The Arizona law doesn't conflict with the supremacy clause, imho. Arizona is not creating immigration policy, is not issuing visas, is not establishing any new border crossings, etc. Arizona is simply stating they will enforce Federal law at the local level. If the Federal government complains about this, then that opens a whole can of worms.austinrealtor wrote:In yet another example that I am not even a very good armchair Constitutional scholar, I read today that the Feds' case will center around the "Supremacy Clause"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Article VI, Clause 2 wrote: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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So seems to me that G26ster could be correct that as long as the Arizona law is does not go beyond the Federal law and does not inhibit enforcement of any Federal law, perhaps the Arizona law will survive the court challenge?The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted to come in effect only when the Federal Government has acted in a given field. In the case of Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute." In effect, this means that a State law will be found to violate the supremacy clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist:
1. Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible, or
2. "...state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress..."
But again, as I have proven in this thread, IANAL.
The Federal government relies on local law enforcement to enforce Federal law and statutes. When someone robs a bank, it's local law enforcement who captures the robbers. When someone shoots co-workers in a Post Office, it's local law enforcement who is first to respond. When someone flies a plane into the IRS building, it's local law enforcement who responds to 911. When a couple of New Black Panthers intimidated voters in Philadelphia, it was Philadelphia PD who responded.
If the Feds are now arguing that it is unconstitutional for local law enforcement to enforce Federal law, then would that mean there would need to be created a new Federal police force, who patrol in every city and state as local cops do, but are charged with enforcing Federal law since local law enforcement then would be unable to legally do so? Maybe this would be the first step on creating a Federal police force and is what's intended.
Excuse me while I get my new tin foil hat sized.