Is someone preventing you from doing that?
The most contoversial part of the bill, allowing State and local police to question the immigration status of people that they’ve stopped, is still allowed. The USSC reiterated that State and Federal law enforcement are supposed to be working together to enforce the nations laws.
You are only able to connect Scalia’s partisan rhetoric to the judicial issue before the Court by conflating two things: the overall enforcement of immigration violations, and the particular question of waivers for DREAM-eligible immigrants. The conflation obscures the truth that the federal government overall is enforcing immigration laws more stringently, not less. Deportations have risen under Obama. I wouldn’t be surprised if neither you nor Scalia was aware of this, because of how much the right-wing news lies about it. But there it is.
Indeed, not only are deportations up under Obama (while overall illegal immigration is down), but a much larger percentage of those deported were convicted criminals.
But Scalia’s comments aren’t inappropriate because they’re demonstrably wrong – though that is a good reason not to inject off-topic partisan rhetoric into the record of the Supreme Court. They are inappropriate because they have no bearing on the decision before Scalia. Even if you think that the federal government’s policy is to be lax on immigration enforcement, that is irrelevant to the question of whether that’s their prerogative or not. Either it is, or is not, their exclusive domain to answer the question of how tight enforcement should be. What their decision actually is is irrelevant to that constitutional question, even if it is highly relevant to political rhetoric or policy preferences.
Given that Jan Brewer apparently is unable to confront reality, it would be rather like casting pearls unto swine.
The justices essentially invited the part they left standing to be challenged in the future. If they go ahead and stop people based on racial profiling, there are an army of lawyers waiting for the chance to take it back to the court.
You suggested it.
Yeah, but I was rather hoping some reporter would shout at her press conference: “LISTEN YOU SILLY BITCH! MOST OF THE LAW GOT TOSSED AND THE PART THAT REMAINED WILL AS WELL THE MINUTE YOU START RACIAL PROFILING. SO WHAT MAKES YOU FEEL VINDICATED?”
Given that Jan Brewer apparently is unable to confront reality, it would be rather like casting pearls unto swine.
Obama started his public and personal attacks on the USSC during his 2010 SOTU speech. That’s the one where Alito said Obama’s statement was “NOT TRUE”.
Obama recently said, “I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said. “Well, here’s a good example.
I have to wonder why a “former constitutional law professor” refers to the SCOTUS as “an unelected group of people” and why that “former constitutional law professor” doesn’t understand the role played by the SCOTUS in our democratic-republic?
Because he’s paraphrasing the arguments against “judicial activism” made by the other side, not lamenting himself about unelected groups of people. Of course, the cries of judicial activism are nonexistent with regards to citizens united, coming from the same people who normally decry such things when it suits them. Where are they now?
Really? The Justices “invited” someone to challenge the law? Is that your opinion or someone from NBC/MSNBC/DNC? It’s not legal to stop someone based on their racial profile now. How does this law change that?
If a local police officer stops someone for speeding, they can contact federal authorities “if” they have resaon to believe the speeder isn’t in this country legally.
He said, essentially, that because the Supreme Court had overturned existing precedent on what kind of regulations were permitted, Congress needed to pass legislation to prevent special interests from controlling our elections. You can construe that as an implicit criticism of the Court because he spoke of overturning precedent, but he nowhere issued “personal attacks” or questioned the Court’s integrity or power to decide constitutional issues.
Obama was paraphrasing the common right-wing criticism, which is that too much power is given to unelected judges over legislatures, and noting that this reasoning was not being applied to a situation in which a Democratic policy was the one being (possibly) overturned. This is not an attack on the Supreme Court. It is a criticism of Conservative hypocrisy.
I’ve seen no evidence that Obama “doesn’t understand the role played by the SCOTUS in our democratic-republic.” Instead, you seem to be supporting his point that most people are happy to flip-flop between SCOTUS being an undemocratic elitist cabal and SCOTUS being an essential bulwark of liberty, depending on whose ox is being gored.
Obama said this was a good example of an unelected group of people who could somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. I would expect a former constitutional law professor to know that the SCOTUS has a duty to rule according to laws and Constituion of the U.S. and not according to the whims of the President.
Obama has several channels to address the SCOTUS either legally or privately. Obama chose to pander to his supporters by making public his ill thought out critizisms. His loss. The SC Justices are appointed for life and are outside of Obama’s control.
