Future News, “After actually reading the Arizona Immigration Law Judge overturns her original decision to block part of it, and is forced to resign due to her incompetence.”

By By - I didn’t see where it was determined that the judge didn’t read the law.  Can you please let me in on how you aquired this amazing piece of investigative journalism?

You can read the decision here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34998976/Decision-in-lawsuit-against-Arizona-SB-1070

Cliff Notes version:

Applying the proper legal standards based upon well-established precedent, the Court finds that the United States is likely to succeed on the merits in showing that the following Sections of S.B. 1070 are preempted by federal law:

Portion of Section 2 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 11-1051(B): requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to
determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person

Section 3 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 13-1509: creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers

Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 13-2928(C): creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work

Section 6 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5): authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States

I’m sure you have the pertinent citations of law readily available to share with us, so please do.

moose said:

” COIC rhymes with “oink ”.

Hahahah…Ok, if you say so.  Hahahah.

More like, you don’t have the knowledge, skills or abilities to post anything beyond empty blurts slamming the President. 

Do you get paid by the comment?  They should demand their money back.

As to be expected.  It is going to take a major effort and a new layer of law upon law to ‘change’ how a so-called ‘progressive’ judge will look at controlling immigration.  OK, so controlling and enforcing immigration laws is the sole proprietary interest of the United States.  No problem with that.  Now when are we going to get our federal government actively enforcing the law ?  Answer: When we finally speak out sufficiently forceful at the ballot box to rid ourselves of the incompetent, corrupt and unresponsive lawmakers currently in charge of the present and upholding the past.

From an analysis on the decision:

“Respecting preemption, which is the substantive core of the federal government’s case, once again the court presents no evidence in support of its conclusion that AZ is likely to impermissibly interfere with federal law on multiple fronts, including the requirement that aliens carry papers or that state and local law enforcement may undertake constitutionally proper inquiries into the legal status of those they stop. AZ isn’t requiring the federal government to do anything. The federal government can choose not to take AZ’s calls and not cooperate. The court has essentially parroted the federal government’s claims about burdens.

“Moreover, the federal government does not “occupy the field” in any event. Indeed, as a matter of federal law and long-standing practice, it encourages states to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law — both in practice and law. In fact, it relies heavily on them.

“Federal preemption can be either express or implied: express where the Constitution says so (declaration of war), implied by conflict with federal law. In the immigration context, implied preemption exists only 1) if a statute falls into the narrow category of a “regulation of immigration”; 2) if Congress expressed “the clear and manifest purpose” of completely occupying the field and displacing all state activity; or 3) if the state regulation conflicts with federal laws such that it “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress” (De Canas v. Bica). Federal immigration law does not preempt AZ law, and the authors of the AZ law were well acquainted with the pitfalls they needed to avoid — and avoided them.

“I think the word “abomination” does not overstate this court’s decision.”


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/233731/abominable-decision-mark-r-levin

Fair Row: Hate to break it to ya, but she’s not a progressive.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/republicans-take-it-easy-on-arizona-judge-who-struck-down-immigration-law.php?ref=fpb

“But the judge who issued the decision has enjoyed Republican support throughout her career, and thus her critics on the Hill don’t go so far as to call the decision an example of activist judging.

“She didn’t overturn the law,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the second highest ranking Republican in the Senate. “She said that portions of it—the bulk of it—needed to be enjoined because of her view that it was pre-empted by federal law because it created undue additional burdens on the federal government. This judge is not an activist judge. She had to make a decision. She made a decision. I don’t happen to agree with it, but she’s not an activist.”“

“Kyl recommended Bolton in 2000, at the end of Bill Clinton’s second term, and actively supported her confirmation.”

“Undue additional burdens on the federal government”?
How can they be ‘undue’? If the feds aren’t doing their job as they are supposed to, then yes, I’m sure it’s a real inconvenience to them to be forced to do their job to deport illegals that AZ caught for them.
Thank God and the founding fathers for the second amendment. Otherwise….

How about you using some maturity by not posting something so ridiculous? Violence? How do come up with that? Is that how your mind works?
Why do you think the founding fathers put the second amendment there?
Here, I’ll write it in crayon so you will understand. It’s there to protect citizens from tyranny.
Plus an added benefit of being able to protect ourselves. The gov’t won’t do it. Wouldn’t want them to have anymore undue burdens on them now, do we?

In the final analysis, this law will make no difference on the enforcement side of things - when the cops pick up an illegal, they get turned over to the fed anyway.  Business as usual - and not just in Arizona.

Want to solve the immigration problem? yank out the welcome mat, ie taxpayer financed government welfare in any and all forms.

Damn straight, Roark!  Ignore the message on the Statue of Liberty.

Something else of note in this case - technically, Bolton cannot render a decision on this case anymore than you or I (unless you are a Supreme Court justice, that is).

Article III, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution states:

“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction…”

Just in case you forgot, the defendants are:

“State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer,
Governor of the State of Arizona, in her
Official Capacity, Defendants.”

This decision is not only flawed - it’s completely worthless, and can technically be thrown out.

More appropriately, counsel for the State of Arizona should proceed thusly:

- File a “Petition for Removal” in federal district court, requesting that the judge (Bolton) remove the case to the Supreme Court under Art. III, sect. 2, clause 2 of the Constitution.

- If Bolton denies the request, then counsel should file for “Petition for Writ of Mandamus” in the Supreme Court, asking that Bolton remove the case to the Supreme Court, again under the same constitutional article, section and clause.

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

“Federal question jurisdiction is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a United States federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a civil case because the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the Constitution or law of the United States, or treaties to which the United States is a party.

Article III of the United States Constitution permits federal courts to hear such cases, so long as the United States Congress passes a statute to that effect. However, when Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the newly created federal courts to hear such cases, it initially chose not to allow the lower federal courts to possess federal question jurisdiction for fear that it would make the courts too powerful. The Federalists briefly created such jurisdiction in the Judiciary Act of 1801, but it was repealed the following year, and not restored until 1875. The statute is now found at 28 U.S.C. § 1331: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Unlike diversity jurisdiction, which is based on the parties coming from different states, federal question jurisdiction no longer has any amount in controversy requirement - Congress eliminated this requirement in actions against the United States in 1976, and in all federal question cases in 1980. Therefore, a federal court can hear a federal question case even if no money is sought by the plaintiff.

To meet the requirement of a case “arising under” federal law, the federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint. There has been considerable dispute over what constitutes a “federal question” in these circumstances, but it is now settled law that the plaintiff cannot seek the jurisdiction of a federal court merely because it anticipates that the defendant is going to raise a defense based on the Constitution, or on a federal statute. This “well-pleaded complaint” rule has been criticized by legal scholars, but Congress has so far chosen not to change the law, although the Supreme Court has made clear it is free to do so.”

Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 of the Constitution says that in “ALL” Cases in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court “SHALL” have original jurisdiction (i.e., the Supreme Court is to conduct the trial).  In the Constitution, we delegated to the Supreme Court alone the authority to conduct the trials of cases in which States are a party.  We most manifestly did NOT grant that power to inferior tribunals.  And Congress may not alter, by any pretended “law”, our grant of power which was to the Supreme Court alone.

The Federalist Papers were written to explain the proposed Constitution to the people and to induce them to ratify it.  For this reason, the Federalist is the most authoritative commentary we have on the original intent of the Constitution.  The States understood, before their delegations ratified the Constitution, that if they were ever sued by the new federal government, their case would be tried before the Supreme Court.

As noted above, Hamilton said, respecting suits against States:

“…In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal…”

Congress may not unilaterally change the rules after the fact!

Article V sets forth the procedures for amending the Constitution.  Note that the 11th Amendment (ratified 1795) was ratified to reduce the Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 1 jurisdiction of the federal courts.  If it is desired to extend to federal district courts the judicial Power to preside over cases in which a State is a party, then it can only be done by constitutional amendment.

In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton says:

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

Congress may not amend the Constitution by making a “law”.  Any such pretended “law” is void.

There are many laws and precedents (admittedly)  which suggest that they can abrogate or usurp the Constitution.  Here is another good example of that:  28 USC § 1251 (I will quote the pertinent sections):

(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.

(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:

(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;

(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;

(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.

This statute, also, is void.

Article V of the Constitution is the only way the Constitution can be amended.

The governing clause is Article III, section 1, authorizing inferior federal courts that congress may establish, and section 2, clause 2, defining the judicial power of the United States to encompass, inter alia, “Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party.”

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

Section 1 pre-defines what Section 2 can empower.  This things don’t operate independently of each other.  Sorry, cherry-picking the law to suit your rationale just isn’t gonna fly.

Your have to bear in mind Section 1 before you can consider Section 2.

Hmmm…didn’t know you were such an expert on constitutional law, KN.  You must be serving on the Supreme Court in your off time, right?

And I quote from your source:

“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

Bearing that in mind, KN, O legal expert, how does this affect Section 2 in terms of the decision making power of the 9th Circuit?

Answer: It further defines the decision making ability of the lesser court.  Try reading it again.

Sigh.

Supreme Court
Circuit Court
Federal District Court-Bolton’s

Think “chain of command” or generic Employee Handbook section for Conflict Resolution.

How we disagree in discussing Constitution law is moot.  We’ll just have to wait until Nov.  What you and I, or anybody else, has to say is meaningless.  But truly, it is you that needs to read more carefully and remember that the guidances provided in the Federalist Papers are not specifically codified, as such, as a part of the USC.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-30/arizona-appeal-of-immigration-ruling-set-for-november.html

Thank you for clarifying your understanding.

So you’re saying the Federalist doesn’t mean anything?  It’s just the opinion of a bunch of old windbags long dead?  The Constitution is just a piece of paper to you…it doesn’t count anymore?

Yeah, Bush said that too…

Well, I’m glad we can agree the Bush was an incompetent hypocrite who should have been impeached for failing to uphold his oath of office.

Amen to that, KN.

Well, as much fun as this was, I’m off to see what my pillow is doing.  Thanks for the rebuttals.

Kn, first the Statue of Liberty’s statement is not a part of U.S. Law.-and what’s more, it says nothing about providing plundered goodies to anyone.