Breaking: WH will sue Arizona over SB1070

posted at 2:05 pm on June 18, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

CBS News reports that a “senior administration official” has confirmed to them that Hillary Clinton was telling the truth in the interview with an Ecuadorian media outlet.  The Obama administration will file a lawsuit in federal court to block Arizona’s new law requiring law-enforcement personnel to check immigration status while processing suspicious people already in custody:

It was unclear yesterday whether Clinton’s comments were simply a prediction or mistake or whether instead she was getting ahead of a planned announcement by the administration.

Now a senior administration official tells CBS News that the federal government will indeed formally challenge the law when Justice Department lawyers are finished building the case. The official said Justice is still working on building the case.

Wow … just wow.  What a tremendously incompetent manner in which to announce the decision.  The Obama administration informed the Ecuadorian people of this decision before the White House informed Americans.  I’m not sure if that’s Hope and Change, the New Transparency, or Smart Power.

Governor Jan Brewer blasted Obama and his administration for their handling of this policy direction.  I agree, but perhaps she can take comfort in it.  After all, an administration this inept is unlikely to successfully walk and chew gum at the same time, let alone challenge the validity of their new immigration-enforcement law.  Meanwhile, Obama will continue to pursue a policy that is even less popular than his ObamaCare bill, just in time for the midterm referendum on his first two years in office.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Off topic:

KJ, I really like your blog. Keep up the good work.

hillbillyjim on June 18, 2010 at 6:36 PM

As MadCon is an eloquent poster, I would not speak for him.

Ah, I see.

However, young lady, if you indeed are,

lol.

when the Federal Fovernment decides to overrule the wishes of the majority of the American people and files a lawsuit against a state trying to protect the lives, freedom, property of American citizens, in the defense of people who have crossed our borders in an illegal manner, and harmed and robbed our citizenry, that that is not just bordering on tyranny, but despotism as well. And don’t claim it is a civil right issue. These people are foreign nationals, who broke the law by entering America illegally.

kingsjester on June 18, 2010 at 6:33 PM

That was beautiful.

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 6:37 PM

Back to the subject at hand:

I think it is an indication of the incompetence of this whole administration that a Justice Dep’t decision is being announced to the world by the head of the Dep’t of State.

What’s up with that, to borrow a worn-out phrase.

No leadership is in evidence in DC. That is the bottom line.

hillbillyjim on June 18, 2010 at 6:40 PM

That was beautiful.

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 6:37 PM

Why, thank you. Oh,I’m sorry. You were attempting sarcasm. I tell you what, counselorette-in-training, (God help us.)next time you do that, you should try typing a slash or something noting it that way. Your wit is so blinding, it’s hard to tell when you try to be funny.

Thanks hillbillyjim. I appreciate it.

kingsjester on June 18, 2010 at 6:41 PM

Wouldn’t Barack have to prove his citizenship in order to have standing to sue AZ?

thomasaur on June 18, 2010 at 6:42 PM

Keep up the snarky snark, Dickford. You are impressing a whole lot of folks, I’m sure.

Hell, I’m flatfooted, flabbergasted, friggin’ in awe of your magnificent intelligence. More please.

You’ll really be something if you ever get over yourself, Dickford.

hillbillyjim on June 18, 2010 at 6:43 PM

Thanks hillbillyjim. I appreciate it.

kingsjester on June 18, 2010 at 6:41 PM

If she is posting, it means one thing…she just finished off the last of the day old Dunkin donuts, and Krispy Kreme is closed.
She is not an attorney in training, we already determined that several times…just a pathetic lonely liberal who needs some attention.
Back to the real issues:
I don’t think they will bring a lawsuit, this is a “shiny object” while Obama is getting discovered as being a do nothing.
The feds will get killed, even if they win, the stats that AZ will come out with, the number of threats, deaths, illegals, stolen property, etc. will be astounding…what the feds have been trying to cover up, will be brought into daylight.
Obama can’t afford that, he is already proven to be ineffective in emergencies, now it will be shown he is incompetent in the most basic of all jobs, securing our border.
It won’t happen, but I would love to see this lawsuit…and through the process of discovery, imagine the records that the government will have to show…phone calls, meetings, memos, it would be a gold mine of information as to how this administration has been working behind the citizens back.

right2bright on June 18, 2010 at 6:52 PM

Republican Presidential candidate must give legal status to anchor baby parents and no one else. Compromise.

PrezHussein on June 18, 2010 at 6:55 PM

right2bright on June 18, 2010 at 6:52 PM

You’re right. Obama is throwing his base a bone, trying to win them back after the nationwide address tanked and the poll numbers are dropping.

kingsjester on June 18, 2010 at 6:55 PM

But the law is Constitutional.

Smoke screen.

The people will not be impressed. This is an attempt to secure the la raza and socialist/revolutionary communist base. There is some G20 energy to be captured.

Black Adam on June 18, 2010 at 6:56 PM

right2bright on June 18, 2010 at 6:52 PM

I hope they go for it. It will shine a bright light, for those too blind to already see, what this Chicago-on-the-Potomac bunch is all about.

hillbillyjim on June 18, 2010 at 6:59 PM

“senior administration official” has confirmed to them that Hillary Clinton was telling the truth”

We know how rarely the Clintoon’s get confirmed as “telling the truth !

I wasn’t aware that during their daily 3:00 AM phone call that Reichsfuehrer Hillary had given Zero the go-ahead to do this.

The next question will be whether the activist federal judges that Slick appointed to the bench will be as beholden to Hillary and Zero as they were and are to Slick.

viking01 on June 18, 2010 at 7:02 PM

What happened to Dickford; did she lose her keyboard, or her nerve?

hillbillyjim on June 18, 2010 at 7:07 PM

A lawsuit by the Obama Administration against the Arizona law is a political imperative for the Obama Administration. The lawsuit will backfire, as it will demonstrate how the Obama Administration is out of touch with the majority of American people.

Phil Byler on June 18, 2010 at 7:30 PM

Anyone else getting that stong urge to scream, along with the realization that once you start screaming you may not be able to stop :(

ProudPatriot on June 18, 2010 at 7:31 PM

Alito must be masturbating furiously at the chance to pay Obozo back.

Darth Executor on June 18, 2010 at 7:37 PM

Breaking: WH will sue Arizona over SB1070Share

Your tax dollars at work! How’s that “hopey changey” workin’ out for ya?

olesparkie on June 18, 2010 at 7:43 PM

Reuters News Service

The Obama Administration is borrowing $25 million from China to pursue a lawsuit against the State of Arizona. No word on what the interest payments will be. Developing.

olesparkie on June 18, 2010 at 7:45 PM

I swear. Hildabeast looks just like one of those Disney Animatronic Robot thingies. Scary!

PakviRoti on June 18, 2010 at 7:45 PM

It won’t happen, but I would love to see this lawsuit…and through the process of discovery, imagine the records that the government will have to show…phone calls, meetings, memos, it would be a gold mine of information as to how this administration has been working behind the citizens back.

right2bright on June 18, 2010 at 6:52 PM

Why on earth would those materials be discoverable?

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 7:51 PM

I swear. Hildabeast looks just like one of those Disney Animatronic Robot thingies. Scary!

PakviRoti on June 18, 2010 at 7:45 PM

Exactly. Slickette looks like something out of Westworld. I’m surprised that Madam Tussauds hasn’t reported her as stolen.

viking01 on June 18, 2010 at 7:59 PM

She’s got the thousand-year stare. A lefty gets it after they’ve been full of &h!t for too long. It’s like you’ve really seen … beyond. :D

The Evil Doctor K on June 18, 2010 at 8:13 PM

Why on earth would those materials be discoverable?

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 7:51 PM

So basic, such a basic legal principle…I hate to educate you. But for others.
During questioning, each answer gives an opportunity for discovery…for instance, talking about what budget…How much do you budget for protecting the border along xyz…answer, now that answer has to be backed up (in layman’s terms), and with that is all the supporting pieces to that budget item, phone calls, memos, union official visits, La Raza visits, etc.
That is why Hillary didn’t remember anything, why Clinton couldn’t recall…when they answer, that can lead to another question, to another question, each answer needing to have back up to prove the answer is correct.
How many guards? 136 border guards, any at night? yes, are they paid a premium for night? Any overtime? yes, okay lets see the documentation, and all the conversations with union reps…get it? Every bone buried will be dug up by a good attorney during discovery.
Questions aren’t just for answers, they are creating a path of discovery for “hidden” information.
That is why I don’t think it will ever go to trial, but be settled, just a bunch of saber rattling by a desperate, do nothing administration.
BTW, that is the main reason Obama won’t show his original birth certificate…discovery, the bane of anyone hiding something.
Man, for a supposed law student this is the first week of law…

right2bright on June 18, 2010 at 8:39 PM

Jesus Christ.

Under the FRCP any relevant, non-privileged information is discoverable. None of the sh*t you mentioned would be discoverable, because none of it is remotely relevant to any claim or defense either party would make. What in the world does a La Raza visit have to do with whether the AZ law is preempted by federal law?

