Federal Gov sues AZ

As the name indicates, this is the place for gun-related political discussions. It is not open to other political topics.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


Topic author
DONT TREAD ON ME

Federal Gov sues AZ

#1

Post by DONT TREAD ON ME »

I have no comments that are fit for this board at the moment. I almost hit my TV when I heard this crap come across the news. :mad5

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07 ... y-tuesday/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Accusing Arizona of trying to "second guess" the federal government, the Justice Department on Tuesday filed a lawsuit challenging the state's immigration policy -- claiming the "invalid" law interferes with federal immigration responsibilities and "must be struck down."

In the suit, which names the state of Arizona as well as Gov. Jan Brewer as defendants, the Justice Department claims the federal government has "preeminent authority" on immigration enforcement and that the Arizona law "disrupts" that balance. It urges the U.S. District Court in Arizona to "preliminarily and permanently" prohibit the state from enforcing the law, which is scheduled to go into effect at the end of the month.

"Arizonans are understandably frustrated with illegal immigration, and the federal government has a responsibility to comprehensively address those concerns," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a written statement. "But diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens such as terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal records will impact the entire country's safety. Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility. Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves."

The suit, which drew tough criticism from state lawmakers Tuesday, claimed the state law focuses only on getting rid of illegal immigrants and "ignores" other immigration objectives.

"The United States Constitution forbids Arizona from supplanting the federal government's immigration regime with its own state-specific immigration policy," the suit says. "A policy that, in purpose and effect, interferes with the numerous interests the federal government must balance."

Click here to read the lawsuit.

Arizona lawmakers slammed the administration over the suit Tuesday.

"This is the wrong direction to go," Rep. Harry Mitchell, D-Ariz., said in a statement, calling on the administration to devote its resources to border security.

Twenty House Republicans wrote a letter to Holder in protest of the decision. Republican Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl released a joint statement calling the suit "premature."

"The Obama administration has not done everything it can do to protect the people of Arizona from the violence and crime illegal immigration brings to our state. Until it does, the federal government should not be suing Arizona on the grounds that immigration enforcement is solely a federal responsibility," the senators said.

The court action comes just days after President Obama delivered a speech calling on Congress to tackle a comprehensive overhaul of the nation's immigration system. In the speech, he criticized Arizona's law and warned that national legislation is needed to prevent other states from following suit.

The president did not mention the lawsuit, but one had been widely expected for weeks. After the administration initially said it would take the law under review, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealed last month in an interview with a foreign television network that the administration intended to challenge the Arizona policy.

The Arizona law, passed in April, makes illegal immigration a state crime and requires local law enforcement to question anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant on their residency status.

Several civil rights and law enforcement officials lauded the administration's actions Tuesday.

Lucas Guttentag, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants' Rights Project, called it a "critical step" to undo Arizona's "unconstitutional usurpation of federal authority and its invitation to racial profiling."

"The administration's lawsuit is a cannon shot across the bow of other states that may be tempted to follow Arizona's misguided approach," he said. The ACLU had already filed a legal challenge, which Guttentag said it would continue to pursue.

The Arizona law touched off an intense national debate over immigration. The results of any court challenge would have wide-ranging implications, as a number of other states and jurisdictions have taken up tough immigration policies similar to Arizona's.

The Obama administration has meanwhile tried to use the law as the impetus to prod Congress into tackling an immigration bill. While Arizona lawmakers defend their law as necessary to patrol the border, Obama described it last week as "unenforceable" and a vehicle for civil rights abuse. He said a "national standard" is needed and that he won't "kick the can down the road" any longer.

Republicans bristled at the speech, though, and continued to urge the administration to better secure the border before tackling a comprehensive bill -- which would likely include a pathway to legal status for millions of illegal immigrants.

Brewer told Fox News in June that Arizona would not back down from its law.

