NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100468.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

A federal judge barred the Bush administration yesterday from launching a planned crackdown on U.S. companies that employ illegal immigrants, warning of its potentially "staggering" impact on law-abiding workers and companies.

In a firm rebuke of the White House, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer of San Francisco granted a preliminary injunction against the president's plan to press employers to fire as many as 8.7 million workers with suspect Social Security numbers, starting this fall.

Oh brother. And people why I have no faith in the Judicial System. Laws are being broken by companies and this judge is preventing the enforcement of the law.

This judge should be impeached and thrown of the bench and have his law license revoked.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100468.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR



Oh brother. And people why I have no faith in the Judicial System. Laws are being broken by companies and this judge is preventing the enforcement of the law.

This judge should be impeached and thrown of the bench and have his law license revoked.

This is why judges should not be elected.

This is why judges should not be elected.

He was a federal judge which means he was appointed by the President.

He was a federal judge which means he was appointed by the President.

And the judge was protecting business interests... like a good Republican. *nods*

And the judge was protecting business interests... like a good Republican. *nods*

By violating the laws of the United States that he is sworn to uphold.

By violating the laws of the United States that he is sworn to uphold.

Like a good political appointee.

Like a good political appointee.

Now how am I supposed to respond to that? LOL!!!

Now how am I supposed to respond to that? LOL!!!

This country is fucked. I'd hate to agree with Shrubya, but the only solution to the "problem" of illegal immigration is to go for the employers. Trying to get all the illegals is like trying to put out a forest fire with a garden hose, you won't win.

This country is fucked. I'd hate to agree with Shrubya, but the only solution to the "problem" of illegal immigration is to go for the employers. Trying to get all the illegals is like trying to put out a forest fire with a garden hose, you won't win.

Now that is true but we can go after the one's that we absolutely know about.

move along, nothing to see here

So you are saying that businesses and government are both above the law?

The plaintiffs convinced the judge that the Social Security Administration database includes so many errors -- incorporated in the records of about 9.5 million people in 2003 alone -- that its use in firings would unfairly discriminate against tens of thousands of legal workers, including native-born and naturalized U.S. citizens, and cause major workforce disruptions that would burden companies.

"The government's proposal to disseminate no-match letters affecting more than eight million workers will, under the mandated time line, result in the termination of employment to lawfully employed workers," the judge wrote. "Moreover the threat of criminal prosecution . . . reflects a major change in DHS policy."

Breyer also said that the government may have ignored a 1980 law, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, that requires it to weigh the cost of imposing new regulations that would significantly burden small-business owners.

move along, nothing to see here

the ruling is essentially saying something similar to saying that the cops can't use bazookas while attempting to stop shoplifters. the fact that shoplifting is illegal has fuck-all to do with anything.

Businesses are employing illegal workers. Some cities have these things called sanctuary laws which are also illegal. So again...are you saying that we should not crack down on illegal immigration through whatever means is at the government's disposal?

Frankly, we need harsher penalties on those businesses who employ illegal immigrants.

how?

With rulings like this.

By violating the laws of the United States that he is sworn to uphold.

the ruling is essentially saying something similar to saying that the cops can't use bazookas and landmines while attempting to stop shoplifters. the fact that shoplifting is illegal has fuck-all to do with anything.

This country is fucked.

how?

Businesses are employing illegal workers. Some cities have these things called sanctuary laws which are also illegal. So again...are you saying that we should not crack down on illegal immigration through whatever means is at the government's disposal?

Including firing legal workers?

So again...are you saying that we should not crack down on illegal immigration through whatever means is at the government's disposal?

yes. even if i wasn't in favor of open borders, no one could rationally believe that the state should "crack down on illegal immigration through whatever means" are available. that's stupid - there are all sorts of possible means that while possibly effective, ought not even be considered. like nuking mexico. or firebombing immigrant neighborhoods. or firing numerous legal workers because the government messed up.

Oh joy, corny's trying to talk about the law some more. This should be good for a laugh.

So again...are you saying that we should not crack down on illegal immigration through whatever means is at the government's disposal?

There are lots of means at the government's disposal. They could summarily execute anyone they find crossing the border. They could drop a nuclear weapon on mexico city. They could do a whole lot of things with the means they have at their disposal.

Should they do all of them? Absolutly not. To suggest so is barbaric.

There are lots of means at the government's disposal. They could summarily execute anyone they find crossing the border. They could drop a nuclear weapon on mexico city. They could do a whole lot of things with the means they have at their disposal.

Should they do all of them? Absolutly not. To suggest so is barbaric.

Ok so now that we are done with going to the extreme that would make any lunatic fringe group happy...why not talk about this rationally.

Ok so now that we are done with going to the extreme that would make any lunatic fringe group happy...why not talk about this rationally.

Would you include firing legal workers along with illegal workers because of beaucratic mistakes as an extreme measure becauses that why the judge has rule against the Act (is that the right term?).

Ok so now that we are done with going to the extreme that would make any lunatic fringe group happy...why not talk about this rationally.

you were the one who brought up "any means at their disposal", we merely demonstrated the idiocy of that position. shit, even "any means necessary" rules out more lunacy than your proposal. but since you have now agreed that not just anything will do, what exactly was your complaint against this ruling?

Ok so now that we are done with going to the extreme that would make any lunatic fringe group happy...why not talk about this rationally.

certainly. One step in discussing things rationally is to not ask why we don't support the government doing things "by whatever means they have at their disposal". I'll note that you're the one who said that.

As you admit, no rational person would want the government to do ANYTHING they have the means to do, so I'm unsure why you even brought that up.

But OK, let's talk rationally. If enforcing the law would lead to violations of constitutional due process the law can not legally be enforced.

There, that should do it.

Now that is true but we can go after the one's that we absolutely know about.

And there you have it. The judges complaint was that we don't know absolutely.

This is why judges should not be elected.

Federal judges are not elected, they are appointed by the President for life.

Oh brother. And people why I have no faith in the Judicial System.

That is easy: you have no faith in the Judicial System because you don't understand it. (This is mostly because you fail to try to understand it.)

Laws are being broken by companies and this judge is preventing the enforcement of the law.

No. The judge is trying to enforce the law -- several laws actually -- that make this new regulation illegal.

HERE IS A COPY OF THE JUDGE'S OPINION (http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/judges.nsf/61fffe74f99516d088256d480060b72d/61c2fef3cd43bfde882573700081d7ed/$FILE/7-4472.pdf) (pdf). If you have an actual disagreement with the ruling -- as opposed to a knee-jerk policy response -- please explain. That should be amusing.


This judge should be impeached and thrown of the bench and have his law license revoked.

So judges should be impeached and disbarred for rulings that get in the way of your policy objectives, even if they are legally correct rulings. How special.

So much for the judiciary and the rule of law.

TCT, I admit I haven't read the ruling, but let's see how close I am. The crux of it would be a due process argument if I had to guess the rationale behind the ruling, right?

And the judge was protecting business interests... like a good Republican. *nods*

Appointed by Slick Willie Clinton.

Breyer, Charles R.