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 8:51 PM

The federal government should be sued for not enforcing federal law.

alteredbeat on June 18, 2010 at 9:06 PM

The federal government should be sued for not enforcing federal law.

alteredbeat on June 18, 2010 at 9:06 PM

By who?

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 9:10 PM

What in the world does a La Raza visit have to do with whether the AZ law is preempted by federal law?

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 8:51 PM

Hey nitwit, La Raza was a possible example, not an actual “happening”. You don’t understand when someone is just giving an example to make it easier to understand.
I guess I need to dumb it down so you can understand…but quite frankly I don’t think I can even pretend to be that dumb.
AZ will prove, idiot, that the feds have not, could not, will not, do the job they are demanded to do by the constitution…and the reasons will be; influence by lobby groups (I used LaRaza as an example, but there are others), unions will have tied their hands with unreasonable demands, oh my, it will be a field day for AZ as they force the feds to defend themselves…the feds, your buddies, have allowed American citizens to be killed, intimidated, lose private property, give up freedom (you know that little something toestablish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity).
Obama has allowed our American people to be attacked, and he has not tried to defend them…the reasons will be shown in discovery…but it won’t because he knows it will open a can of whoop ass on him.
He is a disgusting little man, who does not care about the sovereignty of our country…and he deserves someone like you to support him.
Next time you need an education, ask someone else…you can’t even Google and get it right.
Now go back to your krispy Kremes…

right2bright on June 18, 2010 at 9:18 PM

right2bright on June 18, 2010 at 9:18 PM

Well that was pretty incomprehensible. But you appear to be trying to argue that AZ will claim that they were justified in passing SB1070 because the feds haven’t been enforcing their own laws.

Of course, that’s stupid. And it neatly demonstrates the absurdity of AZ’s position. A state can’t encroach on a power which is constitutionally delegated to the federal government just because it disagrees with the way the federal government is exercising that power.

For example, should states be able to send their own armies to war because they disagree with the foreign policy of the federal government?

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 9:29 PM

So basically he was doing nothing but jerking around Jan Brewer 2 weeks ago at the White House and feeding her nothing but BS…

PatriotRider on June 18, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Are you saying O-Thug Hussein lied? Well, color me shocked!

GrannyDee on June 18, 2010 at 9:30 PM

Sigmund on June 18, 2010 at 3:07 PM

In other words, BHO is certifiable. His mother would be so proud. She was a nut case, too.

GrannyDee on June 18, 2010 at 9:44 PM

For example, should states be able to send their own armies to war because they disagree with the foreign policy of the federal government?

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Actually if the fed is not defending that state and leaving them to die ..SURE

Boy on this subject you are like a roach to roach bait.

CWforFreedom on June 18, 2010 at 9:45 PM

I wonder if Obama wants to win the suit. If he loses, three good things (for him) happen. First, the Right may forget about the issue. Second, he can say to the Moonbat Wing “We tried.” Third, he can say to the Moonbat Wing “See, SCOTUS is full of right-wing ideologues. We need more ‘Responsible Center-Left’ judges.”

njcommuter on June 18, 2010 at 9:51 PM

CWforFreedom on June 18, 2010 at 9:45 PM

What if liberal states had done that during the Iraq war? If we had sent state troops there to pursue their own objectives because we didn’t believe the Bush administration was prosecuting the war effectively? Would you have supported that?

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 9:52 PM

For example, should states be able to send their own armies to war because they disagree with the foreign policy of the federal government?

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 9:29 PM

It’s not a matter of disagreement, it is the fact that the feds are not doing what they are chartered to do.
Obama is allowing our citizens to be intimidated, beaten, killed, loss of property…AZ has every right to defend it’s citizen, and every citizen has the right to defend itself, even if the government chooses not to…that does not remove the right of the individual to be free.
If the government stated you were to be enslaved, you wouldn’t go along with that, or if they allowed you to be enslaved you would hope that your state would intervene…that is what is happening. AZ is being attacked by a foreign power, and illegals are given carte blanch to enter the country and roam around freely.
Az says that the feds are not constitutionally providing protection, therefore it is incumbent on the state to protect it’s citizen.
You don’t get it…people are actually being killed, and driven off their land…we have every right to defend our land, our freedom, with or without the feds help.
The lawsuit will determine if the feds are doing their job…you are satisfied they are, I and most of AZ do not think they are. But then you haven’t had anyone murdered by these Mexican gangsters, you haven’t had your property stolen, or you haven’t been shot at, so you don’t care.
We will let the courts decide…but it won’t go to court, this is grandstanding by Obama, he will be skewered when the facts of how impotent he is as a leader.

right2bright on June 18, 2010 at 9:58 PM

For example, should states be able to send their own armies to war because they disagree with the foreign policy of the federal government?

