GOP Introduced Bill Amendment To Defund White House Challenge To Arizona Law

[Patranus]

It's an unlikely route, given that Harry Reid essentially controls the amendment process, but they're giving it a try: Republican Sens. Jim DeMint and David Vitter are preparing to introduce an amendment that would prevent the Department of Justice from suing Arizona over its new immigration law.

They plan to offer the amendment as part of the small business tax credits bill being debated in the Senate. Reid preempted amendments when he brought the bill up, but Republicans and Democrats have been negotiating over how to proceed, with the Senate voting on some. It's unlikely that this amendment will see a vote.

The two senators want to prevent the lawsuit, filed last week in federal court in Phoenix, by depriving the administration of the funds to pay for it.

DeMint, from the press release: "States like Arizona shouldn't be prosecuted for protecting their citizens when the federal government fails to do so..."

Vitter: "The Obama administration should not use taxpayers' money to pay for these lawsuits that the American people overwhelmingly oppose."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ce-departments-lawsuit-against-arizona/59754/

Considering the fact that the vast majority of Americans support this Arizona law this should be interesting.


On a side note, I wonder when the Obama justice department will sue states/cities that have "sanctuary" policies that are immigrations related

 

[irishScott]

Developing....

Wow, what an informative post.

 

[Tristicus]

Wow, what an informative post.

 

[khon]

Considering the fact that the vast majority of Americans support this Arizona law this should be interesting.

So you think public opinion should matter more than whether or not the law is unconstitutional ?

 

[EagleKeeper]

It would be better for the lawsuit to go forward and let the USSC slap down the Justice/Obama. This way, all the stupidity gets properly exposed and no questions can still exist.

 

[shira]

So you think public opinion should matter more than whether or not the law is unconstitutional ?

Patranus is very unprincipled . . . er . . . flexible on this question.

 

[irishScott]

So you think public opinion should matter more than whether or not the law is unconstitutional ?

I think that instead of wasting time filing suit Obama should take steps to contain illegal immigration such that Arizona can get feel comfortable getting rid of its law. Then, once the problem is contained, threaten to sue if Arizona doesn't repeal its law.

But no, Obama doesn't want to stop illegal immigration. He wants to give anyone who breaks the law and comes here illegally a path to citizenship.

 

[PokerGuy]

So you think public opinion should matter more than whether or not the law is unconstitutional ?

The constitutionality will be decided by the courts when individuals file suit. Holder and Obummer filing suit is nothing but a political stunt to appease those who favor illegal immigration to get more votes.

I sure am glad they did though, it will help in November. It makes it pretty clear who supports illegal immigration and who doesn't, people can vote accordingly.

 

[khon]

The constitutionality will be decided by the courts when individuals file suit. Holder and Obummer filing suit is nothing but a political stunt to appease those who favor illegal immigration to get more votes.

Incorrect. The suit they filled had to do with the supremacy clause, which prohibits states from usurping powers delegated to the federal government. The Arizona law violated the rights of the federal government in this way, and thus they are the ones suing.

This is of course seperate from any 4th amendment violations individuals might suffer as a result of the law, which will indeed be handled by individual lawsuits.

 

[Zebo]

Incorrect. The suit they filled had to do with the supremacy clause, which prohibits states from usurping powers delegated to the federal government. The Arizona law violated the rights of the federal government in this way, and thus they are the ones suing.

This is of course seperate from any 4th amendment violations individuals might suffer as a result of the law, which will indeed be handled by individual lawsuits.

If Obama didnt assassinate US citizens w/o due process, maintain wire taps,secret torture prisons, etc you might have a point about him being concerned with Constitution.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/07/01/assassinations

This is nothing more than pandering to his base, big money who likes low wages and hard left.

 

[Jaskalas]

Incorrect. The suit they filled had to do with the supremacy clause, which prohibits states from usurping powers delegated to the federal government. The Arizona law violated the rights of the federal government in this way, and thus they are the ones suing.

It is incredible audacity for them to believe in their supreme right to force an invasion of tens of millions of illegals on us. This attack on a state defending itself indicates a breakdown of civil law. Where politics fails, violence ensues.

 

[Patranus]

Incorrect. The suit they filled had to do with the supremacy clause, which prohibits states from usurping powers delegated to the federal government. The Arizona law violated the rights of the federal government in this way, and thus they are the ones suing.

This is of course seperate from any 4th amendment violations individuals might suffer as a result of the law, which will indeed be handled by individual lawsuits.

If that is the case why has the Obama administration refused to file a lawsuit against sanctuary cities/states?

 

[JeepinEd]

On a side note, I wonder when the Obama justice department will sue states/cities that have "sanctuary" policies that are immigrations related

DOJ has stated that there is no reason to sue sanctuary cities:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/14/justice-sanctuary-cities-are-no-arizona/

As long as your law breaking is in line with this administrations politics, then you have carte blanche to do as you will.

