jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (8 posts)

Has Jeff Session finally decided he's in charge?

  1. RJ Schwartz profile image94
    RJ Schwartzposted 13 days ago

    Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been under fire for most of his tenure.  He's been accused of being "invisible" on multiple occasions during the last year.  Many voters on both sides of the political spectrum are wondering exactly what he's getting paid for.

    That all changed yesterday, when AG Sessions came storming out of the gate with a lawsuit against the State of California, in which the office is challenging three CA laws under the Supremacy Clause.  California has aggressively enacted legislation that is in direct conflict to Federal immigration rules. 

    Do you think California has the right to enact laws to protect illegal aliens?  If so why?  What are your thoughts on Session's suddenly coming to life?  Is there something we taxpayers are missing? 


    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 13 days agoin reply to this

      I would guess that we're going to find out if California, or any other state, has the right to decide who can reside in this country or whether they don't.  Personally I would be rather disappointed to find a court that says "Yes, California can invite illegal aliens into the country in violation of federal law and then demand that the rest of the country pay to support them".

      It does seem that immigration in it's entirety, including harboring foreign criminals and aiding and abetting them in their illegal activities, is coming under fire.  At long last - it is decades since the time to act became apparent.

  2. Randy Godwin profile image93
    Randy Godwinposted 13 days ago

    My grandmother was fond of saying, "Thuh dumbest folks in thuh world are from Alabama."  tongue

  3. MizBejabbers profile image90
    MizBejabbersposted 12 days ago

    Do you think California has the right to enact laws to protect illegal aliens?"

    That is a very good question, Ralph, in fact we just had this discussion yesterday at our house. From a legal standpoint, and I'm not a lawyer, just a retired legal editor of 30 years, so I'm no expert. However, right now states are passing laws legalizing marijuana, which is illegal under federal law. What that has to do with your question is, so far, they are getting away with it.

    What's the difference in the violation of these two federal laws?  I see two things here. People seem to be in favor of the marijuana laws, but the majority seem to be against illegal aliens and sanctuary cities. Jeff Sessions hasn't come out and filed suit against states that have legalized marijuana like Colorado, Arkansas, etc. Sessions has the backing of most people, including some Democrats who don't think it's fair to put illegals who've broken the law above our own citizens. Maybe he's grown some stones.

    Or maybe he's just trying to make Trump happy and preserve his job.

    1. GA Anderson profile image82
      GA Andersonposted 12 days agoin reply to this

      Hi there MizBeJabbers, interesting point about the marijuana laws. I was just reading a lecture on the subject that also mentioned that comparison, but, I don't think that is a good comparison, (and neither did the lecture author).

      In the marijuana cases the states are not impeding the Feds, (as shown by the Fed's actions concerning California dispensaries), they are just enacting laws based on the current Fed stance, but I bet they know that they know won't survive a court challenge.

      I don't think the Feds will win their case based on the state laws contravening the Fed's laws - because they don't. (as I read it, California's laws were constructed based on the Supreme Court's Arizona case decision). But what they do do, (hehe..do-do), as I see it, is amount to obstructing Federal law enforcement from doing their job - which does violate the Supremacy clause.

      I think it would be hard to convince a judge that purposely releasing a detainee in a manner that precludes ICE enforcement from enforcing federal law is not obstruction. And I think that is where the sanctuary laws will fail.


      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 11 days agoin reply to this

        That's what it looks like to me, too.  It's not so much that state law enforcement is refusing to enforce federal laws - I don't know that they are required to do that - but that they are intentionally obstructing the enforcement of those laws. 

        Should Colorado, or other "marijuana" states, decide to aid marijuana users or suppliers in their state in avoiding prosecution for violating federal laws they could find themselves in the same boat.  Hopefully it won't come to that, but it seems that the feds could arrest and prosecute anyone owning or operating a store selling the drug.

        1. GA Anderson profile image82
          GA Andersonposted 11 days agoin reply to this

          Even as that seems a rational thought to us, from what little I have read about the DOJ suit, my perception is that it is claiming contravention of federal law. Hmm...

          I looked at a couple law/constitutional professor-type articles/lectures that discussed contravention and obstruction of enforcement as the two primary areas of Supremacy Clause issues like this one. So maybe I misunderstood Session's suit.

          This case will be interesting to follow.


          1. Randy Godwin profile image93
            Randy Godwinposted 11 days agoin reply to this

            I'll smoke to that, GA!  cool