Arizona immigration law - SCOTUS will decide State's Rights VS Federal

1. 68

   ptosisposted 12 years ago

   It has been said that "Immigration is a federal issue and we can't have 50 states making 50 laws." but we have 50 different rules for voting for the president which is also a federal issue.
   
   I'm not asking if you are for or against SB1070. I'm asking if states' right of self governing should be changed. Are you for State Sovereignty  movement that supports the 10th Amendment?
   
   In the past it was Federal that trumped state rights from slavery to medical marijuana. If the Fed couldn't do it by law - they would impose federal will by other means, I.E. stopping  highway funds to states that allowed over 55mph speed limits in the 1970's and currently to set the legal drinking age at 21.
   
   The 10th; 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.
   
   SCOTUS will also be deciding on Obama care - so the AZ law decision will probably align with the National Health Care Act.
   
   State Sovereignty means the "federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states" - http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw … ement.html
   
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Immigration probably wouldn't be as much of an issue if the federal government (Obama, Eric Holder) didn't force our straw purchasers to sell 2,000 fire arms to Mexican drug cartels in order to legitimize their anti gun agenda.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Utter baloney and reactionary propaganda!
         
         

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            You are absolutely right, fast and furious was flurry of mistakes and miscommunications on the part of gun store owners.
            
            

            replyreport
   2. 62

      Dennis AuBuchonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You have written a great topic and one which will impact state and federal government relationships in the future dependent upon the response by the Supreme Court.  The responsibilities of the federal government are clearly identified within the Constitution.  While there are topics which are not specifically identified in the Constitution there are topics which is appropriate for the federal government to address. This does not mean that the rights of the states are taken away only that the topic is so big and impacts each state that some involvement by the federal government may be appropriate.  The question in these cases is what level is appropriate and what should be left up to the states to address.
      
      I am not sure how the Supreme Court will address both the issues you have identified within this topic but in both cases whatever the decision it will impact state and fedeal government responsibilities as they are now.
      If the Supreme Court upholds the Arizona law it will give new stature to laws generated by the individual states and reduce the level of involvement in state issues.
      
      In terms of the healthcare law the impact will depend upon the action taken by the Supreme Court and the response by the federal government.  If the law is decided the federal government overstepped its authority then changes will need to be generated to address the issues identified by the Supreme Court.

      replyreport
   3. 59

      glockrposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "I'm not asking if you are for or against SB1070. I'm asking if states' right of self governing should be changed. Are you for State Sovereignty  movement that supports the 10th Amendment?"
      
      I am in favor of the State Sovereignty movement. The Federal government is far beyond the powers granted it by our Constitution. Our current "rulers" seem to think that citizens are supposed to serve government instead of government serving citizens.

      replyreport
2. 64

   maxoxam41posted 12 years ago

   Which country in the world is not federalized? Doesn't it work for them? Why wouldn't we?

   replyreport
3. 80

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   Um. Most countries aren't federalized because they weren't founded but by bit--but as a complete (usually not huge) entity.
   
   IMHO states can decide who they eject from the state.   Who can be ejected from the country strikes me as a federal issue.  Try sending them north instead of south

   replyreport
4. 64

   maxoxam41posted 12 years ago

   Any examples that come to your mind  about those countries that are not federalized to the community? Or are you all air?

   replyreport
5. 80

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   I assume you mean federalized as being a federation (A union of self governing regions).  In which case: New Zealand, most African countries, most European countries, Japan etc.

   replyreport
6. 64

   maxoxam41posted 12 years ago

   You assumed wrong. And that's what I thought, you don't know what you are talking about! What don't you keep on entertaining others with your mythological fairies?

   replyreport
   1. 80

      psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Federation has that meaning.  If you mean something else... you are off topic. OP is talking about conflicts in state versus federal authority. A problem specific to federations.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Most countries are composed of individual states that became part of a federation, both Argentina and Australia did this for example (I give them as example because i know those for a fact because they are my home countries) in most of them the states have less power than they do here, I think it's foolish for individual states to mandate very much because it produces extremism, different states with different opinions pass different laws according to their own vision and that causes disunity also financially we all have to bear the cost of those dumb decisions because the federal government bails out the states.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            The federal government IS the states.

            replyreport
7. 61

   Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

   FYI Department:
   
   Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments, creating what is often called a federation. Proponents are often called federalists.
   
   

   replyreport
8. 68

   ptosisposted 12 years ago

   Nobody really answered my question.
   
