, and you'll find that the only parts of the
constitution that they recognize are the ones that they want to be there.

Actually looking at the whole document would be like accepting that
someone who doesn't think like you isn't an idiot.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

All the news that's fit to print...
 

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On 07/06/2010 05:37 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...

This didn't make it to Fox.
Thought you'd like to know.


The Obama administration is facing harsh backlash from several lawmakers
today after filing suit against the state of Arizona over its
controversial immigration law.

The Justice Department today filed suit against the state's law, which
makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally, arguing that it
unconstitutionally usurps federal authority to enforce immigration laws.
Republicans and some Democrats say that while immigration is a federal
issue, Arizona should not be punished for acting in response to the
federal government's failure to meet its responsibility.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the top Republican on the House Judiciary
Committee, and 19 other Republicans in the House sent a letter to
Attorney
General Eric Holder today saying that the suit against Arizona's law
"reflects the height of irresponsibility and arrogance."

"Arizona has taken a reasonable, constitutional approach to dealing with
a
problem that has been ignored by the Obama Administration," the letter
says. "This lawsuit reveals the Obama Administration's contempt for
immigration laws and the people of Arizona. It reveals contempt for the
majority of the American people who support Arizona's efforts to reduce
human smuggling, drug trafficking and illegal immigration."

You either obey the Constitution or you don't. Apparently Lamar Smith
doesn't give a damn, as long as he gets the result he wants. He's
certainly
in no position to judge what's constitutional or not in this case.

This one could be a close call but "the height of irresponsibility" for
the
federal government would be to let it go unchallenged. At it's root,
Arizona's law is a clear challenge to Article III Section 2. The feds are
obligated to challenge it.

Oh Ed, Ed, Ed. You are being mislead by idealism!

The _only_ part of the constitution that matters is the part that supports
what you want to do _today_ -- all of the rest of it is just filler,
suitable for shredding up into confetti and using in parades, or to
insulate a house.

Hmmm....I'd say you've been reading the Constitutionalist's Manifesto. Or
maybe you've read "Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines
Constitution To Be": g

http://www.theonion.com/articles/are...agines-c,2849/


Ask any Republican lawmaker -- ask any Democrat lawmaker. Ask Jon
Stewart. Ask Rush Limbaugh. Ask George Clooney. Ask Glenn Beck.
Question them correctly, and you'll find that the only parts of the
constitution that they recognize are the ones that they want to be there.

Actually looking at the whole document would be like accepting that
someone who doesn't think like you isn't an idiot.

Sometimes true. I haven't seen anything about the grounds on which the feds
are challenging Arizona's statute -- it could be on civil rights grounds, or
both that and federal prerogative under Article II of the Constitution.

But here's the kind of thing that makes me roll on the floor laughing: Watch
who defends Arizona's law on the basis of states' rights. Then see if
they're the same people who defended federal pre-emption of gun rights in
the McDonald case. I'll bet they're the same people. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

All the news that's fit to print...
 

In article , Tim Wescott wrote:
On 07/06/2010 05:37 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

This one could be a close call but "the height of irresponsibility" for the
federal government would be to let it go unchallenged. At it's root,
Arizona's law is a clear challenge to Article III Section 2. The feds are
obligated to challenge it.

Oh Ed, Ed, Ed. You are being mislead by idealism!

Actually, he's being misled by his own failure to read the Constitution.
Article III Section 2 doesn't say what Ed seems to think it says.
[...]
Actually looking at the whole document would be like accepting that
someone who doesn't think like you isn't an idiot.

Which is why Ed pontificates about violations of specific sections... but
hasn't read them.

All the news that's fit to print...
 

On 07/06/2010 07:18 PM, cavelamb wrote:

The Justice Department today filed suit against the state's law, which
makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally, arguing that it
unconstitutionally usurps federal authority to enforce immigration laws.
Republicans and some Democrats say that while immigration is a federal
issue, Arizona should not be punished for acting in response to the
federal government's failure to meet its responsibility.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the top Republican on the House Judiciary
Committee, and 19 other Republicans in the House sent a letter to
Attorney General Eric Holder today saying that the suit against
Arizona's law "reflects the height of irresponsibility and arrogance."



http://www.creators.com/editorialcar...ell/16035.html


technomaNge
--
That's fine in practice, but
it will never work in theory.

