Judgment gets nearer for SB 1070
Hearing on state law is Monday
Sun, 10/31/2010 - 12:44am
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Capitol Media Services
SAN FRANCISCO — Three federal judges will hear arguments Monday by attorneys for the governor on why Arizona should be allowed to start enforcing SB 1070.
John Bouma, Brewer’s lead attorney, will argue the law that Gov. Jan Brewer signed last April designed to give state and local police more power to detain and arrest those they suspect are in this country illegally is within the legal authority of the state.
If you find a correction for this story, please contact our editorial department
Related Terms:
Received a statement that Obama has ruled that troops overseas cannot vote.
Don’t know if this is true or not but so many changes have taken place on
Obama’s watch that this could be another wake-up call.
Time to end the nonsense, and take our country back. Feds need to stay out of
it. Illegals have no right to vote and BP should round them up, at polling
places if necessary, and boot them home. Let the will of legal citizens be
heard. If you don’t vote, you have no room to complain.
If anyone needed an example of the kind of muddled thinking surrounding this
issue, look no further: “take our country back. Feds need to stay out of it.”
It is a Federal issue. I’m no supporter of illegal immigration and, as I have
pointed out many times, as a building contractor who must bid for jobs, I get
hurt more by it than any of the slobbering blowhards who rant about
immigrants on these boards. However, I don’t support sb1070, it was
ineffective and unsupportable from day one, it has damaged AZ’s economy and
prestige and it was not constitutional. Illegal immigration had been
declining for years and the Federal government, far from being distant and
disengaged, has been actively working to curtail it. Where else in this
country do you have to drive through Check-Point Charlies? A friend visiting
from Canada was astonished on the way to the airport. “My God,” she said,
“You used to be the land of liberty but you are so afraid that you are
surrendering all of your freedoms.”
Point out exactly where in the Constitution is SB1070 unconstitutional?
Article-1 section-9 clearly shows SB1070 to be Constitutional;
“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless
when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”
And Article-1 section-10;
“No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage,
keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or
compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless
actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.”
The argument cannot be broken
Article 1, sections 9 and 10 are unrelated, except perhaps in your crazy
shack at the end of the boulevard of broken arguments. Article 1, section 8,
however, is applicable and the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled on it, as
in Sugarman v. Dugall 1973. Blackmun wrote: “For reasons long recognized as
valid, the responsibility for regulating the relationship between the United
States and our alien visitors has been committed to the political branches of
the Federal Government” Someday, perhaps, you will get around to reading the
actual Constitution, not the redacted version you as a free gift got for your
interest in Glenn Beck U.
I have read the “Actual” Constitution. I also c-n-p Article-1 section-9 for
you. Unfortunately for you, article-1 section-9 doesn’t agree with what you
sympathize with &, as predicted, you go and pound the table.
Your case law doesn’t triumph over text law especially the text in the
Constitution. The constitution is not interpreted by any judge it is to be
enforced by all judges.
You are the one that needs to read the constitution for how it is written &
not for how you want it to be written.
We are right, you are wrong, & that’s the end of the story.
The argument CANNOT be broken!!!
“Your case law doesn’t triumph over text law especially the text in the
Constitution”
Is there some de-education camp where you were forcibly indoctrinated with
this nonsense? Or did you make it up yourself?
“Article 1, sections 9 and 10 are unrelated,” And you know this how exactly?
Because you insulted who you were talking to? As you are aware, Sugarman v.
Dugall 1973 in no way says sections 9 and 10 magically don’t apply. Blackmun
wrote: “For reasons long recognized as valid, the responsibility for
regulating the relationship between the United States and our alien visitors
has been committed to the political branches of the Federal Government”.
Thats great, only one problem, no he didn’t. You really should read what
you’re quoting instead of just copying and pasting it, if you had you would
of seen that was from another case, MATHEWS v. DIAZ and it was justice
Stevens, and it was talking about medicare enrollment for aliens and a
challenge to title 42 USC13950. I shouldn’t be surprised, context is hard to
figure out when you even read the thing. Perhaps you should bother to read
before insulting others ability to read? I miss the old, intelligent,
pre-election time, Cassandra.
The rulings don’t refute sections 9 and 10 of Article 1. They are simply
unrelated, which I believe I wrote pretty plainly. Suspension of writ of
habeas corpus doesn’t enter into the discussion because sb1070 isn’t
intended to prevent the federal government from holding anyone without cause.
Article 10 would actually be more likely to argue against the
constitutionality of sb1070 because it proscribes state involvement in a
variety of int’l conflicts & compacts. Section 8 contains the Const’s only
reference to immigration (except for the slave trade grandfather clause), as
well as the necessary and proper clause. It also asserts fed authority over
int’l law. As to my misstep on attribution, you are absolutely right.
Matthews v. Diaz was quoted in Reno v. Flores, which I had open below the
window containing Sugarman v. Dugall, which I had gotten to through Hampton
v. Mow Sun Wong. So, on that long trail(all, BTW, validating federal
authority), I cited incorrectly. Point to you.
Your views will be similar to those that will be expressed by the local NAACP
at 2:00 PM, at the library today. I was encouraged to attend but I feel I
have little in common with liberal views so I won’t go.