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Focus, try to stay on subject, we are talking about a state along a foreign border, where the feds have chosen not to protect American citizens…focus, focus, put down the Krispy Kremes and focus…

right2bright on June 18, 2010 at 10:01 PM

It’s not a matter of disagreement, it is the fact that the feds are not doing what they are chartered to do.

right2bright on June 18, 2010 at 9:58 PM

Ok, get enough Americans to agree with you, and then elect federal officials who will implement the policies you prefer. It’s that simple.

But until then, the federal government has the constitutional authority and responsibility to implement its own immigration policy. And it can authorize or limit state enforcement of those policies as it wishes. You may not like it, but that’s the way our system of government works. If you have a problem with it, amend the Constitution. Or move elsewhere.

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 10:05 PM

right2bright on June 18, 2010 at 9:18 PM

I was going to respond to crr6 myself but it is useless. Thank you for your service. These libs will never ever ever just respond simply to a point that is being discussed.

She asked who would/could sue the govt. for not enforcing a law that THEY MADE. I think that was a good question but not how she intended.

arnold ziffel on June 18, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Focus, try to stay on subject, we are talking about a state along a foreign border, where the feds have chosen not to protect American citizens…focus, focus, put down the Krispy Kremes and focus…

right2bright on June 18, 2010 at 10:01 PM

It’s called an “analogy” right2bright.

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 10:05 PM

She asked who would/could sue the govt. for not enforcing a law that THEY MADE. I think that was a good question but not how she intended.

arnold ziffel on June 18, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Well citizens can’t sue the government just because they feel the govt. isn’t following the law. They don’t have standing.

It was a legitimate question.

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 10:06 PM

A state can’t encroach on a power which is constitutionally delegated to the federal government just because it disagrees with the way the federal government is exercising that power.

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Not disagree, that fact is the feds are not…Obama is allowing American citizens to die, you think that is okay, Jan thinks it is more important to protect American lives then to allow them to die because of an incompetent leader.
You think the law trumps freedom, and others think freedom trumps the law. The feds are there to protect our freedom, of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, to promote the general welfare of its people…when it can’t or won’t then the states and individuals, have every right to defend themselves against foreign invaders.
You think we are there to support the law, but the law is there to support our freedom…focus, focus, learn what the constitution is, it is to give us unlimited power, not to limit our power.

right2bright on June 18, 2010 at 10:07 PM

It’s called an “analogy” right2bright.

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Actually it’s called a stupid analogy…we are not talking about invading, we are talking about being invaded. We are not talking about taking action on others soil, it’s about defending our soil.
So go along with my analogy,if the gov. takes your house without compensation, that would be okay with you, you wouldn’t take them to court?
Well they are allowing foreigners to come in and steal property, and even take lives, and do nothing about it…you are very cavalier about someone being killed. I can tell you are very liberal, having someone killed so your people can retain power is fine with you.

right2bright on June 18, 2010 at 10:12 PM

Ok, get enough Americans to agree with you, and then elect federal officials who will implement the policies you prefer. It’s that simple.

But until then, the federal government has the constitutional authority and responsibility to implement its own immigration policy. And it can authorize or limit state enforcement of those policies as it wishes. You may not like it, but that’s the way our system of government works. If you have a problem with it, amend the Constitution. Or move elsewhere.

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 10:05 PM

You are so insanely clueless you should ask for a refund from that school you claim to go to.

The federal government is limited in its authority. Remember, we have a LIMITED GOVERNMENT. The states have sovereignity within their own borders so long as it doesn’t conflict with the constitution or with other states. I’m sure you’ll recall that, given your sterling defense of the commerce clause… right?

The state law matches federal law, word for word, just like many other laws regarding kidnapping, financial fraud, INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SPEED LIMITS and the like. If Obama is going to claim that only the federal government can enforce federal law and wins the case, then any other law on state’s books that is also a federal crime will become unenforceable by the states.

For example, should states be able to send their own armies to war because they disagree with the foreign policy of the federal government?

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Yup. That’s why they’re STATE MILITIAS and are legal under the authority of the US Constitution. **BUT** you can’t fight against the union.

Skywise on June 18, 2010 at 10:19 PM

A state can’t encroach on a power which is constitutionally delegated to the federal government just because it disagrees with the way the federal government is exercising that power.

