from the Constitutional Law Professor Blog

[one...two...tree 2,762]

But, again, what does it have to do with the constitutionality of the law? And so what if the majority of illegal immigrants happen to be from one particular ethnicity or even one particular nation. That's a product of geography. Does that mean that they are exempt from immigration law because we are afraid we might come off as racist to enforce it? That's nullification and I'm not buying it. Are there stupid people who are motivated by hatred in this situation? You betcha! On both sides of the issue! I just don't happen to be distracted by it.

What I've seen of this particular law does not seem to be unconstitutional, but I won't be making the decision and I'm not as informed about this law or constitutional law as those who will be deciding will, hopefully, be. But the decision should be based on constitutionality, not hatred or fear of it. Certainly not politics! My original question went to that issue. This lawsuit seems to be entirely politically motivated. Otherwise, why haven't suits been brought against sanctutary city laws?

We need to remember that laws are enacted through legislation by elected politicians. We should welcome new laws with a healthy sense skepticism and scrutiny, no matter whether we agree with the intent of the new law or not. You are right, that ultimately, whoever originated the legislation doesn't have any bearing on the constitutionality of the law, however, it is relevant to see who is beyond these pieces of legislation and recognize their disregard for the Constitution. I would think that most Americans would find that troubling, regardless of whether they agree with the law's intent or not.

Edited July 11, 2010 by El Buscador

[slim 1,514]

We need to remember that laws are enacted through legislation by elected politicians. We should welcome new laws with a healthy sense skepticism and scrutiny, no matter whether we agree with the intent of the new law or not. You are right, that ultimately, whoever originated the legislation doesn't have any bearing on the constitutionality of the law, however, it is relevant to see who is beyond these pieces of legislation and recognize their disregard for the Constitution. I would think that most Americans would find that troubling, regardless of whether they agree with the law's intent or not.

Outstanding!

[Pooky 3,348]

We need to remember that laws are enacted through legislation by elected politicians. We should welcome new laws with a healthy sense skepticism and scrutiny, no matter whether we agree with the intent of the new law or not. You are right, that ultimately, whoever originated the legislation doesn't have any bearing on the constitutionality of the law, however, it is relevant to see who is beyond these pieces of legislation and recognize their disregard for the Constitution. I would think that most Americans would find that troubling, regardless of whether they agree with the law's intent or not.

Practice what you preach, Steven.

You are no Constitutional scholar yourself, yet you are absolute in your statement here. Yet you are the first to scold others with a contrary view who do the same. Nice to see your "rules" only apply to others. This law has not been ruled Unconstitutional by anyone and I have confidence it will withstand the legal challenges before it.

So, back to the law. Why do you want to see AZ SB 1070 fail, as it mirrors current Federal Law? Is it because Arizona will enforce the law, whereas the Federal government has absconded its responsibility to do so consistently and effectively? Or is there some other reason?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Practice what you preach, Steven.

You are no Constitutional scholar yourself, yet you are absolute in your statement here. Yet you are the first to scold others with a contrary view who do the same. Nice to see your "rules" only apply to others. This law has not been ruled Unconstitutional by anyone and I have confidence it will withstand the legal challenges before it.

So, back to the law. Why do you want to see AZ SB 1070 fail, as it mirrors current Federal Law? Is it because Arizona will enforce the law, whereas the Federal government has absconded its responsibility to do so consistently and effectively? Or is there some other reason?

Dude, seriously get off your high horse. I usually ignore you tirades, especially when you make them personally aimed at me. I've seen you do this to others. Learn to argue your points without taking personal swipes at others here. If not, I'll just continue to ignore your posts.

[evli1966 88]

So, back to the law. Why do you want to see AZ SB 1070 fail, as it mirrors current Federal Law? Is it because Arizona will enforce the law, whereas the Federal government has absconded its responsibility to do so consistently and effectively? Or is there some other reason?

