2012 Presidential race

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

I am aware they said the new laws conflicted with federal law but I don't see the issue with a state enforcing federal laws that the Feds won't enforce. That's where I agree with Scalia.

Thats why they're "federal laws." A state couldn't have charged Michael Vick with an interstate crime if they felt that the Feds wrongly dismissed a charge against him.

[RedskinsDave]

It is unfair for a state to have to suffer because the federal government fails in its duties. The feds should have to reimburse states like Arizona who are victims of the political horse play and downright ignorance of the laws.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

It is unfair for a state to have to suffer because the federal government fails in its duties. The feds should have to reimburse states like Arizona who are victims of the political horse play and downright ignorance of the laws.

I don't think that discussions of what's "fair" to a state or citizens is one that makes much sense. There's a lot of US civil society which isn't "fair" to states or citizens.

As for this specific issue, Arizona is estimated to have 283k illegals in it out of a population of 6.4 million. Hard to claim that they're this anchor around the neck of the state and it doesn't help when there's a lot of claims made about what illegals bring to the US(such as a rash of beheadings) which just aren't true.

[RedskinsDave]

I guess the crime and kidnappings my wife investigated aren't true either. I will tell them they can close the fusion center. That should save a lot of money.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

It is unfair for a state to have to suffer because the federal government fails in its duties.

That's fine in principle, but the answer is not to ignore judicial precedent. Anyhow, that particular argument applies to any number of subjects that you wouldn't want it applied to (such as gun control and environmental policy).

The Republicans have once again painted themselves into the stupid corner - this time on immigration. Can't do anything that results in a path to citizenship, can't punish businesses who hire illegals, can't track down and deport 13,000,000 people, can't fund a border fence that would actually work, yet won't support the DREAM Act or any other actual viable solutions. The Federal Governmnent is paralyzed as a result. Rather than expect his political party to actually Govern, Scalia prefers to re-write the roles of Feds vs States. It's an end-around.

[RedskinsDave]

Originally Posted by Ibleedburgundy

That's fine in principle, but the answer is not to ignore judicial precedent. Anyhow, that particular argument applies to any number of subjects that you wouldn't want it applied to (such as gun control and environmental policy).

Really? You think the feds would contest stricter environmental and gun laws because they run contrary to federal ones? I beg to differ. I don't see anyone from the federal government putting up a stink over New York trampling all over my second amendment rights.

The Republicans have once again painted themselves into the stupid corner - this time on immigration. Can't do anything that results in a path to citizenship, can't punish businesses who hire illegals, can't track down and deport 13,000,000 people, can't fund a border fence that would actually work, yet won't support the DREAM Act or any other actual viable solutions. The Federal Governmnent is paralyzed as a result. Rather than expect his political party to actually Govern, Scalia prefers to re-write the roles of Feds vs States. It's an end-around.

Republicans like Rubio or other ones? Did you move out of the way for them to get into the corner?

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

I guess the crime and kidnappings my wife investigated aren't true either. I will tell them they can close the fusion center. That should save a lot of money.

I must have missed when I said that there's no crime caused by illegals. Maybe I should write my responses in a language you can actually read or understand?

Brewer claimed, in public and in her brief, that illegals were beheading americans along the border and this extraordinary situation should give Arizona the right to defend itself from illegals. The FBI can't find any examples of this actually happening(and Brewer half assed a retraction publicly and changed it slightly in her brief). There have been a lot of deaths involving illegals in Arizona, the majority of them have been deaths in the desert from exposure.

And for the general issue(and I'm looking forward to how you intentionally tap dance in responding to this btw), Fed Judge Posner sums it up nicely:

Link

Justice Scalia says that "Arizona bears the brunt of the country's illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrant who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy." Arizona bears the brunt? Arizona is only one of the states that border Mexico, and if it succeeds in excluding illegal immigrants, these other states will bear the brunt, so it is unclear what the net gain to society would have been from Arizona's efforts, now partially invalidated by the Supreme Court. But the suggestion that illegal immigrants in Arizona are invading Americans' property, straining their social services, and even placing their lives in jeopardy is sufficiently inflammatory to call for a citation to some reputable source of such hyperbole. Justice Scalia cites nothing to support it.