 

[351Cleveland]

Incorrect. The suit they filled had to do with the supremacy clause, which prohibits states from usurping powers delegated to the federal government. The Arizona law violated the rights of the federal government in this way, and thus they are the ones suing.

This is of course seperate from any 4th amendment violations individuals might suffer as a result of the law, which will indeed be handled by individual lawsuits.

No usurping that I am aware of... simply dropping them off on the fed's doorstep when they find them. Now, if they started deporting them on their own, then it would step on federal toes. Hell, the feds can decide to let them go without investigation (ignoring current immigration law)... which is where I again say that Arizona isnt really encroaching on federal territory. Judging by the little I have heard of the suit, it doesnt sound like the Justice department is on solid legal ground. They were going on about political and international relations issues... I bet none of which are in actual immigration law. It isnt the balancing act that they claim. We are a nation of laws. Follow the law. If the feds were doing that, we wouldnt be here.

We dont verify identification enough in the US. If we did, we would find more people. I dont know what 4th amendment violation occurs by asking to show ID... in all of my interactions with the authorities, it is the first thing they have asked me to do... even before telling me the reason for the interaction. My rights werent violated...

Ironically, these criminals (and they are criminals as it is a crime to be in this country without permission) wont get caught unless they break the law (again). If they dont break the law, they could have a t-shirt with "I am an illegal alien" on it and the state authorities (theoretically) could do nothing to them that they could not do before the law. I personally dont see how illegal aliens have iron clad claim on Constitutional rights to begin with (they are ILLEGALS... as in not citizens or even guests to this country), particularly as it relates to their immigration status.

Funny... feds are selective about when to enforce the Constitution on a regular basis. Seems to always revolve around preserving power.

 

[khon]

If Obama didnt assassinate US citizens w/o due process, maintain wire taps,secret torture prisons, etc you might have a point about him being concerned with Constitution.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/07/01/assassinations

This is nothing more than pandering to his base, big money who likes low wages and hard left.

Obama unfortunately is like most previous presidents, in that he tries to expand the powers of the executive branch. And yeah you're right he's continuing those policies even if they are illegal.

However that's not an argument against his actions on the Arizona law, if anything it's an argument in favor. The Arizona law represents an attempt by a state to try and take on some of the powers delegated to the federal government, thus dimishing the power of the executive branch, so of course he's going to oppose it.

 

[Jaskalas]

If that is the case why has the Obama administration refused to file a lawsuit against sanctuary cities/states?

Sanctuary IS their policy. Any effort of enforcement is a mere PR stunt. Real efforts such as in AZ are under attack.

 

[sandorski]

It would be better for the lawsuit to go forward and let the USSC slap down the Justice/Obama. This way, all the stupidity gets properly exposed and no questions can still exist.

Indeed.

 

[Harvey]

It would be better for the lawsuit to go forward and let the USSC slap down the Justice/Obama. This way, all the stupidity gets properly exposed and no questions can still exist.

That's true, although I would disagree with your projected outcome if it was decided by an unbiased court. Given the dominance of agenda-driven right wingnut majority on the SC, it could happen as you call it.

 

[Zebo]

Obama unfortunately is like most previous presidents, in that he tries to expand the powers of the executive branch. And yeah you're right he's continuing those policies even if they are illegal.

However that's not an argument against his actions on the Arizona law, if anything it's an argument in favor. The Arizona law represents an attempt by a state to try and take on some of the powers delegated to the federal government, thus dimishing the power of the executive branch, so of course he's going to oppose it.

Not bad reasoning. But I also think some powerful interests want cheap labor in #1 reason. Chamber of commerce and others been pushing open borders for years now and Bush or any other president they allowed to be president would have done same contesting IMO.

 

[cubby1223]

So you think public opinion should matter more than whether or not the law is unconstitutional ?

Public opinion absolutely matters especially given that court precedence has clearly fallen on the side of the AZ law being constitutional.

 

[cubby1223]

That's true, although I would disagree with your projected outcome if it was decided by an unbiased court. Given the dominance of agenda-driven right wingnut majority on the SC, it could happen as you call it.

What's more concerning is the agenda-driven wingnuts around internet forums

 

[Lemon law]

Even if the the legislative and executive branches team up, the co-equal judicial branch
of government will never surrender its responsibility to determine the constitutional validity of any law.

The Arizona law was already a ward of the court, even before the Justice department joined in?

The thread title referenced GOP bill is nothing but partisan politics signifying nothing.

 

[Carmen813]

I feel like this violates separation of powers.

 

[Tab]

I feel like this violates separation of powers.

Yea, and not to mention this is something that's up to the courts to decide. The fuck?

 

[xj0hnx]

If that is the case why has the Obama administration refused to file a lawsuit against sanctuary cities/states?

Because when Holder finally broke down and read the law he realized what everyone else that already read it knew, that it wasn't unconstitutional, so this is their Hail Mary, empty gesture to appease the pro-illegal immigrant crowd.