Steve I will ask the above questions politely could you please resond to them?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So, back to the law. Why do you want to see AZ SB 1070 fail, as it mirrors current Federal Law? Is it because Arizona will enforce the law, whereas the Federal government has absconded its responsibility to do so consistently and effectively? Or is there some other reason?

Steve I will ask the above questions politely could you please resond to them?

Back on post #42 :

Is SB1070 Preempted?

Another legal challenge to the law is that federal immigration law preempts the state law. The doctrine of preemption simply means that federal law (made by Congress) is higher than state law (made by Arizona or any other state) and therefore preempts, or trumps, the state law. In fact, the supremacy clause in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

There are two kinds of preemption. If a state law makes it impossible for someone to comply with both state law and federal law, it is called a conflict preemption. If, however, a state law merely says the same thing as a federal law, but Congress has thoroughly dominated that field of law, it is called field preemption. In either case, the state law is invalid.

http://www.crfimmigr...-of-immigration

.........

I'm not a constitutional scholar and I knew nothing about legal preemption before reading these legal opinions. I've articulated at great length before, on several occasions and in several different threads, the potential problems I see with SB1070.

What I'm standing up for is the legitimacy of the DOJ's court challenge of SB1070. When constitutional law professors and legal experts from various sources are all pretty much stating the same constitutional problems (preemption), then to me and I would hope any reasonably minded person would recognize that the DOJ not only is justified in challenging the law, but will most likely succeed in having the Supreme Court rule the law unconstitutional. The problem with so many here is that because they agree with the intent of the law, they can't separate their emotions from constitutional issues with the law. And I find it ironic that many who profess to stand up for our beloved Constitution only do so when it is suits their own points of view.

Edited July 11, 2010 by El Buscador

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Our president disregards our Constitution. That, by itself, should scare you.

I'm not in agreement with Steven's cherry picked scholars. The premption concepts has many limitations in case law. For one thing, federal law is not supeme to state law unless it comports with the Constitution, and the Constitution doesn't address immigration specifically. Also, the Executive branch is also not where the authority resides in this area; it's actually Congress that has it. It has not precluded concurrent jurisdiction with the states. The District Court in Phoenix is known to lean conservative, so it may not produce the activist outcome DOJ hopes for. I expect Arizona to score some important points. I'm also contributing money for their defense.

[evli1966 88]

Back on post #42 :

Is SB1070 Preempted?

http://www.crfimmigr...-of-immigration

.........

I'm not a constitutional scholar and I knew nothing about legal preemption before reading these legal opinions. I've articulated at great length before, on several occasions and in several different threads, the potential problems I see with SB1070.

What I'm standing up for is the legitimacy of the DOJ's court challenge of SB1070. When constitutional law professors and legal experts from various sources are all pretty much stating the same constitutional problems (preemption), then to me and I would hope any reasonably minded person would recognize that the DOJ not only is justified in challenging the law, but will most likely succeed in having the Supreme Court rule the law unconstitutional. The problem with so many here is that because they agree with the intent of the law, they can't separate their emotions from constitutional issues with the law. And I find it ironic that many who profess to stand up for our beloved Constitution only do so when it is suits their own points of view.

Thank you for answering even though we do not agree on this issue.

If the supreme court rules in favor of the AZ SB1070 will you back this law or encourage or speak out in such away that approves that the law be broken or ignored as Sanctuary Cities currently do with immigration laws?

I would voice my opion but would accept the decision as it stood until appealed or a new law formulated; I would not encourage anyone to break or ignore the law.

[slim 1,514]

I would hope any reasonably minded person would recognize that the DOJ not only is justified in challenging the law, but will most likely succeed in having the Supreme Court rule the law unconstitutional.

Which is really weird since it's the DOJ that refuses to enforce it's own law.

Why would they want to stop a state from enforcing a law that they're powerless to enforce themselves? I can understand if they were stopping the law on the basis of it being unconstitutional, but they're not doing that. They're stopping it on the basis of "this is preempted by federal law but we're not going to enforce it so you can't either."