Born 1941 in San Francisco, CA

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Northern District of California
Nominated by William J. Clinton on July 24, 1997, to a seat vacated by D. Lowell Jensen; Confirmed by the Senate on November 8, 1997, and received commission on November 12, 1997.

Education:
Harvard College, A.B., 1963

University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, J.D., 1966

Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. Oliver Carter, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1966-1967
Counsel, Legal Aid Society of San Francisco, California, 1967
Assistant district attorney, District Attorney's Office, City & County of San Francisco, California, 1967-1973
Assistant special prosecutor, Watergate Special Prosecution Force, 1973-1974
Private practice, San Francisco, California, 1974-1979
Chief assistant district attorney, District Attorney's Office, City and County of San Francisco, California, 1979
Private practice, San Francisco, California, 1980-1997

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Male
http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2719

I think this is an excellent example of why the Illegal Immigration 'problem' will never be cured. The law in question was designed to be struck down. This allows politicians to look like they are actually trying to do something without actually getting results. It's almost impressive.

TCT, I admit I haven't read the ruling, but let's see how close I am. The crux of it would be a due process argument if I had to guess the rationale behind the ruling, right?

I hate to disappoint you, but no:

Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions and business groups, filed a motion for preliminary injunction, arguing that injunctive relief is appropriate because they have demonstrated a high probability of success on four theories: that the rule (1) contravenes the governing statute; (2) is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act; (3) is an exercise of ultra vires authority by DHS and the Social Security Administration (SSA); and (4) was promulgated in violation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiffs’ favor and plaintiffs have raised serious questions going to the merits. Accordingly, the motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED.

The details are rather complicated and fine.

Appointed by Slick Willie Clinton.

*snip*
http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2719

You are correct that it is silly to assert this judge was moved by anything other than the merits. Certainly this isn't a simple partisan matter -- the plaintiffs included businesses and unions, "left" and "right" organizations, including the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

I hate to disappoint you, but no:

Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions and business groups, filed a motion for preliminary injunction, arguing that injunctive relief is appropriate because they have demonstrated a high probability of success on four theories: that the rule (1) contravenes the governing statute; (2) is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act; (3) is an exercise of ultra vires authority by DHS and the Social Security Administration (SSA); and (4) was promulgated in violation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiffs’ favor and plaintiffs have raised serious questions going to the merits. Accordingly, the motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED.

The details are rather complicated and fine.

aha, the good old arbitrary and capricious. Gotta love it. I was thinking the line would be that because there is a high probabily that an individual, who is a valid US citizen/resident would get caught up in this and summarily fired, this would raise a due process of law problem, given as...well...they didn't get anyway.

But I understand where this is going too. Frankly though with the fact pattern as i understand it, I'm surprised there was not a due process argument thrown in for good measure....

WTF!?

U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer of San Francisco
Somehow I knew this even before clicking on the the link.

This country is fucked. I'd hate to agree with Shrubya, but the only solution to the "problem" of illegal immigration is to go for the employers.....

A better solution would be to legalise them...

No. The judge is trying to enforce the law -- several laws actually -- that make this new regulation illegal.

HERE IS A COPY OF THE JUDGE'S OPINION (http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/judges.nsf/61fffe74f99516d088256d480060b72d/61c2fef3cd43bfde882573700081d7ed/$FILE/7-4472.pdf) (pdf). If you have an actual disagreement with the ruling --

It remains to be seen if he is trying to enforce the law or if he is expressing his OPINION.

You are correct that it is silly to assert this judge was moved by anything other than the merits. Certainly this isn't a simple partisan matter -- the plaintiffs included businesses and unions, "left" and "right" organizations, including the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

WHich, of couse, the crafters of the law knew would probably happen, being lawyers and businessmen themselves.

Kudos to this Judge....

God forbid that the SSA be considered an authority in figuring out who is legal and who isn't... They've been swearing up and down for the last 10 years, that one of my male friends in female; and even after spending hours dealing with them every now and then to get it corrected, some smuck at SSA does back and "fixes" it the way it was wrong before... and he's back at square one.

I won't even mention that they "in error" reissued my SSN to someone in New Jersey, who used it for three years before I found out about it.... Under Shrubs Policy, I could have gotten flaged and fired as an "illegal" simply because of an SSA screwup...

It remains to be seen if he is trying to enforce the law or if he is expressing his OPINION.

um, what the fuck? Congratulations, this is one of the stupidist things I've ever seen on this forum.

I hate to disappoint you, but no:

Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions and business groups, filed a motion for preliminary injunction, arguing that injunctive relief is appropriate because they have demonstrated a high probability of success on four theories: that the rule (1) contravenes the governing statute; (2) is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act; (3) is an exercise of ultra vires authority by DHS and the Social Security Administration (SSA); and (4) was promulgated in violation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiffs’ favor and plaintiffs have raised serious questions going to the merits. Accordingly, the motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED.

The details are rather complicated and fine.

You have a link?

That is easy: you have no faith in the Judicial System because you don't understand it. (This is mostly because you fail to try to understand it.)

Nice flamebaiting. Luckily I am breaking my habit of spouting off.

No. The judge is trying to enforce the law -- several laws actually -- that make this new regulation illegal.

HERE IS A COPY OF THE JUDGE'S OPINION (http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/judges.nsf/61fffe74f99516d088256d480060b72d/61c2fef3cd43bfde882573700081d7ed/$FILE/7-4472.pdf) (pdf). If you have an actual disagreement with the ruling -- as opposed to a knee-jerk policy response -- please explain. That should be amusing.

First off, stop the flamebaiting. I expect it from noobs and asshats that live on these forums but not from someone like you. Secondly, I will read the opinion and I will reply to it. Thirdly, when I do respond, you better not troll my response or flame me for it for it goes to show that you do not care for someone that disagrees with something.

So judges should be impeached and disbarred for rulings that get in the way of your policy objectives, even if they are legally correct rulings. How special.

My policy objectives? I'm sorry if I want to see Illegal Immigrants thrown in jail and then sent out of the country and businesses that employ lawbreakers be punished severely. Do you agree that businesses should be punished severely for employing Illegal Immigrants?

It remains to be seen if he is trying to enforce the law or if he is expressing his OPINION.

Opinion is just the name for the written explanation of the judge's ruling. Nothing to get your panties in a bunch over.

But feel free to point out where in the opinion the judge errs.

Kudos to this Judge....

God forbid that the SSA be considered an authority in figuring out who is legal and who isn't... They've been swearing up and down for the last 10 years, that one of my male friends in female; and even after spending hours dealing with them every now and then to get it corrected, some smuck at SSA does back and "fixes" it the way it was wrong before... and he's back at square one.

I won't even mention that they "in error" reissued my SSN to someone in New Jersey, who used it for three years before I found out about it.... Under Shrubs Policy, I could have gotten flaged and fired as an "illegal" simply because of an SSA screwup...

well everyone knows that you can't rely on the government to do anything right, ever. and that is why we must allow the government to use whatever means are at their disposal to solve this problem....

No. The judge is trying to enforce the law -- several laws actually -- that make this new regulation illegal.Don't be silly. Judges never overturn laws because said laws are illegal.

Nice flamebaiting. Luckily I am breaking my habit of spouting off.