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 9:29 PM

The Federal Government has constitutional jurisdiction over determining what defines a legal citizen of the United States. There’s no constitutional provision or authority over “illegal aliens”. States can and do have trespassing laws on the books and can expel people from the state if they’re non-citizaens. Once the alien is outside state bounds it becomes a federal/interstate issue. And that’s where the constitution comes back into play. Putting people on planes invokes federal authority as well (airplane transportation being a federal controlled mode of transportation), so the fed has jurisdiction over expelling an alien that way too… So Colorado might not be able to deport people but Arizona certainly can.

Skywise on June 18, 2010 at 10:27 PM

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Arguing by analogy is one of the weakest forms available in debate. Perhaps they will teach you this when they teach you some form of debate in law school. I taught it to undergrads, but better late than never.

DrMagnolias on June 18, 2010 at 10:32 PM

Wow … just wow. What a tremendously incompetent manner in which to announce the decision. The Obama administration informed the Ecuadorian people of this decision before the White House informed Americans. I’m not sure if that’s Hope and Change, the New Transparency, or Smart Power.

The next Obama administration announcement concerning the revocation of the Constitution will be made in Botswana.

olesparkie on June 18, 2010 at 10:37 PM

What if liberal states had done that during the Iraq war? If we had sent state troops there to pursue their own objectives because we didn’t believe the Bush administration was prosecuting the war effectively? Would you have supported that?

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 9:52 PM

Apples and oranges Ms. Third Tier. Not even close to my point.

CWforFreedom on June 18, 2010 at 10:38 PM

hmmm the little roach has been eaten alive

CWforFreedom on June 18, 2010 at 10:39 PM

I guess Arizona is no longer one of the 57 states.

Question I expect to be answered one way or the other sooner rather than later – If the federal government refuses to exercise duties assigned to it by the Constitution by refusing to prevent invasion and refusing to guarantee a republican form of government to every state, do the states have the right to leave the Union?

steveegg on June 18, 2010 at 2:30 PM

Eh, Texas? Whatup? *crickets*

ProudPalinFan on June 18, 2010 at 10:45 PM

Wow … just wow. What a tremendously incompetent manner in which to announce the decision. The Obama administration informed the Ecuadorian people of this decision before the White House informed Americans. I’m not sure if that’s Hope and Change, the New Transparency, or Smart Power.

The Bush White House was way too disciplined to do things like this. Wouldn’t you love to see a reporter ask Obama when he was going to try to reach up to the standards set by George Bush?

There Goes The Neighborhood on June 18, 2010 at 10:46 PM

What if liberal states had done that during the Iraq war? If we had sent state troops there to pursue their own objectives because we didn’t believe the Bush administration was prosecuting the war effectively? Would you have supported that?

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 9:52 PM

Laughable so the liberal states were being attacked and not defended by the fed? yeh that relates perfectly to what I said./sarc (Are you drinking??)

CWforFreedom on June 18, 2010 at 10:46 PM

A friend of mine told me today not to worry as I do about this administration. He said that it’s falling apart quickly and that all the things BO is doing are going to blow up in his face.

This could be the final straw.

Cody1991 on June 18, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Therefore, my forecast and prediction = this doofus won’t make it to 2012.

ProudPalinFan on June 18, 2010 at 10:53 PM

Laughable so the liberal states were being attacked and not defended by the fed? y

CWforFreedom on June 18, 2010 at 10:46 PM

Sure, yeah. Citizens of liberal states were dying due to Bush’s faulty prosecution of the war.

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 10:57 PM


The Obama administration informed the Ecuadorian people of this decision before the White House informed Americans.

That’s because they regard Arizona, not Ecuador, as “the foreign country”.

Noel on June 18, 2010 at 11:00 PM

Barton apologizes to BP, and this administration apologizes to the whole world. Constantly.

Noel on June 18, 2010 at 11:02 PM

A state can’t encroach on a power which is constitutionally delegated to the federal government just because it disagrees with the way the federal government is exercising that power.

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Congress is not exercising that power, and in fact has delegated the enforcement of that power to AZ through several MOA’s under existing federal law.

Fighton03 on June 18, 2010 at 11:04 PM

The federal government is limited in its authority. Remember, we have a LIMITED GOVERNMENT. The states have sovereignity within their own borders so long as it doesn’t conflict with the constitution or with other states. I’m sure you’ll recall that, given your sterling defense of the commerce clause… right?