   
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 64

      maxoxam41posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I thought my answer was clear. I am for federalism. A state shouldn't decide, Arizona's law on immigration showed how immature a state can be. The law should be the same for each American.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      ptosis, could you please provide a link for the image you placed here. My old eyes can't quite make it out and I couldn't find it. Thanks in advance.

      replyreport
      1. 68

         ptosisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4YFhK87NXPE/S … GUE_g1.gif
         
         Sorry but this is as big as it'll ever get (never heard that one before - not!)
         
         Anyway, can zoom view in your browser. If have firefox it's VIEW > ZOOM
         
         
         Thankx everybody for the input. I'm just wondering if SCOTUS is going to be consistent in its decisions.
         
         As far as Operation 'Dumb & Dumber' - perhaps the motive is give the cartels guns so that they all shoot each other and die out. (stupid plan) - the way blacks were targeted for CIA cocaine in California. (Dark Alliance : The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion)

         replyreport
   3. 61

      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Your question is still debated and (like beauty & political persuasion) is in the eye of the beholder.  Can a state constitution trump our federal Constitution?
      
      "When the 10th Amendment was originally proposed, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states; it applied only to federal law. States had their own constitutions and their own bills of rights.
      
      Some states also had slavery, which was protected under the Tenth Amendment. The American Civil War made it clear that this wasn't a workable system, so the Fourteenth Amendment extended the Bill of Rights and made it applicable to both state and federal law. For this reason, the Tenth Amendment, while still relevant, no longer holds as much power as it once did."
      
      With our present Supreme Court, it looks like the 10th Amendment is about to trump the 14th!
      
      

      replyreport
9. 0

   Longhunterposted 12 years ago

   In an ideal situation, the federal government would enforce federal laws and the states wouldn't have the need to come up with it's own to protect it's citizens.
   
   In this particular case, we have a federal government that's done little or nothing to enforce it's own immigration law. There comes a point where, if the federal government won't do it's job and state laws are being broken, the state must step in to ensure the safety of it's citizens.
   
   I only wish Tennessee would do the same and no longer be a "safe heaven' state.

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That's been my understanding of the Arizona law - there is very little new in it except that it gives Arizona enforcement the right and duty to enforce what are already federal laws. 
      
      In other words, if the Feds won't enforce the laws, Arizona will.

      replyreport
      1. 68

         ptosisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Right now in AZ the BP are more of a rescue mission ( a lot of chickens die out there when abandoned by the coyotes) - and ICE only detains the 'worst of the worst' with 98% being sent back right over the border to do it again the next day. boy great job security.
         
         I think that they should fly 'em back to Chiapas on the southernmost tail of Mexico. That way they have to travel 2000 miles to get back to the USA. It'll probably discourage folks to border run if sent to the poorest district in Mexico as punishment instead of 500 feet from the border.
         
         I live 7 miles from the border but I'm protected by mountains and hordes of BP and a radar blimp. I feel pretty safe hiking although I carry weapons when I do. They say that the crossers never travel alone and are in groups of 20.
         
         Since SB1070 the kidnapping rate in PHX has dropped. No -  not kidnapping Americans, once the coyote brings the chickens to US, they lock 'em up in homes in Tuscon and Phoenix and abuse them so that they can extort more money from the families already working in the US.
         
         Wild horses couldn't drag me to go to Mexico with all that extreme violence. My hub on it has such graphic violence that Hubpages won't allow any advertising on it at all.
         
         <link snipped, no self promotion>

         replyreport
      2. 0

         Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Sounds like a law all the states need then since it's for damn sure the Fed isn't going to do it's job.

         replyreport
10. 61

    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

    

    replyreport
11. 93

    habeeposted 12 years ago

    Have you guys heard Sotomayor's comments on this? I was very surprised.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       ptosisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       No, I had to google it and found this: "Sonia Sotomayor, arguing that S.B. 1070′s "papers please" provision — which requires law enforcement officers to demand immigration papers from anyone stopped, detained or arrested in the state — does no more than assist the federal government’s own policy of keeping tabs on undocumented immigrants." - http://montgomerycountypolicereporter.com/?p=43767
       
       I was arrested last year in AZ, at the time i didn't feel 'racially profiled'. But during a bust next door I was outside my apt. and this young cop demanded to see my ID even though I wasn't involved. I showed it to him (had it on me) but complained to my other neighbor about how that was wrong loud enough to let the other older cops there know how I felt about it. Damn green cop was full of himself - but I didn't take it as racist. The police are only supposed to ask ID if involved and not part of the peanut gallery.
       
       In AZ the BP asks at the checkpoints that are more than 50 miles away from the border; "Are you an American citizen?" And I says yes. BP does not ask for ID ever on the highway checks I've been in. (Yes I' have olive skin - but a NY accent)
       
       I don't think BP is even allowed to ask for ID unless your car is 'hit' by the dog.

       replyreport