"We'll meet them in court ... and we will win," she said, calling the administration's actions a "disappointment."

dicion
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 9:19 pm
Location: Houston Northwest

Re: Federal Gov sues AZ

#2

Post by dicion »

My favorite line:
"Arizonans are understandably frustrated with illegal immigration, and the federal government has a responsibility to comprehensively address those concerns," Attorney General Eric Holder
Well then? Why isn't it? :headscratch :banghead:

If the Fed comprehensively addressed immigration concerns, Arizona wouldn't have needed to enact it's own laws!

We need a :txflag: but for Arizona! Constitutional Carry and it's own comprehensive immigration reform! Support Arizona!

EDIT: Made one!
Image
User avatar

cougartex
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1805
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 3:01 pm
Location: Golden Triangle

Re: Federal Gov sues AZ

#3

Post by cougartex »

:mad5 :mad5 :banghead: :banghead:
Cougars are shy, reclusive, and downright mysterious... :txflag:

Carry-a-Kimber
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1715
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:58 am
Location: Harris County

Re: Federal Gov sues AZ

#4

Post by Carry-a-Kimber »

:iagree: The Fed NEVER ceases to amaze me.
User avatar

suthdj
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 2296
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:49 pm
Location: North Ft Worth(Alliance area)

Re: Federal Gov sues AZ

#5

Post by suthdj »

A fund is setup to help Az fight the Fed's

https://az.gov/app/keepazsafe/donation_ ... tion.xhtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
21-Apr-09 filed online
05-Sep-09 Plastic Arrived
09-Sep-13 Plastic Arrived
21-june-18 Plasic Arrived
User avatar

VoiceofReason
Banned
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1748
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: South Texas

Re: Federal Gov sues AZ

#6

Post by VoiceofReason »

I have come to the conclusion that Washington (Democrats or Republicans) can no longer control long term events. They can only postpone or hasten those events. :patriot: :txflag:

"We'll meet them in court ... and we will win," she said, calling the administration's actions a "disappointment."

The administration is a disappointment.
God Bless America, and please hurry.
When I was young I knew all the answers. When I got older I started to realize I just hadn’t quite understood the questions.-Me
User avatar

Liberty
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 6343
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: Galveston
Contact:

Re: Federal Gov sues AZ

#7

Post by Liberty »

Do the Feds have any legal basis for this suit?
If the the courts find that states can't enforce laws that are parallel to federal regulations, would this nullify drug laws?
Liberty''s Blog
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." John F. Kennedy
User avatar

Oldgringo
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 11203
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: Pineywoods of east Texas

Re: Federal Gov sues AZ

#8

Post by Oldgringo »

Obama, Pelosi, Emanuael, Holder and all of the other little Dem minions are concerned about losing the Hispanic vote. The Repubs did nothing when they had the majority for the same reasons PLUS they enjoyed the cheap labor. Both parties have failed the country in the interest of their self-serving political interests!

This is a classic example of the age old football axiom of, "the best defense is a good offense".

Fire 'em all, impeach the judges, dissolve Civil Service and public unions and let's start over.

e pluribus unum! :patriot:
User avatar

suthdj
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 2296
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:49 pm
Location: North Ft Worth(Alliance area)

Re: Federal Gov sues AZ

#9

Post by suthdj »

I know there is a list of things reserved for the feds to handle like printing money(which they also screwed up) anyone have a complete list. The article I read said Az did not have the authority to enact the law because immigration is reserved for the Fed Govt.
21-Apr-09 filed online
05-Sep-09 Plastic Arrived
09-Sep-13 Plastic Arrived
21-june-18 Plasic Arrived
User avatar

ChuckW
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Federal Gov sues AZ

#10

Post by ChuckW »

I think that gun owners in particular should think very carefully before condemning this suit out of hand. The Federal Government, as I understand it, in this suit is just reserving for itself certain authority (while it is certainly true that the Feds. have done a lousy job of exercising that authority!). The recent overturning of the Chicago gun ban was made possible because of the Federal Government reserving certain powers for itself - as recognized by the Supreme Court. If second amendment rights are to be preserved the rights of states to legislate in any areas covered by federal law should, in my view, be looked at very carefully!