The state law matches federal law, word for word, just like many other laws regarding kidnapping, financial fraud, INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SPEED LIMITS and the like. If Obama is going to claim that only the federal government can enforce federal law and wins the case, then any other law on state’s books that is also a federal crime will become unenforceable by the states.

This post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue at hand. And you really should educate yourself more before posting.

No one is arguing that states can’t ever enforce federal laws. But they can only do so consistent with Congressional intent. So if a federal law authorizes some concurrent state enforcement (and federal immigration law does allow that, to a certain extent), then states are welcome to enforce the federal law consistent with that authorization.

But states can’t “enforce” federal immigration law if doing so is contrary to Congressional intent. For example, if doing so would unnecessarily burden federal officials, or if doing so would interfere with the federal enforcement of, or administration of federal law.

Yup. That’s why they’re STATE MILITIAS and are legal under the authority of the US Constitution. **BUT** you can’t fight against the union.

Skywise on June 18, 2010 at 10:19 PM

It’s sort of sad that you don’t realize how unbelievably unconstitutional that is. Only the Pres. (subject to the advice and consent of the Senate) can negotiate treaties with foreign nations, and only Congress can declare war. You really are just making sh*t up.

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 11:05 PM

Citizens of liberal states were dying due to Bush’s faulty prosecution of the war.

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 10:57 PM

sovereign immunity.

Fighton03 on June 18, 2010 at 11:06 PM

Congress is not exercising that power

Yeah, they are. You just don’t like the way they’re doing so. Immigration law isn’t all about securing the border and keeping those out who are illegally in the country. If Congress wants, they can focus their immigration policy more on providing people with a means of immigrating to the country and earning citizenship. Congress can seek to balance those two missions however it wishes (securing the border and providing for legal immigration). AZ’s law is just focused on the first mission, and the federal government has a right to have the law struck down if they feel that it isn’t consistent with the balance that federal immigration policy seeks to obtain.

and in fact has delegated the enforcement of that power to AZ through several MOA’s under existing federal law.

Fighton03 on June 18, 2010 at 11:04 PM

Yeah, I know that federal law provides for some state enforcement. But, like you said, that is power that the feds chose to expressly delegate ( or more properly, reserve) to the states.

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 11:10 PM

sovereign immunity.

Fighton03 on June 18, 2010 at 11:06 PM

No one’s arguing he should have been sued. What does sovereign immunity have to do with anything?

I’m just pointing out that, it would have been wrong for liberal states to encroach on a power (foreign policy) which is constitutionally delegated to the federal government by sending state troops to Iraq, simply because they disagreed with Bush’s foreign policy.

If they wanted to change U.S. foreign policy, they could attempt to elect a liberal President (and they did). Likewise, if you want to change U.S. immigration policy, garner support for your views and then elect a conservative President. That’s how the system works.

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 11:13 PM

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 11:13 PM

that’s the principle that kept a liberal state from sueing the feds over war prosecution (especially if casualties were suffered in a states NG units that had been federalized).

Fighton03 on June 18, 2010 at 11:38 PM

Yeah, I know that federal law provides for some state enforcement. But, like you said, that is power that the feds chose to expressly delegate ( or more properly, reserve) to the states.

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 11:10 PM

AZ has several MOA’s ranging from the DPS to local sheriffs depts. AZ has already been delegated this authority by congress. Please argue how the feds have an argument for pre-emption given both that congress has vacated the field, AND the USAG has entered into agreements with AZ already.

Fighton03 on June 18, 2010 at 11:41 PM

that’s the principle that kept a liberal state from sueing the feds over war prosecution (especially if casualties were suffered in a states NG units that had been federalized).

Fighton03 on June 18, 2010 at 11:38 PM

Oh. Yeah I’m not arguing that states should be able to sue the fed. govt. over war prosecution. That would be stupid.

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 11:44 PM

Priorities, people. Priorities.

ZK on June 18, 2010 at 11:50 PM

Yeah, they are. You just don’t like the way they’re doing so. Immigration law isn’t all about securing the border and keeping those out who are illegally in the country. If Congress wants, they can focus their immigration policy more on providing people with a means of immigrating to the country and earning citizenship. Congress can seek to balance those two missions however it wishes (securing the border and providing for legal immigration). AZ’s law is just focused on the first mission, and the federal government has a right to have the law struck down if they feel that it isn’t consistent with the balance that federal immigration policy seeks to obtain.

So your position is that even if the AZ law is written to be exactly the same as the federal law, the court has to use some psychic power to determine “congressional intent” and say that the two laws, which are identical, really aren’t?

I’m bow before your legal acumen. You must be much smarter than I, cause I just can’t see how that’s gonna work.