All the news that's fit to print...
 

On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:18:15 -0500, cavelamb
wrote:
snip
The Justice Department today filed suit against the state's law, which makes it
a state crime to be in the country illegally, arguing that it unconstitutionally
usurps federal authority to enforce immigration laws.
snip
Under the doctrine of "Federal preemption" this could well
be correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemption


However, it remains to be see if a state/county/municipal
tax, for example 5,000$US per head per annum, for being an
illegal/undocumented immigrant would also be preempted.

Other approaches would be a 5,000$US per annum "fee" for
renting to an illegal, and a 10,000$US "fee" for employing
an illegal, to recover the state/municipal governments' "out
of pocket" costs to educate and provide "free" medical care
for the illegals, and the extra law enforcement,
court/prison costs. There could be an additional 1,000$US
fee for registration of a vehicle by an illegal to offset
the additional governmental expenses. These are revenue
measures and not attempts to enforce anti-immigration
statutes.

FWIW -- it should be noted that the evolving [expanding]
doctrine of preemption has also been used to invalidate a
number of state consumer protection laws and other state
limits on corporations, and is *NOT* unique to immigration
enforcement. As you might expect, most of these court cases
have been brought or instigated by corporations.
--

-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

All the news that's fit to print...
 

On Jul 6, 8:43*pm, Tim Wescott wrote:
On 07/06/2010 05:37 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:



*wrote in message
...

This didn't make it to Fox.
Thought you'd like to know.

The Obama administration is facing harsh backlash from several lawmakers
today after filing suit against the state of Arizona over its
controversial immigration law.

The Justice Department today filed suit against the state's law, which
makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally, arguing that it
unconstitutionally usurps federal authority to enforce immigration laws.
Republicans and some Democrats say that while immigration is a federal
issue, Arizona should not be punished for acting in response to the
federal government's failure to meet its responsibility.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the top Republican on the House Judiciary
Committee, and 19 other Republicans in the House sent a letter to Attorney
General Eric Holder today saying that the suit against Arizona's law
"reflects the height of irresponsibility and arrogance."

"Arizona has taken a reasonable, constitutional approach to dealing with a
problem that has been ignored by the Obama Administration," the letter
says. "This lawsuit reveals the Obama Administration's contempt for
immigration laws and the people of Arizona. It reveals contempt for the
majority of the American people who support Arizona's efforts to reduce
human smuggling, drug trafficking and illegal immigration."

You either obey the Constitution or you don't. Apparently Lamar Smith
doesn't give a damn, as long as he gets the result he wants. He's certainly
in no position to judge what's constitutional or not in this case.

This one could be a close call but "the height of irresponsibility" for the
federal government would be to let it go unchallenged. At it's root,
Arizona's law is a clear challenge to Article III Section 2. The feds are
obligated to challenge it.

Oh Ed, Ed, Ed. *You are being mislead by idealism!

The _only_ part of the constitution that matters is the part that
supports what you want to do _today_ -- all of the rest of it is just
filler, suitable for shredding up into confetti and using in parades, or
to insulate a house.

Ask any Republican lawmaker -- ask any Democrat lawmaker. *Ask Jon
Stewart. *Ask Rush Limbaugh. *Ask George Clooney. *Ask Glenn Beck.
Question them correctly, and you'll find that the only parts of the
constitution that they recognize are the ones that they want to be there.

Actually looking at the whole document would be like accepting that
someone who doesn't think like you isn't an idiot.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Serviceshttp://www.wescottdesign.com

Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you.
See details athttp://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jeeze, anybody reading this group would think that the second
amendment is the only thing that matters - the rest is just filler.

All the news that's fit to print...
 

rangerssuck wrote:

Jeeze, anybody reading this group would think that the second
amendment is the only thing that matters - the rest is just filler.


http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html


Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form
of Government, and _shall protect each of them against Invasion_; and on
Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot
be convened) against domestic Violence.

--

Richard Lamb

All the news that's fit to print...
 

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On 07/06/2010 05:37 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...

This didn't make it to Fox.
Thought you'd like to know.


The Obama administration is facing harsh backlash from several
lawmakers
today after filing suit against the state of Arizona over its
controversial immigration law.

The Justice Department today filed suit against the state's law, which
makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally, arguing that it
unconstitutionally usurps federal authority to enforce immigration
laws.
Republicans and some Democrats say that while immigration is a federal
issue, Arizona should not be punished for acting in response to the
federal government's failure to meet its responsibility.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the top Republican on the House Judiciary
Committee, and 19 other Republicans in the House sent a letter to
Attorney
General Eric Holder today saying that the suit against Arizona's law
"reflects the height of irresponsibility and arrogance."

"Arizona has taken a reasonable, constitutional approach to dealing
with a
problem that has been ignored by the Obama Administration," the letter
says. "This lawsuit reveals the Obama Administration's contempt for
immigration laws and the people of Arizona. It reveals contempt for the
majority of the American people who support Arizona's efforts to reduce
human smuggling, drug trafficking and illegal immigration."

You either obey the Constitution or you don't. Apparently Lamar Smith
doesn't give a damn, as long as he gets the result he wants. He's
certainly
in no position to judge what's constitutional or not in this case.

This one could be a close call but "the height of irresponsibility" for
the
federal government would be to let it go unchallenged. At it's root,
Arizona's law is a clear challenge to Article III Section 2. The feds
are
obligated to challenge it.

Oh Ed, Ed, Ed. You are being mislead by idealism!

The _only_ part of the constitution that matters is the part that
supports what you want to do _today_ -- all of the rest of it is just
filler, suitable for shredding up into confetti and using in parades, or
to insulate a house.

Hmmm....I'd say you've been reading the Constitutionalist's Manifesto. Or
maybe you've read "Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines
Constitution To Be": g

http://www.theonion.com/articles/are...agines-c,2849/


Ask any Republican lawmaker -- ask any Democrat lawmaker. Ask Jon
Stewart. Ask Rush Limbaugh. Ask George Clooney. Ask Glenn Beck.
Question them correctly, and you'll find that the only parts of the
constitution that they recognize are the ones that they want to be there.

Actually looking at the whole document would be like accepting that
someone who doesn't think like you isn't an idiot.

Sometimes true. I haven't seen anything about the grounds on which the
feds are challenging Arizona's statute -- it could be on civil rights
grounds, or both that and federal prerogative under Article II of the
Constitution.

But here's the kind of thing that makes me roll on the floor laughing:
Watch who defends Arizona's law on the basis of states' rights. Then see
if they're the same people who defended federal pre-emption of gun rights
in the McDonald case. I'll bet they're the same people. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


Actually the AZ law only enforces Federal laws. They did not write new
laws, they decided to enforce Federal Statues. The interesting part of this
is the states will have a really good case to sue the Feds for all the costs
of immigration caused problems if Holder prevails. Now the Fed's require
the states to pay the bills. Require the states to accept illegals as in
state tuition students. Pay medical and welfare for illegals. If Holder
and Justice wins, the states will say then you enforce the laws and pay all
the bills as it is a Federal problem.

All the news that's fit to print...
 

On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:18:15 -0500, cavelamb
wrote:


This didn't make it to Fox.
Thought you'd like to know.


The Obama administration is facing harsh backlash from several lawmakers today
after filing suit against the state of Arizona over its controversial
immigration law.

The Justice Department today filed suit against the state's law, which makes it
a state crime to be in the country illegally, arguing that it unconstitutionally
usurps federal authority to enforce immigration laws. Republicans and some
Democrats say that while immigration is a federal issue, Arizona should not be
punished for acting in response to the federal government's failure to meet its
responsibility.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee,
and 19 other Republicans in the House sent a letter to Attorney General Eric
Holder today saying that the suit against Arizona's law "reflects the height of
irresponsibility and arrogance."

"Arizona has taken a reasonable, constitutional approach to dealing with a
problem that has been ignored by the Obama Administration," the letter says.
"This lawsuit reveals the Obama Administration's contempt for immigration laws
and the people of Arizona. It reveals contempt for the majority of the American
people who support Arizona's efforts to reduce human smuggling, drug trafficking
and illegal immigration."



http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...68-503544.html


That stunt by the Obamassiah and Co is going to get a hell of a lot more
states doing an express law making up and running and getting their own
Arizona laws.

GOOD JOB!! Nicely done, you ****ing dolts! Go ahead..**** off the
people who already think you and yours are scum sucking dolts.