Somebody told her that and more, even the remaining part that was allowed comes with such an attachment that even Brewer is realizing that she got very little for all her efforts.
I agree with the first part but disagree with the second.
SCOTUS needs to make decisions based on Constitutional issues and there are at least two that enter into this case.
Look at the Supremacy Clause
The right to travel is guarantied in the Constitution to US Citizens but no one else (a narrow reading but one that I believe is technically correct. Either way, let’s go with it for the thought exercise) . So if the Feds wrote a law granting right to travel to those with lawful presence and a state wanted to ban those with green cards, there is no question that the Supremacy Clause would make the state law unconstitutional. But what about the following cases:
The Feds do not make a law granting right of travel to illegal immigrants and a state law bars illegal immigrants from residing in their state.
How is this a violation of the Supremacy Clause? There is no Federal law to be supreme and therefore no conflict.
The Feds make a law stating that illegal immigrants are to be deported after a hearing to determine immigration status. As a matter of policy, the Feds decide not to enforce it. A state then decided to deport illegal immigrants after a hearing at the state level.
Again where is the violation of the Supremacy Clause? The state is obliged to follow the LAW and not the policies and procedures unless they are codified. I think this was Scalia’s big argument is that the Supremacy Clause cannot be used to force non-adherance to a Federal Law simply because the Feds choose not to enforce their own laws.
In fact, a strict reading of the Supremacy Clause would force the States to enforce the law even if the Feds choose not to. Arizona is fighting a similar battle in that they are required to incarcerate illegal immigrants at state expense to be reimbursed by the Federal government yet the Feds are choosing not to pay for it as required by law. My understanding of that case is that the state is still required to follow the Federal law in regards to incarceration and paying for it even though the Feds are not enforcing that same law i.e. not paying the reimbursement.
State laws do not have to conflict with federal ones to be pre-empted under the Supremacy Clause. In areas where Congress has manifested an intent to fill the scope of all possible regulation - such as nuclear issues - or the Constitution specifically grants the power to the federal government - such as foreign affairs - state regulation is pre-empted regardless of whether conflicting federal law exists. Immigration falls under foreign affairs, so states can’t go around passing laws that apply only to immigrants unless they can couch it in terms that do not relate to immigration status.
It is incorrect to frame it as two issues, Supremacy Clause and Tenth Amendment, because the former trumps the latter. In other words, if the Supremacy Clause applies, the Tenth Amendment necessarily does not.
So the sole question is whether these laws ran afoul of the Supremacy Clause.
Your argument is: “The state is obliged to follow the LAW and not the policies and procedures unless they are codified.”
That’s a fine argument. But it has been squarely rejected by the Supreme Court, including by Scalia in Buckman. The law of the land is that where enforcement priorities are essential to the scheme established by Congress, that priorities trump conflicting state laws.
Brewer objected to the fact that Obama, Obama’s AG Holder’s Just-Us dept, and Federal authorities refuse to uphold established U.S. laws.
When the deputy asked him for identification, he didn’t have any because he’s an illegal immigrant. The 36-year-old came from Mexico 12 years ago. Chihuaha was jailed for 3 days while his case was referred to federal immigration authorities. Now his family, including 13-year-old Abril, faces deportation.
Chihuaha was pulled over for a traffic violation AND he was driving a car on a public street. Chihuaha was asked by a uniformed police officer to provide a drivers license and then an ID. That’s not against the law and it’s not racial profiling.
If your driving a car, the law says you have to have a valid drivers license on your person. If you don’t, then the officer can detain you until he establishes your identity and whether you should be driving a car on a public street.
Is anyone saying a police officer can’t ask for a driver’s license when he pulls over a driver?
According to the linked story, Chihuaha didn’t have any identification. A drivers license would be considered identification.
When the deputy asked him for identification, he didn’t have any because he’s an illegal immigrant. The 36-year-old came from Mexico 12 years ago. Chihuaha was jailed for 3 days while his case was referred to federal immigration authorities. Now his family, including 13-year-old Abril, faces deportation.
A police officer can ask for a drivers license. They can also ask where you were born and if they can search your vehicle if they have a demonstrable reason to do so.
I repeat: has anyone said the police can’t ask a driver for a driver’s license?