Judge will not block Alabama immigration law

[fskimospy]

You can tell me all you want, but your opinion carries no more weight then my opinion.

This is really baffling to me. What I'm saying is in no way controversial, in fact I'm literally unaware of anyone ever taking the 10th amendment to mean anything other than what I told you until you posted.

You seriously may be the only person on planet Earth who thinks that the 10th amendment's purpose is to state that the states can operate as they wish in the absence of a federal law.

 

[xBiffx]

Sorry, I have been busy with work all day so I haven't been able to keep up. I know eskimo was just dying for me to get involved in another constitutional debate so here goes.

I think you are both correct and both wrong if I read all the back and forth correctly. So, the 10th Amendment was ratified to specifically address any issues where a law is not specifically outlined in the Constitution. If the Constitution hasn't given a power to the Federal Government, then that power is strictly reserved for the States or the people as long as its not prohibited to the States. This means that if it is not spelled out in the Constitution, or its Amendments, then the States have the power.

Texas, you are correct in saying that is somewhat a win for the States, or at least the State of Alabama. The Federal Government has chosen not to enact the laws in question so Alabama has taken it upon itself to do so. Eskimo is correct in saying that the Federal Government can override this law by using the supremacy clause to do so but I highly doubt this will happen. The Supremacy Clause states that the Constitution, Federal law, and treaties basically trump any state law. That is, they are the "supreme" law of the land but only where these laws are acting to protect the Federal Governments Constitutional powers. The only question really becomes whether or not immigration is a national/constitutional concern or a states concern. One could argue either way as it somewhat effects some states more than others, i.e. border states and the only aspect where immigration becomes a constitutional concern is how to determine or establish citizenship. On the other hand it could be argued this becomes a national defense issue.

Only time will tell if the decision made today in Alabama with hold up. I would expect this issue to make its way up to the Supreme Court where we will get a final decision. In the end, however, I think the judge made the right decision and higher courts will agree.

 

[werepossum]

I'm not a lawyer or a judge, but I can definitely tell you that you're wrong. The 10th amendment is in respect to powers, not laws. The ability to make a law governing some aspect of our country is derived from the powers granted a governing body by the Constitution.

The 10th amendment deals with powers not laws. It is referring to the ability of Congress to make such a law to begin with, not what to do if Congress decides not to pass such a law.

If you can find any credible source that says otherwise I would be very interested to read it. I can provide you with dozens, if not hundreds that support what I'm saying.

Just out of morbid curiosity, what areas do you consider to be beyond the federal government's purview? Beyond any law, beyond any program?

 

[Texashiker]

You seriously may be the only person on planet Earth who thinks that the 10th amendment's purpose is to state that the states can operate as they wish in the absence of a federal law.

Isn't that the way the US was setup?

If states are not meant to pass their own laws, why do we have our own elected officials and state constitutions?

Texas, you are correct in saying that is somewhat a win for the States, or at least the State of Alabama. The Federal Government has chosen not to enact the laws in question so Alabama has taken it upon itself to do so.

Thank you

 

[fskimospy]

Just out of morbid curiosity, what areas do you consider to be beyond the federal government's purview? Beyond any law, beyond any program?

I'm sure there are some things, but they aren't coming to mind right now. The answer you're probably looking for is 'very few'.

 

[fskimospy]

Isn't that the way the US was setup?

If states are not meant to pass their own laws, why do we have our own elected officials and state constitutions?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Of course states are supposed to pass their own laws, but what does that have to do with the 10th amendment? The 10th amendment places limits on the powers of the federal government (and state governments for that matter). It governs the types of laws that they may pass, it does not say anything as to what we do when no law has been passed. Remember, the 10th amendment is about powers, not laws.

 

[ElFenix]

dormant commerce clause will blow texashiker's mind.

 

[fskimospy]

Sorry, I have been busy with work all day so I haven't been able to keep up. I know eskimo was just dying for me to get involved in another constitutional debate so here goes.

I think you are both correct and both wrong if I read all the back and forth correctly. So, the 10th Amendment was ratified to specifically address any issues where a law is not specifically outlined in the Constitution. If the Constitution hasn't given a power to the Federal Government, then that power is strictly reserved for the States or the people as long as its not prohibited to the States. This means that if it is not spelled out in the Constitution, or its Amendments, then the States have the power.

This is incorrect. The 10th amendment deals with powers, not laws. Texashiker is saying that the judge ruling that the state may act where the fed has declined to pass a law is a victory for the 10th amendment. A victory for the 10th amendment people would be if the fed had passed a law directing Alabama to do something and the judge had ruled the feds did not have that power. Instead the judge ruled that in the absence of federal action that the state could act, which is something else entirely.

For it to be a 10th amendment victory, the feds must be expressly prohibited from taking this action because they would lack the power to do so.

 

[First]

I respectfully disagree.

Any law not reserved by the federal government, is granted to the states, and finally to the people.

Since there is no federal law baring the states from checking the immigration status of students, the states have the right to pass such laws.

You're not good at the Constitution.

 

[woolfe9999]

Isn't that the way the US was setup?

If states are not meant to pass their own laws, why do we have our own elected officials and state constitutions?

I am a lawyer and I'm sorry but you are woefully befuddled here. It's not clear that you understand what he's actually saying.

- wolf

 

[First]

You can tell me all you want, but your opinion carries no more weight then my opinion.

I am not going to tell you you are wrong; I just disagree with your opinion.

Not opinion, fact. Don't confuse the two, it's embarrassing.

 

[Texashiker]

dormant commerce clause will blow texashiker's mind.

Yea, I read about that awhile back. I understand "why" it was put in the Constitution, but I also think the commerce clause has been abused.

You're not good at the Constitution.

Like I asked eskimospy:

Where did you go to law school at?

How long have you been practicing?

I am a lawyer and I'm sorry but you are woefully befuddled here. It's not clear that you understand what he's actually saying.

- wolf

eskimospy is claiming in the absence of federal law, states do not have the right to pass their own laws.

If states can not enact their own laws in the absence of federal law, when "can" states enact laws?

 

[First]

Yea, I read about that awhile back. I understand "why" it was put in the Constitution, but I also think the commerce clause has been abused.




Like I asked eskimospy:

Where did you go to law school at?

How long have you been practicing?




eskimospy is claiming in the absence of federal law, states do not have the right to pass their own laws.

If states can not enact their own laws in the absence of federal law, when "can" states enact laws?

What matters far more is whether I'm right or wrong and not what my background is (though that is certainly important), and facts are facts, 10th Amendment doesn't have shit to do with this. Your preconceived notion is irrelevant to the realities Constitution and laws of the United States.

 

[fskimospy]

eskimospy is claiming in the absence of federal law, states do not have the right to pass their own laws.

If states can not enact their own laws in the absence of federal law, when "can" states enact laws?

No I'm not. If you believe I have said that, please quote the relevant passage.

I have said that the ability of states to pass laws in the absence of federal law has nothing to do with the 10th amendment.

 

[woolfe9999]

Yea, I read about that awhile back. I understand "why" it was put in the Constitution, but I also think the commerce clause has been abused.




Like I asked eskimospy:

Where did you go to law school at?

How long have you been practicing?




eskimospy is claiming in the absence of federal law, states do not have the right to pass their own laws.

If states can not enact their own laws in the absence of federal law, when "can" states enact laws?

No he is NOT claiming that. You did not read his posts correctly. He is saying states CAN do that, but that it ISN'T granted by the 10th Amendment. He is correct.

 

[Texashiker]

I have said that the ability of states to pass laws in the absence of federal law has nothing to do with the 10th amendment.

The Tenth Amendment ensures the states have the right to pass their own laws, which have not been delegated to the US Government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The Tenth Amendment is similar to an earlier provision of the Articles of Confederation: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Unless the power, jurisdiction, or right has been delegated to the United States Government, it is left to the states.

He is saying states CAN do that, but that it ISN'T granted by the 10th Amendment. He is correct.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_meaning_of_the_10th_Amendment

Translated, this means: The states have legal authority over anything not assigned to the federal government or specifically withheld from the states.

 

[fskimospy]

The Tenth Amendment ensures the states have the right to pass their own laws, which have not been delegated to the US Government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Unless the power, jurisdiction, or right has been delegated to the United States Government, it is left to the states.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_meaning_of_the_10th_Amendment

Your links are talking about POWERS not LAWS. A judge ruling that a state may act in absence of a federal LAW in no way speaks to what POWERS they have, and is not a statement on the 10th amendment.

 

[Texashiker]

He is saying states CAN do that, but that it ISN'T granted by the 10th Amendment. He is correct.

Your links are talking about POWERS not LAWS. A judge ruling that a state may act in absence of a federal LAW in no way speaks to what POWERS they have, and is not a statement on the 10th amendment.

Then what says the states can pass such laws in absence of federal law?

If its not the tenth, what is it?

 

[woolfe9999]

The Tenth Amendment ensures the states have the right to pass their own laws, which have not been delegated to the US Government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution




Unless the power, jurisdiction, or right has been delegated to the United States Government, it is left to the states.




http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_meaning_of_the_10th_Amendment

Back up to your OP for a minute and I think we can resolve this confusion. The 10th Amendment has no bearing on this particular ruling. You quoted it so you should know that. It says powers not enumerated to the federal government are given to the states (or the people.)

Immigration IS a power granted to the federal government (read Section 8 "uniform rules of naturalization"). Accordingly, how is the 10th Amendment even relevant here?

Let's have a quick primer on federal versus state power in the Constitution.

There are powers enumerated to the Federal Government. Some of those powers are specified as expressly prohibited to the states, i.e. printing money, declaring war.

All powers not explicitly mentioned are powers exclusive to the states, per the 10th amendment.

So we have 3 categories of powers.

1. Powers exclusive to the federal government because they are granted to the federal government and are expressly prohibited to the states. Only the federal government can make laws in these areas.

2. Powers shared by both because they are granted to the federal government but NOT prohibited to the states. Immigration is one of these by the way. Either the federal or state governments, or both, can make laws in these areas.

3. Powers exclusive to the states. Per the 10th amendment, this consists of all powers not enumerated to the federal government. Only the states can make laws in these areas.

For category 2 situations, the Constitution has something called the Supremacy Clause, which says if both the federal and state government choose to enact laws in one area, the federal laws trump the state laws to the extent that they conflict.

The case you link in the OP is a category 2 situation. Immigration can be regulated by either the federal government or the states. The court upheld the Alabama law because it didn't conflict with anything in an existing federal statute so there was no problem with the supremacy clause.

The 10th Amendment is irrelevant in this case because that is what establishes category 3 powers - those that are exclusive to the states. Your case, however, is a category 2 situation and hence it has nothing to do with the 10th amendment.

- wolf

 

[ElFenix]

Then what says the states can pass such laws in absence of federal law?

If its not the tenth, what is it?

supremacy clause, state constitutions. again, look up dormant commerce clause. there's a situation where even in the absence of federal laws the states cannot pass their own laws.

 

[xBiffx]

This is incorrect. The 10th amendment deals with powers, not laws. Texashiker is saying that the judge ruling that the state may act where the fed has declined to pass a law is a victory for the 10th amendment. A victory for the 10th amendment people would be if the fed had passed a law directing Alabama to do something and the judge had ruled the feds did not have that power. Instead the judge ruled that in the absence of federal action that the state could act, which is something else entirely.

For it to be a 10th amendment victory, the feds must be expressly prohibited from taking this action because they would lack the power to do so.

Powers are enacted through statutes, i.e. laws. I wouldn't say this is a "victory" for the 10th amendment but rather if/when this decision is question, the 10th amendment will surely come into play. Some can argue that the Federal Government isn't specifically given powers over immigration for the reasons I gave in my previous post. Others can argue that the Federal Government does have the power to control immigration, again look to my previous post. Either way, it looks like this will hit the Supreme Court for a final decision on the matter.

 

[xBiffx]

supremacy clause, state constitutions. again, look up dormant commerce clause. there's a situation where even in the absence of federal laws the states cannot pass their own laws.

This is only true where the States are not prohibited to pass such laws. Nothing prohibits the States currently from passing these such laws. Hence the reason for the decision today.

 

[xBiffx]

snip

Immigration IS a power granted to the federal government (read Section 8 "uniform rules of naturalization"). Accordingly, how is the 10th Amendment even relevant here?

- wolf

One thing I can say is that the issue at hand is not dealing specifically with naturalization. The Constitution only states how to determine or establish citizenship. It does not state how to handle non citizens with regards to the matters at hand. This is the reason why the 10th Amendment could be used to defend the laws that are in question.

 

[woolfe9999]

Powers are enacted through statutes, i.e. laws. I wouldn't say this is a "victory" for the 10th amendment but rather if/when this decision is question, the 10th amendment will surely come into play. Some can argue that the Federal Government isn't specifically given powers over immigration for the reasons I gave in my previous post. Others can argue that the Federal Government does have the power to control immigration, again look to my previous post. Either way, it looks like this will hit the Supreme Court for a final decision on the matter.

The Constitution gives the power to regulate immigration to the federal government. See section 8, where the power to enact "uniform rules of naturalization" is given, and then it can enact all laws necessary and proper to carry out this power. That is the full power to regulate immigration, and has been held as such by the SCOTUS. This precedent will not be overturned because it is nonsensical that the federal governemnt can set conditions for naturization but not have the power to regulate immigration itself.

However, this power is not prohibited to the States in Section 10. Accordingly, the states can also regulate immigration. However, the supremacy clause says that the federal law prevails where there is a conflict between the two.

None of this has anything to do with the 10th Amendment.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

One thing I can say is that the issue at hand is not dealing specifically with naturalization. The Constitution only states how to determine or establish citizenship. It does not state how to handle non citizens with regards to the matters at hand. This is the reason why the 10th Amendment could be used to defend the laws that are in question.

You'd have to overturn existing SCOTUS precedant to establish that naturalization + necessary and proper does not equate to full power over immigration. Not very likely to happen. See my above post.