The Great Cull is just over the horizon......


Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

All the news that's fit to print...
 

On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 17:43:42 -0700, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On 07/06/2010 05:37 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...

This didn't make it to Fox.
Thought you'd like to know.


The Obama administration is facing harsh backlash from several lawmakers
today after filing suit against the state of Arizona over its
controversial immigration law.

The Justice Department today filed suit against the state's law, which
makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally, arguing that it
unconstitutionally usurps federal authority to enforce immigration laws.
Republicans and some Democrats say that while immigration is a federal
issue, Arizona should not be punished for acting in response to the
federal government's failure to meet its responsibility.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the top Republican on the House Judiciary
Committee, and 19 other Republicans in the House sent a letter to Attorney
General Eric Holder today saying that the suit against Arizona's law
"reflects the height of irresponsibility and arrogance."

"Arizona has taken a reasonable, constitutional approach to dealing with a
problem that has been ignored by the Obama Administration," the letter
says. "This lawsuit reveals the Obama Administration's contempt for
immigration laws and the people of Arizona. It reveals contempt for the
majority of the American people who support Arizona's efforts to reduce
human smuggling, drug trafficking and illegal immigration."

You either obey the Constitution or you don't. Apparently Lamar Smith
doesn't give a damn, as long as he gets the result he wants. He's certainly
in no position to judge what's constitutional or not in this case.

This one could be a close call but "the height of irresponsibility" for the
federal government would be to let it go unchallenged. At it's root,
Arizona's law is a clear challenge to Article III Section 2. The feds are
obligated to challenge it.

Oh Ed, Ed, Ed. You are being mislead by idealism!

The _only_ part of the constitution that matters is the part that
supports what you want to do _today_ -- all of the rest of it is just
filler, suitable for shredding up into confetti and using in parades, or
to insulate a house.

Ask any Republican lawmaker -- ask any Democrat lawmaker. Ask Jon
Stewart. Ask Rush Limbaugh. Ask George Clooney. Ask Glenn Beck.
Question them correctly, and you'll find that the only parts of the
constitution that they recognize are the ones that they want to be there.

Actually looking at the whole document would be like accepting that
someone who doesn't think like you isn't an idiot.

Ed evidently doesnt realize that the Aridzona law is a virtual copy of
the Federal Law.

And since the Feds wont enforce theirs....shrug

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

All the news that's fit to print...
 

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , Tim Wescott
wrote:
On 07/06/2010 05:37 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

This one could be a close call but "the height of irresponsibility" for
the
federal government would be to let it go unchallenged. At it's root,
Arizona's law is a clear challenge to Article III Section 2. The feds
are
obligated to challenge it.

Oh Ed, Ed, Ed. You are being mislead by idealism!

Actually, he's being misled by his own failure to read the Constitution.
Article III Section 2 doesn't say what Ed seems to think it says.

Ah, Doug, you're going to force us to go to the statutes. I had better ideas
for things to do this morning, but what the heck....

The new Arizona law imposes state penalties for "trespassing" that involve a
determination by state officers and imposition of the penalty by a state
court. This is one of the violations of federal supremacy (spelled out in
the Constitution, Article VI, cl. 2, and explicit in the U.S. Code). There
are three fundamental tests for the permissability of a state law regarding
immigration (based on some 2005 S.C. case; I forget which) and the feds
will doubtless challenge on those grounds. But Arizona has a very specific
problem with Article III. The state law attempts to stay within the law by
naming two federal, criminal violations that apply. But the way the law is
worded, in includes civil violations, as well (8 U.S.C. Section 1229a). The
federal misdemeanor under 8 U.S.C. 1304, for example, for which Arizona
proposes additional penalties, is a based on violation of a CIVIL provision
(not having one's green card in possession) and Article III gives original
jurisdiction in such cases to the federal courts.

If they try to enforce that, the federal courts would have to consider
whether it is a violation of Article III Section 2 and the federal statute
that spells out the federal court's original jurisdiction. If you really
know what Article III Section 2 covers, you'll recognize that as Title 28,
Part IV, Chapter 85, Par.1331:

"Federal Question: The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of
all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States."

The reason I mentioned Article III is that it's a SPECIFIC case of Arizona's
law violating federal supremacy (subject to the federal courts' judgment, of
course). You may be thinking it's all about Article IV, cl. 2. But that's
not all.

