-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The majority opinion in the Arizona ruling asserts that once something is a federal prerogative, states should stay out of legislating on the issue even if they are trying to accomplish the same objective as the feds. At one point, Justice Kennedy cites a precedent that finds, “States may not impose their own punishment for repeat violations of the National Labor Relations Act.”
Justices Scalia and Thomas sharply dissent from this view. Scalia writes, “It is beyond question that a State may make violation of federal law a violation of state law as well.” Thomas writes, “I agree with Justice Scalia that that federal immigration law does not pre-empt any of the challenged provisions of S. B. 1070. “
View all comments (13) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/06/25/are-justices-reading-the-same
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
TLP| 6.25.12 @ 1:46PM
It's! obviously, time to check the Drinking Water, at the Court.
If you follow the "logic" of this Court?
If the Feds refuse to enforce Bank Robberies, Rapes, Kidnappings, and Murder?
Then nobody else can, either.
We are now, OFFICIALLY, living in a Dictatorship.
They came for the Jews.................
ARBEIT MACHT FREI.
Chris (the second one)| 6.25.12 @ 1:46PM
How can states have any laws then where the Feds have similar laws? For example, how can a state have environmental laws that are similar or even more stringent than the Feds?
Maybe the states need to fight back by backing out of working with the Feds at all. Catch someone carrying 10 kilos of pot or cocaine during a traffic stop, just issue a ticket and wish them a good day.
TLP| 6.25.12 @ 1:54PM
Absolutely.
Bob Grant| 6.25.12 @ 1:48PM
This doesn't bode well as to the mindset of Kennedy regarding obamacare.
He seems to take the federal government position more than I'm comfortable with.
Along with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of '86, his appointment to the Supreme Court were the two glaring errors on an otherwise sterling Reagan presidency.
C. Vernon Crisler | 6.25.12 @ 2:03PM
When this bill came out, I didn't think it was strong enough. It said an immigration check could only occur if someone was stopped for some reason. Hispanic groups screamed that this would result in police going up to someone who looked Hispanic and "asking for their papers." Visions of Nazi Germany were invoked.
In fact, the law only allows asking for papers if someone is stopped for some other reason (traffic or criminal violations). So in a sense, the law was not strong enough, but it was better than nothing.
As far as State criminal laws on the subject, I think it was a mistake for Arizona to get involved with that. Illegal immigration is a violation of federal sovereignty first and foremost, so it's really the federal government's business to deal with the issue. It is not a felonious offense, which is why illegals are deported rather than incarcerated.
This was a big-time loss for Obama given what all the identity groups were claiming. They aren't going to be happy with this decision, and will continue to challenge the law.
Bob K| 6.25.12 @ 2:09PM
Chief Justice Roberts voted to overturn it also. Don't be surprised if he votes not to overturn Obama Care either.
TLP| 6.25.12 @ 2:12PM
Obviously, it's time to move the Supreme Court Building to Mt. Olympus.
RJ| 6.25.12 @ 2:41PM
The US border with Mexico is also the Arizona border with Mexico and the Supreme Court has ruled that Arizona cannot secure its state border with a law that mirrors federal statutes. The elephant in the room is the Federal government's refusal to enforce federal law, which is an abuse of its discretion. Former Deputy Attorney General (under Bobby Kennedy ) and Attorney General (under Lyndon Johnson), Nicholas Katzenbach, a strong liberal and prominent in the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s, makes the following comments in his book, "Some of It Was Fun": the Department of Justice "has the responsibility to prosecute all violations of the law, even laws it does not like and even laws it believes unconstitutional. It has some discretion, but really not much if the case... is clear." page 106
If the executive branch can pick and choose which federal legislation it chooses to enforce, why should the citizens comply with any law that they disagree with? An executive branch which ignores or intentionally violates the law is not part of republican or democratic government; it is a dictatorship.
Chris (the second one)| 6.25.12 @ 2:52PM
But officer, I only have the resources to follow some of the laws and I have to pick which ones I obey.
aware| 6.25.12 @ 3:44PM
Come on, James, you can't still believe the constitution is a bulwark against what it has plainly helped accomplish, i.e. the federal Leviathan?
Constitutions are not worth the parchment they're written on in protecting the people from their "government" for the simple reason that the "government" decides what is and is not constitutional.
Notice the revolutionaries that founded this nation didn't insist on going to a Crown court with a copy of the Magna Carta for redress.
Al Adab| 6.25.12 @ 4:51PM
Let us imagine an incident wherin a State, maybe NY, arrests someone and discovers that person to be involved in espionage. Suppose also that after due process action the federal government refuses to prosecute the alleged spy. Could the State of NY act on its own behalf and prosecute for espionange even faced with a federal governmet refusal to act? Could the State of NY deport the spy as a foreign national or agent? What recourse do the States retain when faced with willful federal violation of or refusal to enforce, federal law? In short, when may the States act on their own behalf and in their own defense when confronted by contrary federal action or inaction?
AllAmericanAmerican| 6.26.12 @ 9:52AM
To answer you:
No.
No.
None.
Never.
There ya go.