PetecminMd on June 18, 2010 at 11:53 PM

Oh. Yeah I’m not arguing that states should be able to sue the fed. govt. over war prosecution. That would be stupid.

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 11:44 PM

the principle works both ways.

Fighton03 on June 18, 2010 at 11:55 PM

OK..I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but a month or so ago when this bill was passed, I could access MOA’s for various states from the ICE website. I could also link to various text versions of the bill. Those links are no longer present.

Fighton03 on June 18, 2010 at 11:57 PM

the principle works both ways.

Fighton03 on June 18, 2010 at 11:55 PM

Well there’s this thing called the Supremacy clause.

crr6 on June 19, 2010 at 12:00 AM

the principle works both ways.

Fighton03 on June 18, 2010 at 11:55 PM

Well there’s this thing called the Supremacy clause.

crr6 on June 19, 2010 at 12:00 AM

yes, but there is also this thing called the 11th amendment.

Fighton03 on June 19, 2010 at 12:03 AM

Fighton03 on June 18, 2010 at 11:57 PM

You can access the bill here right?

crr6 on June 19, 2010 at 12:03 AM

You can access the bill here right?

crr6 on June 19, 2010 at 12:03 AM

wrong bill. I was trying to get back to IIRIRA, the legislative version, but also Various MOA’s between ICE and the agencies they had delegated authority to. The ICE pages contained links to text and PDF versions several months ago. The pages are dead now….just lists.

Fighton03 on June 19, 2010 at 12:07 AM

yes, but there is also this thing called the 11th amendment.

Fighton03 on June 19, 2010 at 12:03 AM

Sovereign immunity doesn’t extend to suits by the fed govt. over the states violating federal law (including of course, the Constitution).

crr6 on June 19, 2010 at 12:08 AM

You can access the bill here right?

crr6 on June 19, 2010 at 12:03 AM

Before said suit can commence, their must be a congressional abrogation of state sovereignty on the issue at hand.

Fighton03 on June 19, 2010 at 12:09 AM

gah…got hit by the copy bug again…..the abrogation comment was direct to

crr6 on June 19, 2010 at 12:08 AM

Fighton03 on June 19, 2010 at 12:11 AM

Before said suit can commence, their must be a congressional abrogation of state sovereignty on the issue at hand.

Fighton03 on June 19, 2010 at 12:09 AM

Well I’d imagine that’s happened since states have been sued by the feds based upon their immigration policies before.

crr6 on June 19, 2010 at 12:28 AM

Gird your loins.

Ugly on June 19, 2010 at 12:46 AM

Well I’d imagine that’s happened since states have been sued by the feds based upon their immigration policies before.

crr6 on June 19, 2010 at 12:28 AM

which cases?

Fighton03 on June 19, 2010 at 12:48 AM

Go to bed, Dickford.

hillbillyjim on June 19, 2010 at 12:53 AM

Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Candelaria. I think the SG office’s brief was turned in a couple weeks ago recommending that SCOTUS grant cert. The 9th Circuit upheld the law.

crr6 on June 19, 2010 at 1:06 AM

Well I’d imagine that’s happened since states have been sued by the feds based upon their immigration policies before.
crr6 on June 19, 2010 at 12:28 AM
which cases?
Fighton03 on June 19, 2010 at 12:48 AM

Oh really? Cmon judge judy which ones? Don’t even try CA prop 187 which was shopped to a biased fed judge—-and not by the FEDS themselves.

arnold ziffel on June 19, 2010 at 1:07 AM

which cases?
Fighton03 on June 19, 2010 at 12:48 AM

Eh actually I don’t think the feds sued in that case, but regardless, the state obviously didn’t have sovereign immunity.

crr6 on June 19, 2010 at 1:12 AM

Eh actually I don’t think the feds sued in that case, but regardless, the state obviously didn’t have sovereign immunity.

crr6 on June 19, 2010 at 1:12 AM

actually sovereign immunity exists until it is explicitly waived with regard to the defendants and action to be reviewed. States have sovereign immunity from their residents the same way the feds do from “taxpayers” and states…unless waived by state legislatures through specific legislation.

Fighton03 on June 19, 2010 at 1:15 AM

crr6 on June 19, 2010 at 1:12 AM

the federal gov’t rarely does. It acts through individuals or small groups that have much more secure standing in these kind of cases.

Fighton03 on June 19, 2010 at 1:16 AM

actually sovereign immunity exists until it is explicitly waived with regard to the defendants and action to be reviewed. States have sovereign immunity from their residents the same way the feds do from “taxpayers” and states…unless waived by state legislatures through specific legislation.