How will a federal court decide this one? Neither you nor I know. We do know
that Arizona anticipates federal challenges because they wrote the law to
sever each provision (Section 11). The state's lawyers expect the federal
courts to hack it up, in other words.

And it's the feds' job to start hacking.

If you think you know the law about this, feel free to offer your services
to the state in their defense. For my part, I'm going to watch how the
federal Justice Department handles it.

[...]
Actually looking at the whole document would be like accepting that
someone who doesn't think like you isn't an idiot.

Which is why Ed pontificates about violations of specific sections... but
hasn't read them.

I never make claims like this without having a good idea of what the law
says. I'm not claiming to know how it will be decided, but the feds have a
lot of recent as well as very old precedent to bring a challenge to the
Arizona law. They rarely let a federal-supremacy case just drop.

--
Ed Huntress

All the news that's fit to print...
 

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On 07/06/2010 05:37 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...

This didn't make it to Fox.
Thought you'd like to know.


The Obama administration is facing harsh backlash from several
lawmakers
today after filing suit against the state of Arizona over its
controversial immigration law.

The Justice Department today filed suit against the state's law, which
makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally, arguing that it
unconstitutionally usurps federal authority to enforce immigration
laws.
Republicans and some Democrats say that while immigration is a federal
issue, Arizona should not be punished for acting in response to the
federal government's failure to meet its responsibility.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the top Republican on the House Judiciary
Committee, and 19 other Republicans in the House sent a letter to
Attorney
General Eric Holder today saying that the suit against Arizona's law
"reflects the height of irresponsibility and arrogance."

"Arizona has taken a reasonable, constitutional approach to dealing
with a
problem that has been ignored by the Obama Administration," the letter
says. "This lawsuit reveals the Obama Administration's contempt for
immigration laws and the people of Arizona. It reveals contempt for
the
majority of the American people who support Arizona's efforts to
reduce
human smuggling, drug trafficking and illegal immigration."

You either obey the Constitution or you don't. Apparently Lamar Smith
doesn't give a damn, as long as he gets the result he wants. He's
certainly
in no position to judge what's constitutional or not in this case.

This one could be a close call but "the height of irresponsibility" for
the
federal government would be to let it go unchallenged. At it's root,
Arizona's law is a clear challenge to Article III Section 2. The feds
are
obligated to challenge it.

Oh Ed, Ed, Ed. You are being mislead by idealism!

The _only_ part of the constitution that matters is the part that
supports what you want to do _today_ -- all of the rest of it is just
filler, suitable for shredding up into confetti and using in parades, or
to insulate a house.

Hmmm....I'd say you've been reading the Constitutionalist's Manifesto. Or
maybe you've read "Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines
Constitution To Be": g

http://www.theonion.com/articles/are...agines-c,2849/


Ask any Republican lawmaker -- ask any Democrat lawmaker. Ask Jon
Stewart. Ask Rush Limbaugh. Ask George Clooney. Ask Glenn Beck.
Question them correctly, and you'll find that the only parts of the
constitution that they recognize are the ones that they want to be
there.

Actually looking at the whole document would be like accepting that
someone who doesn't think like you isn't an idiot.

Sometimes true. I haven't seen anything about the grounds on which the
feds are challenging Arizona's statute -- it could be on civil rights
grounds, or both that and federal prerogative under Article II of the
Constitution.

But here's the kind of thing that makes me roll on the floor laughing:
Watch who defends Arizona's law on the basis of states' rights. Then see
if they're the same people who defended federal pre-emption of gun rights
in the McDonald case. I'll bet they're the same people. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


Actually the AZ law only enforces Federal laws. They did not write new
laws, they decided to enforce Federal Statues.

They can't enforce federal civil laws, only criminal ones, and then only in
certain circumstances. The Arizona law attempts to distinguish the two but
it looks like it transgresses in a couple of areas.

A lot of immigration law violation actually is violation of civil laws, not
criminal ones. For example, someone who overstays their visa; has an expired
green card; enterred as a student and then dropped out of school; etc.

