TexasCHLforum.com

i8godzilla wrote:Why? The Federal Government's position is basically, Federal Law trumps State Law and AZ cannot enforce Federal Law. What if all State and Local law enforcement agencies took that to heart for every law.

I think it would be great if Arizona and other states turn around and say, "OK. State and local law enforcement are now prohibited from enforcing any Federal laws, sharing information with Federal law enforcement, or assisting Federal LEOs and USAs in any way."

Can this law suite immediately addressed by Supreme court?

I’m not a lawyer or a judge, but let me see if I have this straight. Federal law precedes state law, however State law can choose to be more stringent that Federal law. Now Fed’s get to pick and choose which Federal laws that want the States to ignore or sidestep and let them handle exclusively?

It’s not about race or anything else. It’s the law we all chose by majority vote.

Here’s how I force rank my concerns about securing the borders and immigration laws.
Taking Jobs in America: 00.1% (this will take care of itself, when enough people want to work)
Influencing Hispanic Votes: 00.1% (you have to register to vote. Enforce existing immigration laws)
Enabling Drug Trafficking: 24.8% (too easy. Try smuggling dope into another country. Let me know how that works out for you.)
Al-Qaeda Terrorist Attacks: 25% (what’s the difference between 15lbs of dope vs. 15lbs of nuke?. A Lot!)
Overall Safety for My Family: 50% (US Government…. You mandate that I pay you for my protection, it’s time to pony up!)

I apologize. The filter between my brain and keyboard is obviously broken. Okay. I’m off my soap box now.

I think the threat of a biological/nuclear attack coming through the southern border is very real. Not my words, but it pretty much sums up how I feel:

"I saw a debate in the US Congress where the Coast Guard and others were saying it's impossible to smuggle nukes into the US. One of the Congressman asked, 'What if they're smart enough to pack it in a bale of marijuana? We know you can't stop THAT.' "

"Judge Blocks Arizona Law"

That is not in the least accurate. What Judge Bolton really did is issue a temporary injunction against some provisions of the law. The law still went into effect today.

If I was the Arizona Attorney General, Barry and Eric's lawsuit would never have been filed. I would have just thrown up my hands and said " you win. The highest law enforcement official in the country - the Attorney General of the United states - has said that the Federal Government has preemption and the States are not allowed to enforce Federal law. Therefore, the State of Arizona will not enforce Federal law."

What ever happened to the lawsuit by States to block the unconstitutional healthcare travesty?

How did this lawsuit jump ahead?

bayouhazard wrote:What ever happened to the lawsuit by States to block the unconstitutional healthcare travesty?

How did this lawsuit jump ahead?

It did not jump ahead. First, that case is in a different venue. Second, only an injunction to some portions of the law were temporarily blocked yesterday. In essence, the judge said that on some of the measures she believed the Federal Government would prevail when the actual case is heard.

Yahoo News
By BOB CHRISTIE, Associated Press Writer – 28 mins ago

SYNOPSIS: Arizona appealed to the 9th circuit.

This will get interesting. The 9th, as I understand it, is the most overturned appellate court in the nation. If they decide against Arizona, this will definitely go to the SCOTUS. I think that 8 of 9 justices are relatively predictable, but I wonder if Kennedy can be prompted to get his states' rights groove on.

The Annoyed Man wrote:The 9th, as I understand it, is the most overturned appellate court in the nation.

If you want to go judge shopping, the 9th Appellate Court is the WallyWorld for activist Federal judges. Check out some of the background and history of this court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... liberalism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25983

This is an interesting take on the issue. Only the Supreme Court of the United States has jurisdiction in a lawsuit with a State.

tomneal wrote:http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25983

This is an interesting take on the issue. Only the Supreme Court of the United States has jurisdiction in a lawsuit with a State.

That is very interesting.

Unfortunately, nobody reads the Constitution anymore - particularly federal judges.

bdickens wrote:"Judge Blocks Arizona Law"

That is not in the least accurate. What Judge Bolton really did is issue a temporary injunction against some provisions of the law. The law still went into effect today.

If I was the Arizona Attorney General, Barry and Eric's lawsuit would never have been filed. I would have just thrown up my hands and said " you win. The highest law enforcement official in the country - the Attorney General of the United states - has said that the Federal Government has preemption and the States are not allowed to enforce Federal law. Therefore, the State of Arizona will not enforce Federal law."

tomneal wrote:http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25983

This is an interesting take on the issue. Only the Supreme Court of the United States has jurisdiction in a lawsuit with a State.

I admit to ignorance. When it says, "State" does it refer to the individual states or is it in context with the rest of the sentence and mean a foreign state (nation)?

The Annoyed Man wrote:Unfortunately, nobody reads the Constitution anymore - particularly federal judges on the 9th Circus Court..

Fixed it for ya.