Fighton03 on June 19, 2010 at 1:15 AM

Yeah but I don’t think they have sovereign immunity from actions brought by the feds when the state has violated federal law. See Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).

crr6 on June 19, 2010 at 1:19 AM

and to change to a less serious and slightly more crass tone…shrillary looks like some character from southpark in that pic.

Fighton03 on June 19, 2010 at 1:19 AM

Yeah but I don’t think they have sovereign immunity from actions brought by the feds when the state has violated federal law. See Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).

crr6 on June 19, 2010 at 1:19 AM

ex parte young has taken a bit a beating in recent times. I wonder how well lawsuits based on that precedent will prceed against governor brewer.

Fighton03 on June 19, 2010 at 1:25 AM

Fighton03 on June 19, 2010 at 1:25 AM

that’s also assuming you can show a violation of federal law, not just the idea of pre-emption (which you still haven’t made a supported argument for).

Fighton03 on June 19, 2010 at 1:26 AM

that’s also assuming you can show a violation of federal law, not just the idea of pre-emption (which you still haven’t made a supported argument for).

Fighton03 on June 19, 2010 at 1:26 AM

Well presumably if the law is preempted, then it violates the supremacy clause. The Supremacy clause is in the Constitution. The Constitution is federal law.

crr6 on June 19, 2010 at 1:28 AM

Well presumably if the law is preempted, then it violates the supremacy clause. The Supremacy clause is in the Constitution. The Constitution is federal law.

crr6 on June 19, 2010 at 1:28 AM

quite a..presumption. the idea of preemption is separate. If an area of law is preempted by federal action, then it is void. No other lawsuits or action may follow.

Fighton03 on June 19, 2010 at 1:35 AM

and now, I will presume to sleep that I might create a driveway on the morrow. At least i don’t need a federal permit to do that yet.

Fighton03 on June 19, 2010 at 1:52 AM

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 1:28 AM

If you were capable you would be relieved to know that breathing is involuntary.

jdkchem on June 19, 2010 at 1:57 AM

The Constitution is federal law.

crr6 on June 19, 2010 at 1:28 AM

This is why dumbass just cannot ‘get it.’ When someone is this far out in the weeds, it’s unlikely he/she will ever be found.

platypus on June 19, 2010 at 2:18 AM

Is Dickford still bothering y’all?

I’ve never had a day’s training, but I’ll take that Dickford on any time, any day, just on principle.

hillbillyjim on June 19, 2010 at 2:53 AM

Dickford, you really need to recycle your arguments so they aren’t so apparent.

hillbillyjim on June 19, 2010 at 2:54 AM

I’m sure it doesn’t matter to a hero such as yourself, but I really don’t care for you. Not even a little bit. You ruin yourself.

hillbillyjim on June 19, 2010 at 2:57 AM

If they wanted to change U.S. foreign policy, they could attempt to elect a liberal President (and they did). Likewise, if you want to change U.S. immigration policy, garner support for your views and then elect a conservative President. That’s how the system works.

crr6 on June 18, 2010 at 11:13 PM

For all your sounding off, you’ve got to be one of the dumbest trolls to appear on this blog.

If you want to garner support for your views on Arizona’s law enforcement policy, you would have to change US immigration law…dumbass.

Saltysam on June 19, 2010 at 3:13 AM

I swear. Hildabeast looks just like one of those Disney Animatronic Robot thingies. Scary!

Yeah. What’s up with that face? I try to make it a point never to comment on someone’s appearance, but she looks like she just had a session with Madge the embalmer.

Mr. Grump on June 19, 2010 at 3:43 AM

So, the US Government is butthurt that someone is pointing out that they are not doing their job as specified in the US Constitution. Now they are going to waste (probably multiples of) millions of our dollars in a frivolous lawsuit? Money that would better be served to CLOSE the border to stop ALL people who try to enter the US illegally? [First] Money that would better be served to apprehend and deport ANY illegal person caught (legally caught, of course) within our borders? [Second] Hey buddy, can you spare a dime? Time to get real. The illusion will end at some point. Where will you be?

Netclimber on June 19, 2010 at 4:02 AM

CBS News reports that a “senior administration official” has confirmed to them that Hillary Clinton was telling the truth…

That’s the most shocking part.

Mr. Grump on June 19, 2010 at 4:35 AM

Is this comparable to anything in our history? Has there ever been a lawsuit of US vs. _______ State?

I’m racking my brain trying to remember an administration going after a state like this…

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on June 19, 2010 at 5:11 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4