The interesting part of this is the states will have a really good case to
sue the Feds for all the costs of immigration caused problems if Holder
prevails. Now the Fed's require the states to pay the bills. Require the
states to accept illegals as in state tuition students. Pay medical and
welfare for illegals. If Holder and Justice wins, the states will say
then you enforce the laws and pay all the bills as it is a Federal
problem.

Good luck. g

--
Ed Huntress

All the news that's fit to print...
 

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 17:43:42 -0700, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On 07/06/2010 05:37 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...

This didn't make it to Fox.
Thought you'd like to know.


The Obama administration is facing harsh backlash from several
lawmakers
today after filing suit against the state of Arizona over its
controversial immigration law.

The Justice Department today filed suit against the state's law, which
makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally, arguing that it
unconstitutionally usurps federal authority to enforce immigration
laws.
Republicans and some Democrats say that while immigration is a federal
issue, Arizona should not be punished for acting in response to the
federal government's failure to meet its responsibility.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the top Republican on the House Judiciary
Committee, and 19 other Republicans in the House sent a letter to
Attorney
General Eric Holder today saying that the suit against Arizona's law
"reflects the height of irresponsibility and arrogance."

"Arizona has taken a reasonable, constitutional approach to dealing
with a
problem that has been ignored by the Obama Administration," the letter
says. "This lawsuit reveals the Obama Administration's contempt for
immigration laws and the people of Arizona. It reveals contempt for the
majority of the American people who support Arizona's efforts to reduce
human smuggling, drug trafficking and illegal immigration."

You either obey the Constitution or you don't. Apparently Lamar Smith
doesn't give a damn, as long as he gets the result he wants. He's
certainly
in no position to judge what's constitutional or not in this case.

This one could be a close call but "the height of irresponsibility" for
the
federal government would be to let it go unchallenged. At it's root,
Arizona's law is a clear challenge to Article III Section 2. The feds
are
obligated to challenge it.

Oh Ed, Ed, Ed. You are being mislead by idealism!

The _only_ part of the constitution that matters is the part that
supports what you want to do _today_ -- all of the rest of it is just
filler, suitable for shredding up into confetti and using in parades, or
to insulate a house.

Ask any Republican lawmaker -- ask any Democrat lawmaker. Ask Jon
Stewart. Ask Rush Limbaugh. Ask George Clooney. Ask Glenn Beck.
Question them correctly, and you'll find that the only parts of the
constitution that they recognize are the ones that they want to be there.

Actually looking at the whole document would be like accepting that
someone who doesn't think like you isn't an idiot.

Ed evidently doesnt realize that the Aridzona law is a virtual copy of
the Federal Law.


Unlike Gunner, Ed actually read the Arizona law -- and the relevent federal
law. Arizona cannot "copy" federal law where there is federal supremacy
involved, if Arizona is going to presume to provide penalties on its own.

Have you ever considered reading something before posting your opinion about
it, Gunner? It could open up a whole new world of opportunities for you.

--
Ed Huntress

All the news that's fit to print...
 

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 00:21:33 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:


The Great Cull is just over the horizon......

.... that's running away from the cullers just as it has from all the
previous predictors of end-of-world, etc. Add the cull to the list of
things you hoped were true, but which never had any chance of
happening. Such as having a fruitful life, faithful wife ...

Wayne

All the news that's fit to print...
 

cavelamb wrote:

This didn't make it to Fox.
Thought you'd like to know.


The Obama administration is facing harsh backlash from several lawmakers
today after filing suit against the state of Arizona over its
controversial immigration law.

The Justice Department today filed suit against the state's law, which
makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally, arguing that it
unconstitutionally usurps federal authority to enforce immigration laws.
Republicans and some Democrats say that while immigration is a federal
issue, Arizona should not be punished for acting in response to the
federal government's failure to meet its responsibility.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the top Republican on the House Judiciary
Committee, and 19 other Republicans in the House sent a letter to
Attorney General Eric Holder today saying that the suit against
Arizona's law "reflects the height of irresponsibility and arrogance."

If Obama announced he was in favor of Motherhood, Baseball and Apple
Pie, the same senators would put out the same statement.

I keep waiting for him to nominate Mitch McConnell for a post, just to
hear Mitch McConnell denounce himself as out of the mainstream and a
threat to America.