That doesn't necessarily make Arizona's law unconstitutional. It makes it preempted and would mean Arizona could still enforce it but would have to turn all cases over to the fed. Arizona may lose this battle, but if they keep the money flowing, they won't lose the war.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If the supreme court rules in favor of the AZ SB1070 will you back this law or encourage or speak out in such away that approves that the law be broken or ignored as Sanctuary Cities currently do with immigration laws?

I'm very confident the Supreme Court will rule SB1070 as unconstitutional, however, if for some reason SCOTUS upheld the law, I support a repeal of the law, because I personally see many potential problems with the law. One thing that concerns me the most - and it should for any USC, is that SB1070 states that law enforcement can detain someone they suspect is here illegally without bail. There was a recent incident in Chicago, I believe, where local law enforcement questioned someone they suspected of stealing a car about his legal status. He was born in Puerto Rico and showed them his birth certificate but they suspected it was not legitimate and held him in jail for several days until immigration cleared his name. The multitude of lawsuits that such action by the police will create is going to be a nightmare for the courts. The reality is, there are no quick, easy solutions to round up those who are here undocumented without compromising our constitutional rights and privileges.

Edited July 11, 2010 by El Buscador

[Atencio 43]

I would prefer to not have this law. I just wish the Feds would do a better job at controlling the border. The only way to really do this is for them to come down hard on employers. The only problem with this is that President Clinton had the best track record at enforcing these laws which tells you how much it is enforced.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I'm very confident the Supreme Court will rule SB1070 as unconstitutional, however, if for some reason SCOTUS upheld the law, I support a repeal of the law, because I personally see many potential problems with the law. One thing that concerns me the most - and it should for any USC, is that SB1070 states that law enforcement can detain someone they suspect is here illegally without bail. There was a recent incident in Chicago, I believe, where local law enforcement questioned someone they suspected of stealing a car about his legal status. He was born in Puerto Rico and showed them his birth certificate but they suspected it was not legitimate and held him in jail for several days until immigration cleared his name. The multitude of lawsuits that such action by the police will create is going to be a nightmare for the courts. The reality is, there are no quick, easy solutions to round up those who are here undocumented without compromising our constitutional rights and privileges.

Have you contacted Barry to ask for repeal of federal immigration laws? They are much harsher and can hold people indefinitely under the Patriot Act. That should be repealed, too, no?

Do you realize that by backing DOJ, you are supporting harsher federal laws? Or, have you yet checked to see what you're backing?

[slim 1,514]

Yeah, what if Arizona just sidestepped this little immigration bill and started kidnapping all the "illegals" and holding them indefinitely without charges?

Would that be preempted too?

[evli1966 88]

I'm very confident the Supreme Court will rule SB1070 as unconstitutional, however, if for some reason SCOTUS upheld the law, I support a repeal of the law, because I personally see many potential problems with the law. One thing that concerns me the most - and it should for any USC, is that SB1070 states that law enforcement can detain someone they suspect is here illegally without bail. There was a recent incident in Chicago, I believe, where local law enforcement questioned someone they suspected of stealing a car about his legal status. He was born in Puerto Rico and showed them his birth certificate but they suspected it was not legitimate and held him in jail for several days until immigration cleared his name. The multitude of lawsuits that such action by the police will create is going to be a nightmare for the courts. The reality is, there are no quick, easy solutions to round up those who are here undocumented without compromising our constitutional rights and privileges.

Legitmate answer to me in regards to how you would support a repeal of the law.

But you and I both have to face the fact that if our side loses all the way through the appelate courts that everyone should follow the law and that the laws should be enforced.

Do you agree?

[Atencio 43]

Legitmate answer to me in regards to how you would support a repeal of the law.

Good question. All Congress could do is a pass a new law that will mention it is overruling the decision.

Of course as polarized as the two parties are right now I would give that as much of a chance as getting

my NOA-2 tomorrow.