First off, stop the flamebaiting. I expect it from noobs and asshats that live on these forums but not from someone like you. Secondly, I will read the opinion and I will reply to it. Thirdly, when I do respond, you better not troll my response or flame me for it for it goes to show that you do not care for someone that disagrees with something.



My policy objectives? I'm sorry if I want to see Illegal Immigrants thrown in jail and then sent out of the country and businesses that employ lawbreakers be punished severely. Do you agree that businesses should be punished severely for employing Illegal Immigrants?

You complain about others flaimbating you? You were the one who CREATED this thread and in YOUR FIRST POST called for the termination and disbarrment of a judge for issuing an opinion that, by your own admission, you had not even read yet! This whole thread was started by nothing more than you casting judgement on the wisdom of a federal judge for issuing a ruling that you hadn't even read, because you didn't like the result of that ruling.

By your own admission you have not read the ruling and are woefully unprepared to discuss the rationale behind it, or whether it was justified. You don't know the reason in question, you don't know why the judge found what he did, you don't know the legal arguments that were used to persuade him, you don't know any of that. Yet you feel comfortable proclaiming that he was wrong because...well...you said so, apparently.

Corny, I speak for myself, and I'm sure TCT will join me in this, that if either of us ever sees a complete, intellectually honest, unbiased, factually supported legal analysis from you, the shock may well kill us. You've already demonstrated a complete unwillingness to treat this subject (or indeed, any subject in which someone disagrees with you) with anything approaching a shred of honesty or integrity. Why should we suddenly expect it from you now?

Opinion is just the name for the written explanation of the judge's ruling. Nothing to get your panties in a bunch over.

But feel free to point out where in the opinion the judge errs.

I agree it is his opinion and we will see if that opinion stands when it is appealed.

I wouldn't be surprised if Gdub arranged for him to reject it, so he can appear to be tough on illegals to the public, but still keep his big business friends.

I agree it is his opinion and we will see if that opinion stands when it is appealed.

do you have any reason to believe it will not stand on appeal?

I wouldn't be surprised if Gdub arranged for him to reject it, so he can appear to be tough on illegals to the public, but still keep his big business friends.

I'm curious how a sitting lame duck republican president can convince a democratically appointed, lifetime tenured federal judge to do anything

That's kind of the point of lifetime appointments, so that the judiciary need not feel the need to bend to the will of a capricious government.

We don't need "Immigration Reform Laws".

We simply need to enforce the laws that are already on the books.

If the Federal Government refuses to do what it is Constitutionally mandated to do, the States, using their own National Guard troops have every right to pick up the slack.

Make it unbearably, PAINFULLY clear that the hiring of an undocumented worker is nothing short of aiding and abetting a criminal and supporting a continuing criminal enterprise and punish the offenders with harsh severity.

If it can be proven that such hiring was done with intent and forethought, it is by definition a crime that falls under the federal RICO act and again should be prosecuted as such.

When I read in the local news that an HONEST LEGAL german couple is being forced to abandon their business, home and employees and leave the country because their Visa has expired, yet millions of illegals flaunt the system and basically give us and our laws the finger, it really pisses me off.

I am sick to fuquing death over this bullshite double standard when it comes to certain hispanics over the rest of the world vis a vis "immigration".

Sneak in on a boat from Cuba, they give you grant money and a hearty welcome. Flee TRUE abominable conditions from Haiti, Cambodia etc. and you get treated like garbage and sent back to a near certain execution.

I love my country with every fiber of my being, but lately my government has me so mad I'd shoot the lot at the traitor's execution square tomorrow sunrise.

And don't hand me any Bush bashing shite either. The other party is just as damn bad, if not worse. We need a new breed of politician. The current lot on all sides is about as anti-American as one can find a definition for.

dont really see the problem. The three houses of the american government have the right to keep checks and balances on each other. a supreme court udge can veto the president. now of course im fairly left so i see absolutely no problem with letting 9 million people keep their jobs. someone further to the right obviously would be more worried about the economy than whether or not someone who escaped opression to come to a "free country" has a job.

If the Federal Government refuses to do what it is Constitutionally mandated to do, the States, using their own National Guard troops have every right to pick up the slack.

No they don't. Failed.

The rest of your post is pointless ranting and really has no substance to respond to.

This country is fucked. I'd hate to agree with Shrubya, but the only solution to the "problem" of illegal immigration is to go for the employers. Trying to get all the illegals is like trying to put out a forest fire with a garden hose, you won't win.

It's funny how people focus on the superficial symptoms of a bigger problem. Illegal immigration is a political distraction to bigger problems. Ask yourself why people come here illegally. Most of you will say because The U.S. is such a wonderful place full of opportunity. That's partially right, but very distorted.
There is no way anyone can say the U.S. and Europe have not been in total control of Latin America. You can fill a whole library with literature, studies, even government documents that show all the terrible oppressive things they do. In sort, imperialism and it's real.
All these things like "globalization,""free-trade," the World Bank, the IMF, have only benefited the U.S. and Europe, leaving Latin American countries very poor. A lot of you will say that it's the fault of corrupt Latin American governments. Also true, but even more distorted. Any leftist government until now, that threatened foreign imperialism was stamped out quickly and relatively quietly. There are hundreds of cases U.S. military invasion in Latin America after Spain lost their grip.
So you have the U.S. coming over and taking all the wealth and resources and forcing repressive dictators like Uribe in Colombia. In Mexico, Vicente Fox, a close chum to Bush, allows all kinds of terrible economic agreements that hurt the Mexican people. Have you heard of the maquiladoras.
So why do you think they come here? You're living fat on their hard work and their countries resources and have the gall to say, "We gotta get them outa here, cuz they're illegals."
The invaded always migrate to their oppressors land. This has been proven over and over again in history. But, of course, this is the only exception, right? The U.S. is always the exception to the rule according to Americans.

This country is fucked. I'd hate to agree with Shrubya, but the only solution to the "problem" of illegal immigration is to go for the employers. Trying to get all the illegals is like trying to put out a forest fire with a garden hose, you won't win.

Employers alone won't do it. We need to deploy the National Guard all across the country and actively round up illegals. We need to deny them access to our emergency rooms and our schools. We need to put any employer out of business who knowingly hires illegals. We need to deport all the illegals, as quickly as possible and as many as possible. And we need to make Spanish illegal. I'm sick of having to press 1 for English when I call some place. Then we need to build a wall. Great Wall of Texas, anyone?

"It will be the solemn duty of the state governments to protect their own authority over their own militia and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power" - Daniel Webster, successfully arguing in a defeat of a conscription bill.


The Supreme Court has decided that the federal reach cannot extend to in-state behavior that is not commercial in nature, meaning Inter-State Commerce.

In 1995 the Court struck down the federal Gun Free School Zones Act. That Act made it a federal crime to possess a firearm in a school zone. The Court concluded that the act of possessing a handgun does not substantially affect commerce.

In the handgun decision the Court commented, "Under the theories that the Government presents...we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate." It reiterated a 65-year-old observation by the Court that the commerce clause "may not be extended as to embrace effects upon interstate commerce so indirect and remote that to embrace them, in view of our complex society, would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government."

SCJ Rehnquist has explained very throuoghly that "States historically have been sovereign" in the area of law enforcement, which in the Court's opinion required narrow interpretations of the Commerce Clause and Fourteenth Amendment.

In the past, Congress relied on the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause for passing civil rights bills, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

United States v. Lopez (1995) limited the Commerce Clause to things that directly affect interstate commerce, which excludes issues like gun control laws, hate crimes and other crimes that affect commerce but are not directly related to commerce.

Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996) reinforced the "sovereign immunity of states" doctrine, which makes it difficult to sue states for many things, especially civil rights violations.

In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) the "congruence and proportionality" requirement prevents Congress from going too far in requiring states to comply with the Equal Protection Clause, which replaced the ratchet theory advanced in Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966).

Another important precedent was United States v. Harris (1883), which ruled that the Equal Protection Clause did not apply to a prison lynching because the state action doctrine applies Equal Protection only to state action, not private criminal acts. Since the ratchet principle was replaced with the "congruence and proportionality" principle by Flores, it was easier to revive older precedents for preventing Congress from going beyond what Court interpretations would allow.

This clearly allows the States to enact and enforce laws where the Federal Government fails or refuses to, and protects the States from Federal retalliation should they act where the Fed will not.

Employers alone won't do it. We need to deploy the National Guard all across the country and actively round up illegals. We need to deny them access to our emergency rooms and our schools. We need to put any employer out of business who knowingly hires illegals. We need to deport all the illegals, as quickly as possible and as many as possible. And we need to make Spanish illegal. I'm sick of having to press 1 for English when I call some place. Then we need to build a wall. Great Wall of Texas, anyone?

The economic impacts of such a plan would be staggering. Not only that, such a plan woulsd step on the toes of many powerful and wealthy people.

As for your inability to speak Spanish, a language that has a longer history in the USA than English, I would suggest night classes.

*snip*

This clearly allows the States to enact and enforce laws where the Federal Government fails or refuses to, and protects the States from Federal retalliation should they act where the Fed will not.

WTF are you babbling about?

Nothing you said in your post supports your conclusion.

This clearly allows the States to enact and enforce laws where the Federal Government fails or refuses to, and protects the States from Federal retalliation should they act where the Fed will not.

not a single case you just cited in any way shape or form promotes, even in the slightest, the view that the states can decide on their own to enforce illegal immigration.

not even one tiny fucking bit. In fact, Lozano, et. al. v. City of Hazelton made it QUITE clear that the state can not pre-empt the federal government on matters of immigration. Lozano overturned a philadelphia law regarding immigration because, you guessed it, they didn't have the authority to do so.

If you wish you may read the entirety of that opinion here (http://www.prldef.org/Civil/hazleton%20decision.pdf). Page 92 and on deals with pre-emption.

Throwing around a ton of cites dealing with the 14th amendment that a first semester law student could tell you have absolutly no relevance to the topic at hand not withstanding.

In other words, NOTHING you cited has any baring what so ever on immigration. None. I mean seriously, City of Boerne? You fucking cite City of Boerne? That case had to do with zoning laws restricting the construction of a church, and a claim under the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act

What the FUCK does a RIFRA case about zoning laws and the power of the congres to define substantive due process rights have to do with illegal immigration?

In fact...Seminol Tribes? Lopez? Boerne? You're citing major historical cases here, but NONE of them have anything to do with the topic at hand. These are 14th amendment and commerce clause cases....major ones. What the fuck did you do, read off the syllabus of a first semester law school constitutional law course?

Failed.

The economic impacts of such a plan would be staggering. Not only that, such a plan woulsd step on the toes of many powerful and wealthy people.

As for your inability to speak Spanish, a language that has a longer history in the USA than English, I would suggest night classes.

I'd bet a large number of those "powerful and wealthy" people inherited their money rather than worked for it. Then those with silver spoons born in their mouths act like snobs and continue to build their wealth on the backs of the middle and lower classes. They're almost as bad as traitors themselves, although I'd be willing to tolerate them for now.

As to learning Spanish....why? I have spoken English my entire life, and I shouldn't have to go out of my way to communicate in my goddamn own country just because someone else can't learn English.

I'd bet a large number of those "powerful and wealthy" people inherited their money rather than worked for it. Then those with silver spoons born in their mouths act like snobs and continue to build their wealth on the backs of the middle and lower classes. They're almost as bad as traitors themselves, although I'd be willing to tolerate them for now.

As to learning Spanish....why? I have spoken English my entire life, and I shouldn't have to go out of my way to communicate in my goddamn own country just because someone else can't learn English.

Who cares if they were born rich? The reality is that they are rich and have the money and power to do what they want. Whining about it won't help.

And Spanish speaking USians could ask the same of you: that you take the time to learn the native language so that they don't have to go out of their way to communicate with you in their country.

As to learning Spanish....why? I have spoken English my entire life, and I shouldn't have to go out of my way to communicate in my goddamn own country just because someone else can't learn English.

It always amuses me to see people glorify their own ignorance with some sort of masturbatory expression of patriotism.

and hey, I can cite famous cases too! Roe v. Wade! TLO v. New Jersey! Brown v. Board! Plessy v. Ferguson! Marbury v. Madison! Korimatzu v. United States!

How about old man Filburn and his wheat?

What do all these cases have to do with the government's power to regulate immigration? About as much as City of Boerne, Lopez, Seminol Tribe and all the others you cited.

Absolutly nothing.

US Has no national language...

My ancestors just started to learn English about 2 generations ago; yet our habitation of this continent predates the existence of the United States of America.

It always amuses me to see people glorify their own ignorance with some sort of masturbatory expression of patriotism.

How is being proud of a national language and defending its use in your own nation qualify as "ignorance"?

Try again.

How is being proud of a national language and defending its use in your own nation qualify as "ignorance"?

The US doesn't have a national language.

Failed.

There has never been an "official" language per se, but what has the de facto language been for uh...the last three hundred years? What was the Declaration of Independence written in? The Constitution?

Try again.

If you want English as a national language, work on getting an Amendment to the Constitution.

The US doesn't have a national language.

There has never been an "official" language per se, but what has the de facto language been for uh...the last three hundred years? What was the Declaration of Independence written in? The Constitution?

Try again.

The US doesn't have a national language.

Failed.

You're always beating me...

I am beginning now to understand how politicians and judges who can't read the Constitution get elected and how those same ignorant politicians go on to appoint higher level Judges who could care less about the Constitution.

I am being quoted Constitutionally illegal decisions by activist judges elected and/or appointed by those with no grasp of plain English, prior Constitutionally sound SC decisions or the even the simple Tenth Amendment.

No wonder the people are being stripped of their liberties and the States are being relegated to submissive dominion status by both parties.

The voters have lost their damned minds, and if they keep this shite up, we will have to change the name of the place to the Socialist States of the Americas.

The epitath will read "America. What a wonderful experiment. Too bad Khrushchev ended up being right. The Bolsheviks won after all, the mighty nation was brought down from within."

There has never been an "official" language per se, but what has the de facto language been for uh...the last three hundred years? What was the Declaration of Independence written in? The Constitution?

Pre-Spanglish. ;)

There has never been an "official" language per se,

Thank you for admitting that. The rest of your post is superfluous

I am beginning now to understand how politicians and judges who can't read the Constitution get elected and how those same ignorant politicians go on to appoint higher level Judges who could care less about the Constitution.

This coming from someone who tried to cite commerce clause cases like Lopez and 14th amendment cases like City of Boerne in a discussion about immigration? You wouldn't know the constitution if someone tattooed it on your eyelids.

The irony, it burns! Seriously though, is this the best that the right wing has? Utter total fucking NONSENSE like this? My god, no wonder nobody takes right wing conservates seriously if THIS....stupidity is the best thing they can find to represent them.

Failed.

Because of this we should have to press 1 for English when we call customer support?

We already do that, quite a bit. And it's not by any act of government... It's merely the operation of businesses whose desire is to supply support to their consumer base, which includes Spanish speaking peoples.

Thank you for admitting that. The rest of your post is superfluous

So because of that we are forced to change the everyday living of 200-something million people who know English and use English in their everyday lives to include a small minority who refuses to learn English? Because of this we should introduce bi-lingual education and print everything in two languages? Because of this we should have to press 1 for English when we call customer support?

I guess I shouldn't bother asking because I know your answer is most likely a resounding yes.

So because of that we are forced to change the everyday living of 200-something million people who know English and use English in their everyday lives to include a small minority who refuses to learn English? Because of this we should introduce bi-lingual education and print everything in two languages? Because of this we should have to press 1 for English when we call customer support?

I guess I shouldn't bother asking because I know your answer is most likely a resounding yes.

Most rest of the developed world learns to speak two languages fluently.

Why don't you start following suit or fall behind (economically speaking)?

He was a federal judge which means he was appointed by the President.

A clarification, if I might? Being an appointed judge does not mean he was appointed by the current president.

Most rest of the developed world learns to speak two languages fluently.

Why don't you start following suit or fall behind (economically speaking)?

At least two. Many have three or four.

So because of that we are forced to change the everyday living of 200-something million people who know English and use English in their everyday lives to include a small minority who refuses to learn English? Because of this we should introduce bi-lingual education and print everything in two languages? Because of this we should have to press 1 for English when we call customer support?

I guess I shouldn't bother asking because I know your answer is most likely a resounding yes.

Yes yes, we should force people to suddenly adapt to a language without any support or funding to education to spare you the horror of pushing a fucking button.

Get the fuck over yourself.

Pre-Spanglish. ;)

Proto-Esperanto!

Make it unbearably, PAINFULLY clear that the hiring of an undocumented worker is nothing short of aiding and abetting a criminal and supporting a continuing criminal enterprise and punish the offenders with harsh severity.

…

Sneak in on a boat from Cuba, they give you grant money and a hearty welcome. Flee TRUE abominable conditions from Haiti, Cambodia etc. and you get treated like garbage and sent back to a near certain execution.

So do you want employers to stop aiding criminal activity by hiring illegal immigrants, but you also don't want illegal immigrants and refugees to be deported? :confused:
So they should just live on the streets?

Because of this we should introduce bi-lingual education and print everything in two languages?

:eek:

Because of this we should have to press 1 for English when we call customer support?

:eek:

I'm Canadian, though, so I guess I don't really get much of an opinion on this matter.

If the SSA database is really so bad, this seems like a golden opportunity to fix it. It also seems like a golden opportunity to fine and imprison employers that hire illegal residents.

This is certainly a law that should be revisited, should the injunction on enforcement be made permanent.

I am beginning now to understand how politicians and judges who can't read the Constitution get elected and how those same ignorant politicians go on to appoint higher level Judges who could care less about the Constitution.

I am being quoted Constitutionally illegal decisions by activist judges elected and/or appointed by those with no grasp of plain English, prior Constitutionally sound SC decisions or the even the simple Tenth Amendment.

No wonder the people are being stripped of their liberties and the States are being relegated to submissive dominion status by both parties.

The voters have lost their damned minds, and if they keep this shite up, we will have to change the name of the place to the Socialist States of the Americas.

The epitath will read "America. What a wonderful experiment. Too bad Khrushchev ended up being right. The Bolsheviks won after all, the mighty nation was brought down from within."

Your rhetoric is amusing, but empty.

First, you copy and pasted most of your "Constitutional" analysis from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights). Next time (a) get a source that actually supports your argument and (b) credit your source.

Second, pray tell, how "prior Constitutionally sound SC decisions or the even the simple Tenth Amendment" relate to federal preemption in the area of immigration law.

Third, Neo Art has already more than adequately dealt with your assertions.

So wait, Bush was trying to push a law to crack down on illegal immigration when he's been doing nothing but trying to help it? I'm confused...this is why I left the Republican party. Viva the "We Actually Care About America" Party!

Your rhetoric...............

As is always the case when dealing with the brainwashed, if I have to explain it to you in simple little sentences, if you can't make the logic connections on your own, if all you can see is what your blindness tells you to see, then there is no point in pursuing the matter.

The cites are self explanatory when taken in context of the original statement.

I'm not going to hold your hand and lead you down the path.

Most rest of the developed world learns to speak two languages fluently.

Why don't you start following suit or fall behind (economically speaking)?

Because This...is...AMERICA.

I'm not going to hold your hand and lead you down the path.

The garden path must be walked alone?

The garden path must be walked alone?

EchoVect is not a true gentleman. *shakes head*

Who said anything about a garden?

My humour was, not too surprisingly, wasted.

The garden path must be walked alone?


Who said anything about a garden?

I laid out the bleedin Yellow Brick Highway, for Pete's sake.

Although, what Pete has to do with it I have NO idea............

As was, apparently, my sarcasm.

Oh, your posts are sarcastic! Well, that's certainly a relief.
I was getting kind of worried.

If the SSA database is really so bad, this seems like a golden opportunity to fix it. It also seems like a golden opportunity to fine and imprison employers that hire illegal residents.

This is certainly a law that should be revisited, should the injunction on enforcement be made permanent.

You fix it FIRST and then impliment a system like this... Cause, I'll tell you this much, having been a vitim of SSA screwups; I'll be deducting any loss of income if I get fired from my owed taxes.

EchoVect is not a true gentleman. *shakes head*


How so? Because I won't bother to point out the bleedin obvious? Because I expect just a LITTLE mental exertion on the part of others?

If that's the case, then I guess I am a cad.

:headbang:

As is always the case when dealing with the brainwashed, if I have to explain it to you in simple little sentences, if you can't make the logic connections on your own, if all you can see is what your blindness tells you to see, then there is no point in pursuing the matter.

The cites are self explanatory when taken in context of the original statement.

I'm not going to hold your hand and lead you down the path.

The cites you don't deny you plagarized from a Wikipedia article on "states' rights"?

You are right, my poor brainwashed mind cannot logically connect them to the issue of immigration.

Perhaps if you responded to the points raised by Neo Art:


not a single case you just cited in any way shape or form promotes, even in the slightest, the view that the states can decide on their own to enforce illegal immigration.

not even one tiny fucking bit. In fact, Lozano, et. al. v. City of Hazelton made it QUITE clear that the state can not pre-empt the federal government on matters of immigration. Lozano overturned a philadelphia law regarding immigration because, you guessed it, they didn't have the authority to do so.