"Arizona has taken a reasonable, constitutional approach to dealing with
a problem that has been ignored by the Obama Administration," the letter
says. "This lawsuit reveals the Obama Administration's contempt for
immigration laws and the people of Arizona. It reveals contempt for the
majority of the American people who support Arizona's efforts to reduce
human smuggling, drug trafficking and illegal immigration."



http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...68-503544.html

All the news that's fit to print...
 

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On 07/06/2010 05:37 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...

This didn't make it to Fox.
Thought you'd like to know.


The Obama administration is facing harsh backlash from several
lawmakers
today after filing suit against the state of Arizona over its
controversial immigration law.

The Justice Department today filed suit against the state's law,
which
makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally, arguing that
it
unconstitutionally usurps federal authority to enforce immigration
laws.
Republicans and some Democrats say that while immigration is a
federal
issue, Arizona should not be punished for acting in response to the
federal government's failure to meet its responsibility.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the top Republican on the House Judiciary
Committee, and 19 other Republicans in the House sent a letter to
Attorney
General Eric Holder today saying that the suit against Arizona's law
"reflects the height of irresponsibility and arrogance."

"Arizona has taken a reasonable, constitutional approach to dealing
with a
problem that has been ignored by the Obama Administration," the
letter
says. "This lawsuit reveals the Obama Administration's contempt for
immigration laws and the people of Arizona. It reveals contempt for
the
majority of the American people who support Arizona's efforts to
reduce
human smuggling, drug trafficking and illegal immigration."

You either obey the Constitution or you don't. Apparently Lamar Smith
doesn't give a damn, as long as he gets the result he wants. He's
certainly
in no position to judge what's constitutional or not in this case.

This one could be a close call but "the height of irresponsibility"
for the
federal government would be to let it go unchallenged. At it's root,
Arizona's law is a clear challenge to Article III Section 2. The feds
are
obligated to challenge it.

Oh Ed, Ed, Ed. You are being mislead by idealism!

The _only_ part of the constitution that matters is the part that
supports what you want to do _today_ -- all of the rest of it is just
filler, suitable for shredding up into confetti and using in parades,
or to insulate a house.

Hmmm....I'd say you've been reading the Constitutionalist's Manifesto.
Or maybe you've read "Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines
Constitution To Be": g

http://www.theonion.com/articles/are...agines-c,2849/


Ask any Republican lawmaker -- ask any Democrat lawmaker. Ask Jon
Stewart. Ask Rush Limbaugh. Ask George Clooney. Ask Glenn Beck.
Question them correctly, and you'll find that the only parts of the
constitution that they recognize are the ones that they want to be
there.

Actually looking at the whole document would be like accepting that
someone who doesn't think like you isn't an idiot.

Sometimes true. I haven't seen anything about the grounds on which the
feds are challenging Arizona's statute -- it could be on civil rights
grounds, or both that and federal prerogative under Article II of the
Constitution.

But here's the kind of thing that makes me roll on the floor laughing:
Watch who defends Arizona's law on the basis of states' rights. Then see
if they're the same people who defended federal pre-emption of gun
rights in the McDonald case. I'll bet they're the same people. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


Actually the AZ law only enforces Federal laws. They did not write new
laws, they decided to enforce Federal Statues.

They can't enforce federal civil laws, only criminal ones, and then only
in certain circumstances. The Arizona law attempts to distinguish the two
but it looks like it transgresses in a couple of areas.

A lot of immigration law violation actually is violation of civil laws,
not criminal ones. For example, someone who overstays their visa; has an
expired green card; enterred as a student and then dropped out of school;
etc.

The interesting part of this is the states will have a really good case
to sue the Feds for all the costs of immigration caused problems if
Holder prevails. Now the Fed's require the states to pay the bills.
Require the states to accept illegals as in state tuition students. Pay
medical and welfare for illegals. If Holder and Justice wins, the states
will say then you enforce the laws and pay all the bills as it is a
Federal problem.

Good luck. g

--
Ed Huntress


Lots of immigration law is criminal!

All the news that's fit to print...
 

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On 07/06/2010 05:37 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...

This didn't make it to Fox.
Thought you'd like to know.


The Obama administration is facing harsh backlash from several
lawmakers
today after filing suit against the state of Arizona over its
controversial immigration law.

The Justice Department today filed suit against the state's law,
which
makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally, arguing that
it
unconstitutionally usurps federal authority to enforce immigration
laws.
Republicans and some Democrats say that while immigration is a
federal
issue, Arizona should not be punished for acting in response to the
federal government's failure to meet its responsibility.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the top Republican on the House
Judiciary
Committee, and 19 other Republicans in the House sent a letter to
Attorney
General Eric Holder today saying that the suit against Arizona's law
"reflects the height of irresponsibility and arrogance."

"Arizona has taken a reasonable, constitutional approach to dealing
with a
problem that has been ignored by the Obama Administration," the
letter
says. "This lawsuit reveals the Obama Administration's contempt for
immigration laws and the people of Arizona. It reveals contempt for
the
majority of the American people who support Arizona's efforts to
reduce
human smuggling, drug trafficking and illegal immigration."

You either obey the Constitution or you don't. Apparently Lamar Smith
doesn't give a damn, as long as he gets the result he wants. He's
certainly
in no position to judge what's constitutional or not in this case.

This one could be a close call but "the height of irresponsibility"
for the
federal government would be to let it go unchallenged. At it's root,
Arizona's law is a clear challenge to Article III Section 2. The feds
are
obligated to challenge it.

Oh Ed, Ed, Ed. You are being mislead by idealism!

The _only_ part of the constitution that matters is the part that
supports what you want to do _today_ -- all of the rest of it is just
filler, suitable for shredding up into confetti and using in parades,
or to insulate a house.

Hmmm....I'd say you've been reading the Constitutionalist's Manifesto.
Or maybe you've read "Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines
Constitution To Be": g

http://www.theonion.com/articles/are...agines-c,2849/


Ask any Republican lawmaker -- ask any Democrat lawmaker. Ask Jon
Stewart. Ask Rush Limbaugh. Ask George Clooney. Ask Glenn Beck.
Question them correctly, and you'll find that the only parts of the
constitution that they recognize are the ones that they want to be
there.

Actually looking at the whole document would be like accepting that
someone who doesn't think like you isn't an idiot.

Sometimes true. I haven't seen anything about the grounds on which the
feds are challenging Arizona's statute -- it could be on civil rights
grounds, or both that and federal prerogative under Article II of the
Constitution.

But here's the kind of thing that makes me roll on the floor laughing:
Watch who defends Arizona's law on the basis of states' rights. Then
see if they're the same people who defended federal pre-emption of gun
rights in the McDonald case. I'll bet they're the same people. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


Actually the AZ law only enforces Federal laws. They did not write new
laws, they decided to enforce Federal Statues.

They can't enforce federal civil laws, only criminal ones, and then only
in certain circumstances. The Arizona law attempts to distinguish the two
but it looks like it transgresses in a couple of areas.

A lot of immigration law violation actually is violation of civil laws,
not criminal ones. For example, someone who overstays their visa; has an
expired green card; enterred as a student and then dropped out of school;
etc.

The interesting part of this is the states will have a really good case
to sue the Feds for all the costs of immigration caused problems if
Holder prevails. Now the Fed's require the states to pay the bills.
Require the states to accept illegals as in state tuition students. Pay
medical and welfare for illegals. If Holder and Justice wins, the
states will say then you enforce the laws and pay all the bills as it is
a Federal problem.

Good luck. g

--
Ed Huntress


Lots of immigration law is criminal!

It's not clear the sense in which you mean that. d8-)

The civil-law issue is a clear target. When the state tries to enforce a
*criminal* federal immigration law, it has to meet three criteria set by a
S.C. precedent.

I've mentioned that twice now; I suppose I should look it up...hmmm...

There have been more recent cases, but the basic principles were outlined in
DeCanas v. Bica (1976). You can look up the case if you want to see the full
explanation but these are the bare statements of the case:

1. Constitutional preemption: Is the state or locality attempting to
regulate immigration?
2. Field preemption: Did Congress intend to occupy the field and oust state
or local power?
3. Conflict preemption: Does the state or local law stand as an obstacle to
or conflict with federal
law, making compliance with both the state and federal law impossible?

There's no point in trying to judge the Arizona law against any of these;
there is too much elaboration in that case and subsequent cases that's going
to undermine any attempt to make a simple judgment. But those are the basic
criteria that you'll doubtless see discussed in the new court case, when it
comes up.

--
Ed Huntress