Mark can you explain why this Judge contradicted Fedreral law which states that ALL immigrants must carry ID. Do I have to state the statue for you?
You cry about conservatives not wanting to follow the rule of law, what about you and the others who don’t want the Illegals prosecuted? How about San Franciso as a sanctuary city, are they following the rule of law?
I believe tha any deaths, rapes, or other crimes commited by illegals in Az. from this point on should be blamed on Obama, Holder, and Bolton. The Judge ruled that Az is not allowed to do anything other then the Feds are doing which is nothing. Obama can visit the View but can’t find time to visit Az.. Golf,Ma.vacation etc. His priorities suck. big time.
The Court found that Congress “pre-empted the field” on immigration. That’s standard for these cases which is why I’ve predicted for months that the Arizona law was unconstitutional. Why don’t you read the opinion yourself? It’s only 36 pages, and I think you’ll see it’s well-reasoned.
James Coletta July 29, 2010 6:47 pm
Thank you for the response.
My argument would be that Article VI is referring to the supremacy of a federal law. This would mean that the Arizona law would have to be in direct violation of a federal law to be unconstitutional. (if there is a such a law let me know)
Article 1, Section 8: is referring to the process of gaining citizenship. The way a state goes about handling the case of illegal immigrants would appear to a completely different area of law.
The only reason Arizona had to instate this law in the first place is because federal laws have failed, mostly because of lack of enforcement. The truth is that drugs and crime come across the border and the people of Arizona are desperate to find a way to stop this. The federal government is unresponsive, as is common with such a large bloated body of bureaucrat.
It means a lot to me that you actually responded. So thanks.
James, please review the second paragraph of Article VI:
” This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
And the fourth paragraph of Article I, Section 8:
“To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;”
Mark can you explain why this Judge contradicted Fedreral law which states that ALL immigrants must carry ID. Do I have to state the statue for you?
You cry about conservatives no... More >>
Alan July 30, 2010 10:00 am
Mark can you explain why this Judge contradicted Fedreral law which states that ALL immigrants must carry ID. Do I have to state the statue for you?
You cry about conservatives not wanting to follow the rule of law, what about you and the others who don’t want the Illegals prosecuted? How about San Franciso as a sanctuary city, are they following the rule of law?
I believe tha any deaths, rapes, or other crimes commited by illegals in Az. from this point on should be blamed on Obama, Holder, and Bolton. The Judge ruled that Az is not allowed to do anything other then the Feds are doing which is nothing. Obama can visit the View but can’t find time to visit Az.. Golf,Ma.vacation etc. His priorities suck. big time.
Mark July 29, 2010 10:44 pm
The Court found that Congress “pre-empted the field” on immigration. That’s standard for these cases which is why I’ve predicted for months that the Arizona law was unconstitutional. Why don’t you read the opinion yourself? It’s only 36 pages, and I think you’ll see it’s well-reasoned.
James Coletta July 29, 2010 6:47 pm
Thank you for the response.
My argument would be that Article VI is referring to the supremacy of a federal law. This would mean that the Arizona law would have to be in direct violation of a federal law to be unconstitutional. (if there is a such a law let me know)
Article 1, Section 8: is referring to the process of gaining citizenship. The way a state goes about handling the case of illegal immigrants would appear to a completely different area of law.
The only reason Arizona had to instate this law in the first place is because federal laws have failed, mostly because of lack of enforcement. The truth is that drugs and crime come across the border and the people of Arizona are desperate to find a way to stop this. The federal government is unresponsive, as is common with such a large bloated body of bureaucrat.
It means a lot to me that you actually responded. So thanks.
Mark July 29, 2010 4:02 pm
James, please review the second paragraph of Article VI:
” This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
And the fourth paragraph of Article I, Section 8:
“To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;”