If you wish you may read the entirety of that opinion here (http://www.prldef.org/Civil/hazleton%20decision.pdf). Page 92 and on deals with pre-emption.

Throwing around a ton of cites dealing with the 14th amendment that a first semester law student could tell you have absolutly no relevance to the topic at hand not withstanding.

In other words, NOTHING you cited has any baring what so ever on immigration. None. I mean seriously, City of Boerne? You fucking cite City of Boerne? That case had to do with zoning laws restricting the construction of a church, and a claim under the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act

What the FUCK does a RIFRA case about zoning laws and the power of the congres to define substantive due process rights have to do with illegal immigration?

In fact...Seminol Tribes? Lopez? Boerne? You're citing major historical cases here, but NONE of them have anything to do with the topic at hand. These are 14th amendment and commerce clause cases....major ones. What the fuck did you do, read off the syllabus of a first semester law school constitutional law course?

Failed.

EDIT: I understand the Lozano case may be rather difficult for you to digest. If you want something easier, try this article, which is chock-full of U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court citations: Facts About Federal Preemption (http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/LocalLaw/federalpreemptionfacts_2007-06-28.pdf)

My humour was, not too surprisingly, wasted.

As was, apparently, my sarcasm.

How so? Because I won't bother to point out the bleedin obvious? Because I expect just a LITTLE mental exertion on the part of others?

If that's the case, then I guess I am a cad.

:headbang:

If you say so, I guess you must be right. Unless you are being sarcastic. In which case I might be right.

If you say so, I guess you must be right. Unless you are being sarcastic. In which case I might be right.


It is almost enough to make the ganglia twitch, eh?

Back to the OT to keep the mods happy, however..........

"Illegal" aliens are precisely that, Illegal. That certain people, including some certain members of the legislative and judiciary, can not come to grips with that simple concept is no reason to preclude the States from their soverign rights to self rule in matters of their own population, and this includes punishing those who break the law, soverign rights that, prior to the advent of judicial activism, have been upheld since the inception of this nation in any great number of ways and cases.

Activist judges and run-amok legislators have repeatedly tried to use the 14th Amendment and the Inter-State Commerce clauses to strip the States of their Constututionally granted soverignity for far too long, and they are finally starting to get overturned.

This mess will eventually shake itself out as Governor after Governor finally find the bollocks to tell the run-amok Fed to mind its busness and smacks them in the snout with a rolled up copy of the Tenth Amendment.

My money is on Arizona being first, probably starting in Maricopa County. Texas won't be far behind once all of Arizona is on board, and the rest will go like dominoes except, most likely, KKKalifonia and New Jersey, and I even hold out hope for New Jersey.

The Supreme Court has decided that the federal reach cannot extend to in-state behavior that is not commercial in nature, meaning Inter-State Commerce.Er...how is employment not commercial in nature?

You're always beating me...*giggle*

Er...how is employment not commercial in nature?

*giggle*

sigh. another one that reads only what they want to read.

The Supreme Court has decided that the federal reach cannot extend to in-state behavior that is not commercial in nature, meaning Inter-State Commerce.

"Under the theories that the Government presents...we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate." It reiterated a 65-year-old observation by the Court that the commerce clause "may not be extended as to embrace effects upon interstate commerce so indirect and remote that to embrace them, in view of our complex society, would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government."

It really doesn't get any more plain than that.

It is almost enough to make the ganglia twitch, eh?

Back to the OT to keep the mods happy, however..........

"Illegal" aliens are precisely that, Illegal. That certain people, including some certain members of the legislative and judiciary, can not come to grips with that simple concept is no reason to preclude the States from their soverign rights to self rule in matters of their own population, and this includes punishing those who break the law, soverign rights that, prior to the advent of judicial activism, have been upheld since the inception of this nation in any great number of ways and cases.

1. What cases are you referring to? Surely not the irrelevant ones you cited earlier.

2. Federal preemption over immigration comes directly from the Constitution and is well-established in Supreme Court caselaw. From Facts About Federal Preemption (http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/LocalLaw/federalpreemptionfacts_2007-06-28.pdf):


Preemption principles are based on the Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, cl. 2 of the United States Constitution, which states that the U.S. Constitution and laws of the U.S. are the “supreme law of the land.” “A fundamental principle of the Constitution is that Congress has the power to preempt state law.” See Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 372 (2000) (citing U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 211 (1824); Savage v. Jones, 225 U.S. 501, 533 (1912); and California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93, 101 (1989)).

...

For over a century, the U.S. Supreme Court consistently has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration. Although the power to regulate immigration is not expressly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, the federal government’s authority over immigration policy is supported by both enumerated and implied constitutional powers.*3 Indeed, in a series of cases in the late nineteenth century upholding provisions of the Chinese Exclusion Acts, the Supreme Court described the federal immigration power in sweeping terms, as a plenary power not subject to normal judicial restraints.*4 In subsequent decisions the Court has repeatedly confirmed Congress’s full and exclusive authority over immigration.*5 State and local laws that attempt to regulate immigration violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and are therefore preempted by federal law.*6

*3 Enumerated powers that implicate the immigration power include: The Commerce Clause, Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 3 of the U.S. Constitution; the Naturalization Clause, Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 4; the Migration and Importation Clause, Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 1; and the War Power, Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 11. The Supreme Court has also found implied federal constitutional powers to regulate immigration as an incident of Sovereignty — see, e.g., The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581 (1889); Fong Yue Ting v. U.S., 149 U.S. 698, 711 (1893) — and as an incident of an implied Foreign Policy Power. See Ira J.Kurzban, KURZBAN’S IMMIGRATION LAW SOURCEBOOK, 10th edition 2006–07, at 25.

4 See The Chinese Exclusion Case, supra note 3; Fong Yue Ting, supra note 3.

5 See DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354–55 (1976) (“Power to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power.”); see also Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972); Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977); Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952).

6 See DeCanas, 424 U.S. at 355–56; see also Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) (state statute restricting benefits to LPRs held unconstitutional); Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S.S 132, 142 (1963); Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm’n, 334 U.S. 410, 419 (1948).


Activist judges and run-amok legislators have repeatedly tried to use the 14th Amendment and the Inter-State Commerce clauses to strip the States of their Constututionally granted soverignity for far too long, and they are finally starting to get overturned.

1. As explained above, federal preemption of immigration law does not rely merely on the Commerce Clause or the 14th Amendment.

2. Your own source pointed out that the Rehnquist states' rights trend ended with Gonzales v. Raich (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1454), 545 U.S. 1 (2005).

sigh. another one that reads only what they want to read.

The Supreme Court has decided that the federal reach cannot extend to in-state behavior that is not commercial in nature, meaning Inter-State Commerce.

"Under the theories that the Government presents...we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate." It reiterated a 65-year-old observation by the Court that the commerce clause "may not be extended as to embrace effects upon interstate commerce so indirect and remote that to embrace them, in view of our complex society, would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government."

It really doesn't get any more plain than that.

1. You are plagarizing again. This time from here (http://www.ilsr.org/columns/2004/012504.html). Isn't Google fun?

2. You didn't actually answer the question raised.

......... Isn't Google fun?

.


I wouldn't know. I don't bother with outfits like that.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/google_to_advertisers_youre_not_allowed_to_criticize_moveonorg/

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/google_to_advertisers_youre_not_allowed_to_criticize_moveonorg/

Why would Google memorialize Veteran's day or Memorial Day? Google is an international company: those are not international holidays.

As is always the case when dealing with the brainwashed, if I have to explain it to you in simple little sentences, if you can't make the logic connections on your own, if all you can see is what your blindness tells you to see, then there is no point in pursuing the matter.

The cites are self explanatory when taken in context of the original statement.

I'm not going to hold your hand and lead you down the path.

Oh that's rich. "I'm going to babble like a complete idiot, and when people point and laugh, and call me on it, I'm going to pretend like my incoherent ramblings are actually the inspired musings of a prophet, and anyone who is unable to follow the completely illogical route of my thinking will simply be dismissed by me as being a brainwashed automaton."

Sorry there Maharishi EchoVert...that shit doesn't fly here. You quoted cases that had absolutely nothing to do with the point you failed to make, and that fatal flaw was pointed out to you. It is now up to YOU to explain how the fuck your plagarism and random citing of cases in any way supports your ridiculous claims. That's how debates work. You asserted...now prove.

Wow, this tactic is oddly familiar...making silly claims, spouting a bunch of nonsense, and hoping someone will come along, piece it together and make a decent argument out of what is currently complete dog shit. Now who does that remind me of...

Oh........who does that remind me of...

As I said, if some aren't capable of the minor mental effort required to assemble the pieces presented, it isn't worth continuing.

"Cast not your pearls before swine".

Ranting, cussing and carrying on with derision isn't going to get me to lead you down the path like a child.

It is all there, in plain English, for a 6 year old to see.

As I said, if some aren't capable of the minor mental effort required to assemble the pieces presented, it isn't worth continuing.

"Cast not your pearls before swine".

Ranting, cussing and carrying on with derision isn't going to get me to lead you down the path like a child.

It is all there, in plain English, for a 6 year old to see.

Well, the sophistication of your legal analysis is certainly age-appropriate. :p

(Sorry, but you made that too tempting. :cool:)

*snickers*

I may cuss like a truckdriver, and you might sit there pretty, trying to sound ejumacated...but we all just watched you get your ass handed to you by our delightful Cat Tribes, and our delicious Neo Art, and frankly, THAT'S entertainment.

Sorry, I can't see you coming back from that without oh at least...three years of formal training.

My money is on Arizona being first, probably starting in Maricopa County. Texas won't be far behind once all of Arizona is on board, and the rest will go like dominoes except, most likely, KKKalifonia and New Jersey, and I even hold out hope for New Jersey.

What I like is that you called California "KKKalifornia" ( I guess in reference to our infamous Klan presence and hostile, bigoted attitudes towards minorities. Well, the presence and attitudes that exist in your delusional version of reality, that is.) and sit here virtually creaming your jeans about bigoted little shitsplat regions and their heroic struggle against the evils of immigration.

All your crowing about states' rights ignores federal preemption and have been more than adequately rebutted by Neo Art and others.

But I just can't help myself from going over your partially plagarized points again.

Maybe I can find this path you laid out for a 6-year old.


In 1995 the Court struck down the federal Gun Free School Zones Act. That Act made it a federal crime to possess a firearm in a school zone. The Court concluded that the act of possessing a handgun does not substantially affect commerce.

In the handgun decision the Court commented, "Under the theories that the Government presents...we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate." It reiterated a 65-year-old observation by the Court that the commerce clause "may not be extended as to embrace effects upon interstate commerce so indirect and remote that to embrace them, in view of our complex society, would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government."

This case is United States v. Lopez (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=u10287), 514 U.S. 549 (1995). It is entirely about the extent of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. Nothing to do with the Tenth or Fourteenth Amendments. It had nothing to do with states' rights. It has nothing to do with immigration. It has nothing directly to do with federal preemption.

In sum, in no conceivable way does this case support the idea that states may take over enforcement of immigration laws.

"SCJ Rehnquist has explained very throuoghly that "States historically have been sovereign" in the area of law enforcement, which in the Court's opinion required narrow interpretations of the Commerce Clause and Fourteenth Amendment.

These words of Rehnquist are from Lopez, which we already explained is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not particularly accurate in this comment.

"In the past, Congress relied on the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause for passing civil rights bills, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

OK, Wikipedia is vaguely correct here, but this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

"United States v. Lopez (1995) limited the Commerce Clause to things that directly affect interstate commerce, which excludes issues like gun control laws, hate crimes and other crimes that affect commerce but are not directly related to commerce.

Here you are talking about United States v. Lopez (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=u10287), 514 U.S. 549 (1995) again. The Court held that possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Again this case has nothing to do with states' rights, the tenth amendment, immigration, federal preemption, etc... In sum, in no conceivable way does this case support the idea that states may take over enforcement of immigration laws.


Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996) reinforced the "sovereign immunity of states" doctrine, which makes it difficult to sue states for many things, especially civil rights violations.

Seminole Tribe v. Florida (http://laws.findlaw.com/US/000/U10198.html), 517 U.S. 44 (1996). This case was entirely about the Eleventh Amendment (and the Indian Commerce Clause).

It has nothing to do with the tenth amendment, the fourteenth amendment, interstate commerce, immigration, federal preemption, etc... In sum, in no conceivable way does this case support the idea that states may take over enforcement of immigration laws.


In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) the "congruence and proportionality" requirement prevents Congress from going too far in requiring states to comply with the Equal Protection Clause, which replaced the ratchet theory advanced in Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966).

In City of Boerne v. Flores (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-2074.ZS.html), 521 U.S. 507 (1997), the Court held that Congress exceed its Fourteenth Amendment enforcement powers by enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Congress has the power to take remedial or preventative actions, but not define the substance of the rights protected by the Fourteenth. Part of the test for authorized action is whether there is a congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end.

This case has nothing to do with the tenth amendment, states' rights, interstate commerce, immigration, federal preemption, etc... In sum, in no conceivable way does this case support the idea that states may take over enforcement of immigration laws.


Another important precedent was United States v. Harris (1883), which ruled that the Equal Protection Clause did not apply to a prison lynching because the state action doctrine applies Equal Protection only to state action, not private criminal acts.

In United States v. Harris (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=106&invol=629), 106 U.S. 629 (1883), the Court held that the Force Act of 1871, which made it a crime for two or more persons to conspire for the purpose of depriving anyone of the equal protection of the laws, was unconstitutional because the Fourteenth Amendment only authorized Congress to take remedial steps against state action that violated the amendment. The Amendment applied only to acts of the states, not to acts of individuals

Once again, this case has nothing to do with the tenth amendment, states' rights, interstate commerce, immigration, federal preemption, etc... In sum, in no conceivable way does this case support the idea that states may take over enforcement of immigration laws.

Since the ratchet principle was replaced with the "congruence and proportionality" principle by Flores, it was easier to revive older precedents for preventing Congress from going beyond what Court interpretations would allow.

This is a throw-away line you copied from Wikipedia. In this context, it doesn't make much sense and certainly doesn't say anything relevant.