None of this is meant to say that I am in any way satisfied with with the current state of affairs; I'm just saying that from a purely legal standpoint one's position on this matter should be carefully considered.
User avatar

A-R
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 5776
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:01 pm
Location: Austin area

Re: Federal Gov sues AZ

#11

Post by A-R »

Liberty wrote:Do the Feds have any legal basis for this suit?
suthdj wrote:I know there is a list of things reserved for the feds to handle like printing money(which they also screwed up) anyone have a complete list. The article I read said Az did not have the authority to enact the law because immigration is reserved for the Fed Govt.
Here's my VERY amateur armchair Constitutional scholar guess at it

and of course it should be obvious IANAL

http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[b]Article I, Section. 8. [/b] wrote:The Congress shall have Power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
by "establish" is "enforce" also implied?
[b]Article I, Section. 9.[/b] wrote: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
is this even relevant after 1808? if so it would seem to give states some leeway regarding which persons the state feels are "proper to admit"

Article I, Section 10 lists a lot of other limitations on state power, regarding entering into treaties, imposing duties and tariffs etc., but nothing that seem related to immigration.
Article IV Section. 4. wrote: 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. (emphasis added)
seems Arizona and all southwestern states have a counter claim against the Feds for not protecting them from "invasion"

And of course ...
[b]10th Amendment[/b] wrote:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
which basically says if the Constitution doesn't say the Feds can do it, then they can't do it

The crux of the matter would seem to be whether Arizona is usurping powers granted to the Feds (in Article I, Section 8 above?) or whether Arizona's law, which is a state law regulating only conduct within the state, is immune from Federal interference. Also of course and as always there will be questions of violations of civil rights, which will bring up the 14th Amendment and incorporating some perceived right against the states (right to due process is infringed because these illegals should've been arrested only be Feds? - i dunno)
User avatar

G26ster
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2655
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:28 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Federal Gov sues AZ

#12

Post by G26ster »

Arizona is not "enforcing" federal law. The Arizona law is constitutional (IMHO) in the fact that the law is no more restrictive of the federal law.The Arizona law simply allows LEOs to detain someone on suspicion of being illegal (after first being engaged by law enforcement for any other matter,) and then turned over to federal authorities. The federal authorities then can enforce immigration law.

Bank robbery is a federal crime, but local law enforcement can detain you for the suspected commission of such an act, and you will then be turned over to federal authorities. What is the difference with detaining an illegal for violation of federal law, and turning them over to the feds. IMHO, nothing.

of course, INAL and did not stay in a Holiday Inn Express.
User avatar

A-R
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 5776
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:01 pm
Location: Austin area

Re: Federal Gov sues AZ

#13

Post by A-R »

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"
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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..."
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?

But again, as I have proven in this thread, IANAL.
Last edited by A-R on Wed Jul 07, 2010 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

pbwalker
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3032
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 10:12 am
Location: Northern Colorado

Re: Federal Gov sues AZ

#14

Post by pbwalker »

I hope and pray that Arizona uses this opportunity to air out ALL the dirty laundry. How we have lost land in parks to drug traffickers, all the murders and illegal activity caused by ILLEGALS. Use the opportunity of being on a national stage to stick it to the Fed.
*NRA Endowment Member* | Veteran
Vote Adam Kraut for the NRA Board of Directors - http://www.adamkraut.com/
User avatar

Kythas
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1685
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:06 am
Location: McKinney, TX

Re: Federal Gov sues AZ

#15

Post by Kythas »

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"
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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..."
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?

But again, as I have proven in this thread, IANAL.
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.

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.
“I’m all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let’s start with typewriters.” - Frank Lloyd Wright

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms" - Aristotle
Post Reply

Return to “Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues”