-
Tebowing and ‘Polarizing’
June 11, 2013 | 7 comments
-
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
The Spectacle Blog
In Arizona v. the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled that Arizona police can check the immigration status of suspected illegal immigrants — the part of SB 1070 some have feared would lead to racial profiling of Hispanics — but cannot make federal immigration violations crimes under state law. So while the heart of SB 1070 stands, the Obama administration has scored two big victories: 1.) a state law can be preempted even when it has the “same aim as federal law and adopts its substantive standards” and 2.) the federal government has wide discretion in how to enforce immigration law.
This second point is pretty important in light of the Obama administration’s recent decision to stop deporting a subset of illegal immigrants, asserting the power to set enforcement priorities and exercise discretion. On paper, this makes a legal challenge to the Obama amnesty edict look daunting. This will also impact Arizona-like laws, as the court has ruled, “Permitting the State to impose its own penalties for the federal offenses here would conflict with the careful framewrk Congress adopted.”
The immigration decision was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor with Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito dissenting in part and concurring in part.
View all comments (36) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/06/25/supreme-court-strikes-down-uph
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Drink Earlier, Drink Less
- A Panoply of Beauties
- His Reach Exceeded His Grasp
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
JD| 6.25.12 @ 11:50AM
It's official. We live in a dictatorship. Obama can invent laws and not enforce laws he doesn't like, and no one can do anything about it.
mike 3/505| 6.25.12 @ 11:52AM
Yet another reason why we must elect a succession of Conservative POTUS, in order to bring the court back into line with common sense thinking.
I wonder what the SCOTUS would rule on State enforcement of Bank Robbery Statutes...of which there are both state and federal.
TLP| 6.25.12 @ 2:00PM
John Roberts sided with Obama.
I don't think it matters, anymore.
We are ONE MORE SUPREME COURT DECISION, from ceasing to exist, as we were formulated.
The Visigoths are at the Gate, as we speak.
Miles Glorious| 6.25.12 @ 11:58AM
Mike makes an excellent point.
C. Vernon Crisler | 6.25.12 @ 12:38PM
This was probably a good decision. Immigration enforcement is the business of the federal government. Federal officials have better enforcement training than local police, who are sometimes lacking in knowledge of the niceties of Constitutional law, although well-trained in criminal law.
TLP| 6.25.12 @ 2:03PM
"Federal officials have better enforcement training"?
The whole idea behind the Arizona Law, is the FACT, that the Fedreral Government REFUSES TO ENFORCE THE LAW.
Dumbass.
STFU.
C. Vernon Crisler | 6.25.12 @ 2:05PM
To quote Arnold, "F-ck You, A-shole."
darcy| 6.25.12 @ 3:10PM
I'm really disappointed in you, Vern. It matters little if the Feds "have better enforcement training" when the Feds won't USE it. You may not live in southern AZ like I do, but I can tell you this: when the federal government abrogates its primary job -- which is to PROTECT its citizens and promote an orderly society through the rule of law -- then that government is NO LONGER LEGITIMATE.
AZ has been told -- and other states by extension -- that it has no state sovereignty in regard to keeping its citizens safe from invasion by an alien people. Janet Napolitano has stated today that even if law enforcement officers determine that they are dealing with illegal immigrants in the course of their duties, they are NOT to call DHS to do, as you say, what they are better trained than local police to do.
This is lawlessness under the guise of preemption and it is reason enough to take the view that Americans are no longer safe inside their own country. We are not safe from the myriad tyrannical machinations of the federal government which by degrees is ceding its own sovereignty to entities that seek an open, borderless society engulfing the entire globe.
No wonder TLP is so upset with you. You can't see the forest for the trees.
C. Vernon Crisler | 6.25.12 @ 3:36PM
darcy, Arizona law allows illegals to be arrested and incarcerated if they commit felonies and certain misdemeanors, so nothing's preventing police from protecting you against felonious illegals.
As far as border enforcement, when the federal government refuses to do its job, the only real recourse is the voting booth. Obama and his cronies are doing a good job of losing this election, so come November things may get a little better.
TLP is a bully who insults just about everybody. Best to ignore him, or hope the moderators enforce their own rules about profanity, bigotry, and gross impoliteness. But I couldn't resist the "Terminator" response to such trolls.
Oldefarte| 6.25.12 @ 3:48PM
Many of us are in complete sympathy with you in the SW who have to daily face this immigration problem. I do feel that help will be on the way after November, and that citizen political pressure can be thereafter put upon the federal government to DO ITS JOB. We have an immigration problem as well in my state, but nothing to compare with your folks' in Texas, Arizona, NM etc. I think that the citizen revolt against Bush, McCain etc previously over this issue is simply dormant and still very much alive on the minds of this nation. I don't think it has gone away and been forgotten, but rather the deplorable economy has taken center stage on peoples' minds. If up to some of us, the situation should be turned over to Sheriff Joe Apiao for resolution!!!!!!!!!
Al Adab| 6.25.12 @ 4:17PM
The ruling allows AZ law enforcement to check immigration status upon police contact and to act accordingly. It is the administration that today announced it will decline requests fron AZ law enforcement for action on illegals in AZ custody. That is a willful and contemptuous action on the part of the administration and violates both Article IV Sec 4 and the executive directive to see that the laws be enforced. What options do the States retain when faced with such willful federal disregard of the law?
C. Vernon Crisler | 6.25.12 @ 4:21PM
Madison said that states could gather together (peacefully) and discuss ways of nullifying Constitutional violations. This is short of secession, but it puts the federal government on notice.
darcy| 6.25.12 @ 5:30PM
So, Vern, are you hearing that states are preparing to do what Madison suggested?
C. Vernon Crisler | 6.25.12 @ 5:59PM
Don't know. Does the issue rise to the level of the Adams' administration's Alien and Sedition act, which made it illegal to criticize the federal government? Clearly a violation of the 1st Amendment. Many states have already brought suit against the federal government on Obamacare, and some have formulated Arizona-like immigration enforcement laws. They've started the process of nullification, though whether they have the stomach to go further with complete nullification is another matter. (Loss of federal funds, etc.)
Skippy| 6.25.12 @ 6:21PM
Revolution.
Refuse to obey the POTUS or SCOTUS.
Invite AG Holder to come to the Statehouse and personally arrest you.
Greet him with a gun in your hand.
Oldefarte| 6.25.12 @ 3:22PM
Then you agree with the Democrats' position as follows obviously:
'......Democrats said the decision shows President Barack Obama was right to challenge the law's constitutionality and praised him for deferring the deportation of some young illegal immigrants. But they also said the decisions could encourage discrimination."I am greatly concerned that the provision putting American citizens in danger of being detained by police unless they carry their immigration papers at all times will lead to a system of racial profiling," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from swing-state Nevada.....'
Oldefarte| 6.25.12 @ 3:30PM
The issue is not whether federal or state enforcement is better. It's obviously a federal issue according to law. The states have enacted their laws because the federal government refuses [due to politics] to fulfill their legal duty to enforce the immigration law. This POTUS and his Democrat community organizers aka domestic terrorists are turning a blind eye to enforcing immigration so that the Hispanic citizens-voters will elect Democrats. A Republican POTUS and more congressmen must be elected in November and the voters must thereafter demand that same begin to thoroughly enforce the fedral laws on the books regarding immigration. It is an epidemic and if not enforced, will destroy this country. That is the issue, not whether the federal or state governments are better equipped to handle same!!!!!!!!!!!!!
darcy| 6.25.12 @ 4:43PM
Mr. O writes: "It is an epidemic and if not enforced, will destroy this country."
The evidence of our eyes and ears is that destroying our country, gutting it -- through incrementalism -- of every last vestige of its Founding principles, is the goal. Both parties are in collusion on that task, though admittedly there are a few Republicans not on board.
We can hope and pray that Americans will rise up in righteous indignation and restore our tattered Constitution.
AllAmericanAmerican| 6.25.12 @ 12:50PM
I thought Roberts was "conservative?"
Bwahahahahaha!
Hey can we start ignoring State laws we don't like?
I wonder if this will open the floodgates for lawsuits against States? Then again why even have State law, right? Just make everything a Federal Law, erase the States borders, remove the State gubmints and Obammy can appoint himself Dick'Tator fer Life. The SCOTUS would probably agree.
AZ should grow a set and ignore this obvious intrusion? usurption? both? of their sovereignty and tell the feds to go piss off.
darcy| 6.25.12 @ 3:17PM
It is a logical progression of thought that if the feds will not enforce LAW, then why should anyone else? If the feds will not obey the law, if it merely picks and chooses which laws it will follow, then why not everyone else? Why not AZ? The Supreme Court, for reasons of its own (excepting Scalia), has officially -- but tacitly -- acknowledged that the US is a dictatorship.
Al Adab| 6.25.12 @ 4:07PM
What the ruling allows is that States may enforce federal law in their jurisdictions. The issue is now the administration directive to its agencies to refuse requests from AZ regarding detained illegals. That represents a willful violation of Article IV Sec. 4 in which the national government is directed to protect the States from invasion and to act upon request of the legislature or executive of the State. Both in this instance have requested federal action and, faced with prior refusals, acted on their own to secure their territory. The President is obligated under his executive power to see that the laws be enforced. He is refusing. Both are directly comtemptuous of botht the Cout and the Constitution. Can the States sue to force the national government to act? If not, what recourse, other than self-defense, is retained?
AllAmericanAmerican| 6.25.12 @ 4:34PM
No, what the States (capitol S States) can and should do is say "We are equal partners in determining the 'constitutionality' of the laws of our land. Therefore, we are going to continue to do what the Federal government refuses to do: detain and deport illegal alien invaders."
If the Federal gubmit believes AZ is somehow violating US Law by deporting illegals, force them to take action. MAKE Dick'Tator Obammy send in the US Army to stop it. See if he's got the stones like his hero Tyrant Abe to do it.
Al Adab| 6.25.12 @ 5:21PM
Which is essentially what the Scalia dissent says. Nonetheless, the reaction of the administration makes it clear that they consider this a major defeat for themselves and a victory for State sovereignty.
Skippy| 6.25.12 @ 7:01PM
Revolt!
Quartermaster| 6.25.12 @ 12:52PM
This decision also calls into question enforecement of federal law when it is devolved down to the state level which requires state legislation. In essence, SCOTUS has now said that anything of the sort is not constitutional. SCOTUS has played the idiot repeatedly and so rendered itself illegitimate.
TLP| 6.25.12 @ 2:07PM
This is what this Decision has Chiseled in to Stone.
If the Feds refuse to Enforce the Laws against Murder, Kidnapping, Counterfeiting, Rape. Murder, or Drug Smuggling?
Then nobody else can, either.
Welcome to The Wild West.
Oldefarte| 6.25.12 @ 3:40PM
If more Republicans are elected in November and especially if more conservative ones, then maybe we can begin some real CHISELING thereafter!!!!!!!!
CJW| 6.25.12 @ 1:05PM
This is not a big win for Obama. Federal preempion applies across the board in many fields, from immigration to employment. This should put pressure on Congress to deal with the immigration issues, and to enforce the existing laws. If the federal laws were enforced then we would not need state laws.
C. Vernon Crisler | 6.25.12 @ 1:53PM
Right, the hysterical Hispanic lobbies in my State of Arizona lost bigtime on their main issue, which was the immigration check. That's what they were marching and shouting about.
TLP| 6.25.12 @ 2:10PM
You're an Idiot.
"Show me your papers. It says here that you're an Illegal Immigrant."
Now what?
C. Vernon Crisler | 6.25.12 @ 3:08PM
Go away, troll.
CJW| 6.25.12 @ 3:25PM
This immigration case is probably a bone by the Court to Obama because they will rule against him on health care.
Oldefarte| 6.25.12 @ 3:36PM
Then if it is your state, then you and yours should deal with it. Are these 'hysterical Hispanic lobbies' citizens-voters? If so, then they have employers who should council them that if they wish to continue their employment statuses, they should consider becoming non-hysterical and STFU. If they are non-citizens-voters, then maybe now with this SCOTUS ruling, the Arizona authorities can begin arresting them and otherwise dealing with it. Again, the problem is federal non-enforcement of current law.....elect more Republicans and precisely more conservative ones and the problem will be solvable!!!!!!!!!
Oldefarte| 6.25.12 @ 3:37PM
PS: I see where your courageous governor Brewer is entirely in favor of this ruling, so if she is so, why are not you as a resident also??????
Skippy| 6.25.12 @ 7:03PM
She may be planning to disobey.
Of course she may also have wimped out.