Roberts leads the defeat of most of Arizona Immigration Law

This is a bit off anyway.

3 provisions were preempted solely because they are already Federal Law. However they ruled that it is okay to check the immigration status of somebody who has been pulled over or held. Basically, 3 provisions were unnecessary, however the meat, the part that everybody was most upset about, was upheld.
 
Damocles said:
This is a bit off anyway.

3 provisions were preempted solely because they are already Federal Law. However they ruled that it is okay to check the immigration status of somebody who has been pulled over or held. Basically, 3 provisions were unnecessary, however the meat, the part that everybody was most upset about, was upheld.
Click to expand...


Hilarious. You have to love the take from the FOXNews viewers.

Nothing was upheld, Damo. Nothing. Four provisions were challenged. Three provisions were struck as preempted by federal law (which does not mean that they "are already federal law" and are "unnecessary" as you say). One provision was deemed to be not facially unconstitutional and can be enforced while it's ultimate constitutionality is being litigated, but it wasn't "upheld."
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Hilarious. You have to love the take from the FOXNews viewers.

Nothing was upheld, Damo. Nothing. Four provisions were challenged. Three provisions were struck as preempted by federal law (which does not mean that they "are already federal law" and are "unnecessary" as you say). One provision was deemed to be not facially unconstitutional and can be enforced while it's ultimate constitutionality is being litigated, but it wasn't "upheld."
Click to expand...

Ah... Yes. However they ruled that the lower court stopping them from doing it in the interim was "wrong"... Sorry. They ruled that Arizona cops can now check on the immigration status of people they pull over or hold while this is litigated.
 
Damocles said:
This is a bit off anyway.

3 provisions were preempted solely because they are already Federal Law. However they ruled that it is okay to check the immigration status of somebody who has been pulled over or held. Basically, 3 provisions were unnecessary, however the meat, the part that everybody was most upset about, was upheld.
Click to expand...

Thats a very interesting, and capricous reading of the opinion. Not true, but interesting. Three Provisions were preempted because they are not a State Power when the Feds choose to do it there way, or enforce, or not enforce there own rules. If the feds choose, and they have, they can tell Arazona to stay out of it. The S. Ct. said the State has no right to take such action when the Fed is doing it there way! Even if Arazona does not like the way the Feds are doing it.

The part that was upheld was not even clearly upheld, the court acknoldged that status checks on there face may be Constitutional but questioned if they can be applied in a Constitutional way thus let the law stand and allowed review of individual cases at the lower level.

Roberts sided with the correct side on this !
 
However, they ruled that local law enforcement must check with federal immigration agents before deciding to hold the suspects. In further news, there will be no health care decision today.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Hilarious. You have to love the take from the FOXNews viewers.

Nothing was upheld, Damo. Nothing. Four provisions were challenged. Three provisions were struck as preempted by federal law (which does not mean that they "are already federal law" and are "unnecessary" as you say). One provision was deemed to be not facially unconstitutional and can be enforced while it's ultimate constitutionality is being litigated, but it wasn't "upheld."
Click to expand...

Not even Fox News put such a silly spin on it!

Foxnews.com
 
Socrtease said:
Really? Is that what your limited intellectual ability gets from all this. Basically the court said what MOST people said. The state was interfering in Federal jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

do you think the State should be able to protect its interests when the Feds refuse to do what is a part of their jurisdiction? Obviously we see what the Supremes think... but do you?
 
Superfreak said:
do you think the State should be able to protect its interests when the Feds refuse to do what is a part of their jurisdiction? Obviously we see what the Supremes think... but do you?
Click to expand...
I think that Arizona, like New Mexico, is inundated with illegals. If the federal government is not going to act then yes, I think the states should have the right to deal with the problem. HOWEVER, I believe that much of the Arizona law was based more on xenophobia than on really dealing with the issues. It gave cops way to much leeway to decide who and for what reasons they could hold people. To hold ANYONE inside the borders of the US the police MUST have probable cause. The Arizona law didn't provide the kind of protections that our Constitution requires.
 
Socrtease said:
I think that Arizona, like New Mexico, is inundated with illegals. If the federal government is not going to act then yes, I think the states should have the right to deal with the problem. HOWEVER, I believe that much of the Arizona law was based more on xenophobia than on really dealing with the issues. It gave cops way to much leeway to decide who and for what reasons they could hold people. To hold ANYONE inside the borders of the US the police MUST have probable cause. The Arizona law didn't provide the kind of protections that our Constitution requires.
Click to expand...

Yet that is the portion that they chose not to restrict... The meat of the law, so to speak.
 
Superfreak said:
do you think the State should be able to protect its interests when the Feds refuse to do what is a part of their jurisdiction? Obviously we see what the Supremes think... but do you?
Click to expand...

I think the State is not allowed and should not be allowed to pre-empt the Feds when they choose a policy relating to immigration, even if the State does not like it.
 
Jarod said:
I think the State is not allowed and should not be allowed to pre-empt the Feds when they choose a policy relating to immigration, even if the State does not like it.
Click to expand...

This whole State's Rights thing is silly. We're called the United States, not the Separate States. Sheesh...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top