This clearly allows the States to enact and enforce laws where the Federal Government fails or refuses to, and protects the States from Federal retalliation should they act where the Fed will not.

Nope. Been through the whole thing. There is no path. There are no bases for your conclusion.

Well, the sophistication of your legal analysis is certainly age-appropriate. :p

Cat, you know that's insulting and unfair....to all the 6 year olds out there. They usually aren't old enough to make these amazing leaps of illogical thinking.

You fix it FIRST and then impliment a system like this... Cause, I'll tell you this much, having been a vitim of SSA screwups; I'll be deducting any loss of income if I get fired from my owed taxes.
From what I've read, the SSA has been trying to do just that, but the compliance has been weak. Certainly 90 days is enough time to comply with simple errors like spelling mistakes on forms -- something you are probably very familiar with.

I doubt very much that the database will ever be fixed if compliance remains voluntary.

spoon
orangutan
harpsichord
noodle
buttons

What? If you can't see how this proves my argument, I'm not going to point it out to someone with the mental acuity of a six-year-old.

spoon
orangutan
harpsichord
noodle
buttons

What? If you can't see how this proves my argument, I'm not going to point it out to someone with the mental acuity of a six-year-old.

I love this thread now.

spoon
orangutan
harpsichord
noodle
buttons

What? If you can't see how this proves my argument, I'm not going to point it out to someone with the mental acuity of a six-year-old.

actually, you have a missing step in your argument. while it is obvious how orangutan harpsichord gets you to your subconclusion noodle, you need to add another step to get from there to buttons. as it stands now, the argument is invalid.

Activist judges and run-amok legislators have repeatedly tried to use the 14th Amendment and the Inter-State Commerce clauses to strip the States of their Constututionally granted soverignity for far too long, and they are finally starting to get overturned.

What really amuses me about this is that the interstate commerce clause and the 14th amendment were designed specifcally to do exactly that, strip the sttaes of their sovereignty in those areas. That's why they're there, because the founders did not want states to be sovereign in those areas.

The whole idea of "stripping the states of their constitutionally grantes sovereignty" is laughable. Where the fuck does this guy think the 14th amendment and the interstate commerce clause are? On the back of a fucking cereal box?

Seriously folks, you can't pick and choose which parts of the constitution you like, you have to read the whole thing. You can't say that interstate commerce clause violated constitutional sovereignty when the interstate commerce clause is in the fucking constitution

What really amuses me about this is that the interstate commerce clause and the 14th amendment were designed specifcally to do exactly that, strip the sttaes of their sovereignty in those areas. That's why they're there, because the founders did not want states to be sovereign in those areas.

That is most definitely true.

The whole idea of "stripping the states of their constitutionally grantes sovereignty" is laughable. Where the fuck does this guy think the 14th amendment and the interstate commerce clause are? On the back of a fucking cereal box?

States themselves do not have soveriegnty but they do have rights prescribed into the Constitution.

Seriously folks, you can't pick and choose which parts of the constitution you like, you have to read the whole thing. You can't say that interstate commerce clause violated constitutional sovereignty when the interstate commerce clause is in the fucking constitution

I agree.

States themselves do not have soveriegnty but they do have rights prescribed into the Constitution.

well not exactly. The constitution does not really define or prescribe rights to the states. Rather, the 10th amendment makes it pretty clear that our federal government is a limited government, which is to say it only has those powers explicitly and implicitly enumerated to it.

The states do not have specifically prescribed rights under the constitution, however they are free to do anything they wish provided:

1) it does not violate the provisions of the constitution that specifically limit them

and/or

2) does not pre-empt powers of the federal government.

In shorts, states do not have defined rights in the constitution. Rather than having defined rights which they can do, the constitution states what the states can not do, and the states are free to do anything else other than those things.

well not exactly. The constitution does not really define or prescribe rights to the states. Rather, the 10th amendment makes it pretty clear that our federal government is a limited government, which is to say it only has those powers explicitly and implicitly enumerated to it.

The states do not have specifically prescribed rights under the constitution, however they are free to do anything they wish provided:

1) it does not violate the provisions of the constitution that specifically limit them

and/or

2) does not pre-empt powers of the federal government.

In shorts, states do not have defined rights in the constitution. Rather than having defined rights which they can do, the constitution states what the states can not do, and the states are free to do anything else other than those things.

thanks for the clarification NA :)

thanks for the clarification NA :)

which is kind of the point I was saying. yes, states have rights, however any power granted to the federal government trumps those rights. Which, among other things, are matters of immigration, interstate commerce, regulation of the 14th amendment and others.

To argue "state sovereignty" that somehow pre-empts federal immigration or commerce clause is inane. States have soveregnty only in those things NOT given to the federal government, and those things clearly are.

More importantly, each power of the federal government is treated differently. To cite cases that define the range of the federal government's power when it comes to interstate commerce, or enforcing immigration, then expecting that those cases will somehow apply to immigration is....ludicrus.

What really amazes me though is how hard and to what extraordinary lengths some people seem to have to go to prove their inability to follow a simple connect-the-dots logic path by convoluting and misunderstanding simple written premises.


Orange coconut chair pudding!

There, I dare you to refute that!

All .....for you..............


You can show some people the blue sky and they will find a way to insist that it is green.

Funny how most of them have a Socialist bent.............


:cool:

What really amazes me though is how hard and to what extraordinary lengths some people seem to have to go to prove their inability to follow a simple connect-the-dots logic path by convoluting and misunderstanding simple written premises.

Sigh.

Such is the neo-bourgeois.............

Orange coconut chair pudding!

There, I dare you to refute that!

~coconut, therefore ~chair pudding. hah!

My policy objectives? I'm sorry...


As you should be.


...if I want to see Illegal Immigrants thrown in jail and then sent out of the country and businesses that employ lawbreakers be punished severely.


Thrown in jail AND deported? So - you'll counter the slight boon illegal immigration makes on the overall economy, by charging taxpayers TWICE to deal with them?


Do you agree that businesses should be punished severely for employing Illegal Immigrants?

No. Alienation has consistently not worked.

Employers alone won't do it. We need to deploy the National Guard all across the country and actively round up illegals. We need to deny them access to our emergency rooms and our schools. We need to put any employer out of business who knowingly hires illegals. We need to deport all the illegals, as quickly as possible and as many as possible. And we need to make Spanish illegal. I'm sick of having to press 1 for English when I call some place. Then we need to build a wall. Great Wall of Texas, anyone?

Ill agree to your plan if you agree to mine.

We'll round up illegals and send them packing, at gun point or whatever, but:

We also spot test every citizen to see if they could pass the citizenship exam foreigners have to take. And then we revoke the citizenship of anyone that fails.

What do you say?

The number of North Americans living in Mexico has soared from 200,000 to 1 million (one-quarter of all U.S. expatriates) in the past decade. With more than 70 million American baby-boomers expected to retire in the next two decades, experts predict a tidal wave of migration. The land rush is sending property values zooming, to the detriment of locals whose children are consequently driven into slums or forced to emigrate north.

— Mike Davis, www.TomDispatch.com, Sept. 19, 2006.

Hypocrites