I placed a bet with Vegas that you're going to play the "media source is liberal" or "Ponser's an idiot" card.

[RedskinsDave]

Sufficiently inflammatory? That's his response? How about proving the claims wrong? Nah, let's use a liberal mamby pamby response instead. Acting like illegals aren't a strain is ignorant at best.

So what if the other states would have to then bear the brunt? Arizona is responsible for Arizona. If other states want to support the illegals like California, they can end up bankrupt like California. Arizona is trying to avoid that.

Is that good enough or do you have another liberal to quote to support your case for the illegals?

Added: I like his "less than 6% of their population" argument. Since when is 6% of a population a negligible number? Jews make up less than 2% of the U.S. Asians make up less than 6% too. I guess we can ignore those segments now. They aren't enough to matter.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

Sufficiently inflammatory? That's his response? How about proving the claims wrong? Nah, let's use a liberal mamby pamby response instead. Acting like illegals aren't a strain is ignorant at best.

So what if the other states would have to then bear the brunt? Arizona is responsible for Arizona. If other states want to support the illegals like California, they can end up bankrupt like California. Arizona is trying to avoid that.

Is that good enough or do you have another liberal to quote to support your case for the illegals?

Added: I like his "less than 6% of their population" argument. Since when is 6% of a population a negligible number? Jews make up less than 2% of the U.S. Asians make up less than 6% too. I guess we can ignore those segments now. They aren't enough to matter.

Posner was appointed by Reagan and is still considered a conservative judge. You know, the real kind, not the Sarah Palin/Grover Norquist/"quietly killing America because you treat policy as a game" type that you've seem to have morphed into.

The rest of your post is the usual warmed over crap that you consider political discussion, so I guess I'll just let you throw your fit without anymore input from me since you can't actually discuss this issue without intentional denseness or trying to change the subject away from the point at hand. Thanks for playing though lol.

[RedskinsDave]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Posner was appointed by Reagan and is still considered a conservative judge. You know, the real kind, not the Sarah Palin/Grover Norquist/"quietly killing America because you treat policy as a game" type that you've seem to have morphed into.

I was being facetious of course. I support the Constitution and enforcing the laws of this land, not rolling over and playing dead. Tomorrow may be a good day for people like me.

The rest of your post is the usual warmed over crap that you consider political discussion, so I guess I'll just let you throw your fit without anymore input from me since you can't actually discuss this issue without intentional denseness or trying to change the subject away from the point at hand. Thanks for playing though lol.

Warmed over crap and throwing a fit? No, I made factual statements you can't refute. Its probably best you run away from a non-winning argument.

[justinskins]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Thats why they're "federal laws." A state couldn't have charged Michael Vick with an interstate crime if they felt that the Feds wrongly dismissed a charge against him.

I'm not really that up on this but to the extent this is true, it is statutory not constitutional. The Constitution doesn't even require there to be a federal court system, and some envisioned all federal laws being enforced by state courts, with the Supreme Court handling appeals. In civil cases, there was no general federal question jurisdiction until well into the 19th century. There's nothing in theory wrong with the states enforcing federal laws.

The problem here is that the executive necessarily has a certain amount of discretion in how to enforce the law. That's especially true regarding immigration, which implicates foreign policy (the area where executive strength is the great). And immigration is in general the exclusive province is the federal government anyway. If this is a problem, then Congress needs to step in and take away some of that discretion - not the states.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

I was being facetious of course.

Bullsh*t

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

I support the Constitution and enforcing the laws of this land, not rolling over and playing dead. Tomorrow may be a good day for people like me.

I would make a comment about tomorrow, but its a fool's errand to expect you to be able make any constructive comments about Wickard v Filburn, the use of the Commerce Clause or any of the real constitutional issues behind Obamacare. And if the mandate survives, I'm sure you'll just do what you've been doing with the Arizona decision: fake indignancy.

