FedGuv/Holder suit against AZ: Thoughts

[AZRedhawk44]

US AG Holder is suing AZ for our "1070" law, requiring our local law enforcement to investigate suspicious activity related to illegal aliens, then detain and transfer custody of illegals to ICE/FedLEO's.

His argument so far, as I understand it, is that States should not be attempting to mimic or in any way divert in their enforcement policies (two very different statements, but he makes both) from Federal enforcement policies.

Does anyone else see some DRASTIC repercussions that no other lawmaker/enforcer has seen?

-Drug laws: There are racks upon racks of duplicated state/municipal/federal drug laws.  Some state laws are more aggressive than federal ones, some are more lenient.

-Gun laws: Using this as precedent (if Holder wins), say good-bye to the CA AWB, the IL FOID, the New York "may issue" environment and a bunch of other similar environments.

-Kidnapping laws: AZ DPS cannot pursue kidnapped children as their Mexican daddies steal them away across the border in the first 90 minutes of an abduction ("Amber Alert").  Only the FBI or US Marshalls can accept such a task.

I seriously think Obama/Holder have made a DRASTIC miscalculation in regards to this issue, and the stability of our legal system hangs in jeopardy if they should win.  I don't support criminalization of drugs in my first example... but the law is what it is at this moment, and a precedent of FedGuv overturning a State law that mirrors a Federal law through a twisted interpretation of the Supremacy Clause can only lead to further corruption of the 10th amendment and States' Rights, and further cementing of the Federal Monster and the all-seeing-Eye of Mordor on the Potomac.

[HankB]

States are still free to pass laws in matters that are not explicitly granted to fed.gov in the Constitution. For example, the Constitution is silent on drugs (Prohibition was repealed), kidnapping, and various other matters which are left to the States. That state laws duplicate, in many instances, Federal laws, is irrelevant to state prosecutions.

Holder seems to say that immigration policy is one of those areas constitutionally reserved exclusively for the Federal government, and that if they won't enforce the laws, nobody else can, either.

If this "reasoning" is upheld by the courts, then in the future problems may arise if a state hands over a case to the Feds . . . if a State is enjoined from enforcing Federal laws, then it seems reasonable that states would be enjoined from even assisting in the implementation or enforcement of Federal laws and requirements.

This would mean no state, county, or local backup when FBI, DEA, OSHA, or any other alphabet agency stages a bust, raid, or even an investigation. The State could still enforce it's own laws, but co-operation with the Feds operating locally could get dicey.

AND . . . if a court throws out the AZ law based on Consitutional exclusivity . . . look for a LOT of 10th Amenndment suits against fed.gov, citing that as precedent, to overturn a LOT of Federal laws.

The only thing that seems certain is that a lot of lawyers are going to get rich.

[Ned Hamford]

The only thing that seems certain is that a lot of lawyers are going to get rich.

[longeyes]

Just possible that Obama would prefer that the States not have laws of their own on matters more appropriate to "royal" oversight and control.

[zxcvbob]

AND . . . if a court throws out the AZ law based on Consitutional exclusivity . . . look for a LOT of 10th Amenndment suits against fed.gov, citing that as precedent, to overturn a LOT of Federal laws.

Ding, ding, ding!  There's the unintended consequence.  I don't think Holder or O. are smart enough to see it.  Perhaps Hillary does, and she's backing this anyway just to stir up trouble (I can sort of respect that) 

[seeker_two]

Thoughts....I think Holder is incapable of thought....

[longeyes]

My belief is that this administration, foolishly or not, is calling the States' bluff.  In their minds it is always 1963.  I was at a political meeting over the weekend where one speaker opined that it wouldn't surprise him if Gov. Brewer were to be arrested by the Feds.  Can't happen here?

[MechAg94]

My question would be "What is the bluff?".  If the state is only reflecting existing federal laws, I still don't see the issue.  If there prosecuting illegals under state laws, I could understand, but I don't see that here.

[longeyes]

The bluff is this: Enforce the law, which we don't want you to do, and we will come down on you with maximum intimidating force.  If you think we can't, get your army together and unhorse us.

[Jocassee]

Napolitano thinks the Feds will win the case based on previous cases.

[grampster]

Why not pass a state Castle Doctrine law and declare anyone entering the state unlawfully is a threat to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness and allow them to be shot.  Juuuuuuust kidding.....  

[Hawkmoon]

My personal opinion is that Holder's case is meaningless. Arizona is in any way interfering in immigration policy They are not issuing or denying visas. All they're saying is, "Hey, if you're not here legally we don't want you here." How that in any way works out as interfering in policy is a mystery to me. The Federal government still gets to set the policy and issue the visas. Nothing is changed by this new state law with regard to immigration policy.

[sanglant]

US AG Holder's real response to AZ's new law.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN6coIJ202g#t=4m18

well, that's our quota of drunken crazy posts for today. see y'all tomorrow.

[MechAg94]

Napolitano thinks the Feds will win the case based on previous cases.

I've heard nearly the opposite that the Arizona law is consistent with previous court precedent. 

[zxcvbob]

"Napolitano thinks the Feds will win the case based on previous cases."
I've heard nearly the opposite that the Arizona law is consistent with previous court precedent. 

Those are not really opposites if Napolitano is an idiot.

[longeyes]

AB 1070 is a finger in the dike.  For years we've had a de facto policy of an open southern border.  Now we talk about "sealing the border"--after 20 million are already ensconced inside our borders.  The final travesty will be legitimizing them.  And the real coup de grace will be the implementation of "family reunification." 

[Jamie B]

At some point in the past, I thought that SCOTUS decided that the Fed was responsible for immigration policy, and struck down a state's immigration statutes at that time.

Regardless, if the Fed is not doing their job, then kudos to AZ for stepping forward and actually doing something.

As stated above, only lawyers will make money on this one, and more federal dollars will be wasted.

[Ryan in Maine]

Will they be using our tax money to sue Arizona?

[Tallpine]

Will they be using our tax money to sue Arizona?

No, they're going to hold a bake sale 

[Jamie B]

Gee, maybe they could raffle a couple hundred AR15's.

[MechAg94]

At some point in the past, I thought that SCOTUS decided that the Fed was responsible for immigration policy, and struck down a state's immigration statutes at that time.

My understanding is that the AZ law doesn't set immigration policy, but references the federal statutes.  I thought that was how they were side stepping that issue.

[longeyes]

The lawsuit makes clear whom this administration sees as the real enemy and whom it sees as the "rightful owners" of this nation.  They can't be bothered really controlling the border or acknowledging the huge impact of illegal immigration or suing sanctuary cities, but they want to play games with Arizona.  Meanwhile, America is watching the whole tragic show playing out.

[RoadKingLarry]

No, they're going to hold a bake taco sale 

FIFY

[MicroBalrog]

I really don't get it.

Suppose Obama decides that, yes, lots of immigrants from Mexico are a very good thing.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just pass some kind of bill or amendment to issue a giant metric ton of, say, temporary visas for agricultural workers and get it over with?

Assuming Democrats really believe in more immigration, wouldn't it be less controversial to open the door wider to LEGAL immigrants?

[roo_ster]

I really don't get it.

Suppose Obama decides that, yes, lots of immigrants from Mexico are a very good thing.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just pass some kind of bill or amendment to issue a giant metric ton of, say, temporary visas for agricultural workers and get it over with?

Assuming Democrats really believe in more immigration, wouldn't it be less controversial to open the door wider to LEGAL immigrants?

Problem is,most Americans don't want any more illiterate 18th-century workers from a foreign land in our 21st century economy.  The policritters would much rather "happy ending" massage the pro-illegal alien interests under the table than make the Cleveland Steamer on top of the table for all to see.

This is the problem when the ruling class in a democratic republic is at odds with the citizenry.