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

Warmed over crap and throwing a fit? No, I made factual statements you can't refute. Its probably best you run away from a non-winning argument.

No, you offered opinions and haven't really contradicted anything I've written except with more opinions. There's a difference. For example:
" I don't see the issue with a state enforcing federal laws that the Feds won't enforce. That's where I agree with Scalia."
"I don't see the issue with the states enforcing federal law that the feds can't or won't enforce"
"It is unfair for a state to have to suffer because the federal government fails in its duties. The feds should have..."
"I beg to differ. I don't see anyone from the federal government putting up a stink over New York trampling all over my second amendment rights."

I don't see anywhere in this discussion where you use provable fact either. The closest you came is that the FBI investigated violence caused by illegals in the Southwest, but that wasn't really relevant to my point and when I pointed that out, you didn't respond. In response to my link from Judge Posner, you demanded that he(or I) disprove a negative, which is comical considering your indignancy now.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by justinskins

I'm not really that up on this but to the extent this is true, it is statutory not constitutional. The Constitution doesn't even require there to be a federal court system, and some envisioned all federal laws being enforced by state courts, with the Supreme Court handling appeals. In civil cases, there was no general federal question jurisdiction until well into the 19th century. There's nothing in theory wrong with the states enforcing federal laws.

In the sense that local cops can arrest someone for a federal crime, but they have to be turned over to the feds for prosecution, yes. A local cop can arrest someone on suspicion of bank robbery, but if the bank is a FDIC member, I think that they can't prosecute them. Arizona can arrest illegals and turn them over to the feds, they can't arrest them and prosecute them for being illegal in Arizona.

Originally Posted by justinskins

The problem here is that the executive necessarily has a certain amount of discretion in how to enforce the law. That's especially true regarding immigration, which implicates foreign policy (the area where executive strength is the great). And immigration is in general the exclusive province is the federal government anyway. If this is a problem, then Congress needs to step in and take away some of that discretion - not the states.

Thats what Kennedy based the decision on. He's right, but Arizona can still help the feds without prosecuting them for state crimes.

[justinskins]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

In the sense that local cops can arrest someone for a federal crime, but they have to be turned over to the feds for prosecution, yes. A local cop can arrest someone on suspicion of bank robbery, but if the bank is a FDIC member, I think that they can't prosecute them. Arizona can arrest illegals and turn them over to the feds, they can't arrest them and prosecute them for being illegal in Arizona.

Sorry, I was unclear. I think you may be right about being unable to prosecute a federal crime, in state court. However, my point is that it's a statutory limitation, not a constitutional one. In theory, there is nothing to prevent one private party from suing another under a federal law in state court. Of course, that is not true of some civil matters, which only the federal government can bring (like deportation).

That is different from what's going on here. Arizona isn't trying to enforce federal immigration laws in state court (probably because only the federal government can bring such actions). Instead, Arizona has created its owns law that supplements federal legislation and discretion in the area of immigration. And the Court says Arizona can't do that under the Constitution because, even though Congress hasn't explicitly preempted those laws, it's created a cohesive framework for immigration in which Arizona may not interfere.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by justinskins

Sorry, I was unclear. I think you may be right about being unable to prosecute a federal crime, in state court. However, my point is that it's a statutory limitation, not a constitutional one. In theory, there is nothing to prevent one private party from suing another under a federal law in state court. Of course, that is not true of some civil matters, which only the federal government can bring (like deportation).

That is different from what's going on here. Arizona isn't trying to enforce federal immigration laws in state court (probably because only the federal government can bring such actions). Instead, Arizona has created its owns law that supplements federal legislation and discretion in the area of immigration. And the Court says Arizona can't do that under the Constitution because, even though Congress hasn't explicitly preempted those laws, it's created a cohesive framework for immigration in which Arizona may not interfere.

Exactly. The issue of State v feds in basically irrelevant in this case because immigration is the portfolio of the federal government regardless of any opinions on how they're conducting that policy. As Kennedy wrote: "1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations."