July 06, 2010

Holder's Injustice Department Sues Arizona... On Grounds of Embarrassment?

The bleating and whining from President Obama and his progressive allies that Arizona's new immigration law is blatantly unconstitutional has been exposed as so much bluster today, as the best the our anti-rule-of-law government can come up with is a weak case built up preemption:

The Justice Department has decided to file suit against Arizona on the grounds that the state's new immigration law illegally intrudes on federal prerogatives, law enforcement sources said Monday.

The lawsuit, which three sources said could be filed as early as Tuesday, will invoke for its main argument the legal doctrine of "preemption," which is based on the Constitution's supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes. Justice Department officials believe that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility, the sources said.

The glaring weakness in the DOJ's claim is that the Arizona law precisely echoes the federal law, by design.

The reality of the case is that Arizona intends to enforce their version of the law, while Obama-led Executive Branch had no intention of enforcing the federal law.

I'm admittedly not close to being a lawyer, so perhaps my readers can explain something to me.

If this case is the Obama Administration's explicit admission that they do not intent to uphold the law, does that mean that Obama has breached his oath of office? Doesn't this case provided grounds for impeachment?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at July 6, 2010 02:57 PM

I doesn't matter if it is impeachable if no one is going to start the process. Elections have consequences - how many times have we heard that lately? More importantly, if the federal government chooses the path of nullification then the states will step up and do the same. We are fast approaching the point that if the state governors do not step up and use nullification to put the federal government back in it's box - there will only be one thing left.....

Posted by: ken at July 6, 2010 04:16 PM

This is entirely personal and political. Obama's case has no chance of winning. First, the legal issues:

(1) States share concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Government in matters of law enforcement. This doctrine applies here: the state may enforce federal laws. That local and state officers do not do so on a daily basis is a matter of convenience, resources, and mutual agreement to avoid unnecessarily stepping on toes.

(2) The states may give their citizens more rights than those provided by the US Constitution, but not less than the Constitution. This doctrine applies only in that illegal immigrants have no specific legal protections under the Constitution, and are clearly subject to federal immigration laws.

(3) Where state and federal laws are in conflict, the doctrine of preemption applies. In other words, where there is a conflict in state and federal law, federal law wins. This doctrine applies here because the Arizona law was written to exactly mirror federal law. There is no conflict with federal law, therefore preemption does not apply. Keep in mind too that no unconstitutional law, state or federal, is legitimate. The Arizona law mirrors and does not conflict with, by design, federal immigration law and that body of law is clearly constitutional. Again, the feds lose.

(4) There is ample precedent, even in the 9th Circuit which encompasses Arizona and where this case will be initially heard, that clearly recognizes that states may enforce federal law. This is not a matter of one obscure case from the early 1800;s, but a long and specific body of law on this case. Again, the feds lose.

No rational attorney considering this case on its merits would have brought it recognizing for the loser it is from its inception. This is not a close call case. This is particularly true in that the only issue raised by the federal brief is preemption and the law on that is very clear. This law, because it is, in every way, federal law, is not preempted by federal law. To win, the court would have to believe that federal immigration law is preempted by the same federal law and that long standing precent does not mean what it clearly says.

So, back to the personal matter. I'm making inference here, but there is evidence to believe that our President takes any affront very personally indeed. And coming from the Chicago Political Machine, personal affronts must be punished. And for our President, an affront occurs when anyone fails to praise him appropriately or dares to profess a criticism or differing opinion.

Politically, Obama is in trouble. He knows that his only hope is to rev up as much minority and leftist base support as possible, thus, this hopeless gesture of raw meat thrown to the base. But some 70% of Arizonans support the law, and that number has to include a great many Hispanics. It is a particularly leftist blindness to see minorities as being of one, easily manipulated mind, a mind controlled by the liberal elite. I suspect that in November, that blindness will be once again exposed for the folly it is.

Posted by: mikemcdaniel at July 6, 2010 07:31 PM

Well said Mike.

Here is a link to where she makes the same arguement:

Tarheel Repub Out!

Posted by: Tarheel Repub at July 7, 2010 07:08 AM

I'm kind of hoping that this US Gubmint under BarryO fails to uphold many laws, like tax laws, gun laws, fails to redistribute our countries wealth overseas, little laws like those.

The flip side is, AZ is correct, BarryO and his cronies are marxist knuckleheads, and most likely we're stuck with them embarassing the country and our citizens before the world. To say nothing of failure to fulfill his oath of office, BarryO and Holder are letting an obvious danger and crisis on the AZ border continue. To say nothing of NM, TX, and CA. November can't come soon enough.

Posted by: Robert17 at July 7, 2010 09:01 AM

I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. All of us ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated, but this is not the case.

I know the proponents of this law say that the majority approves of this law, but the majority is not always right. Would women or non-whites have the vote if we listen to the majority of the day, would the non-whites have equal rights (and equal access to churches, housing, restaurants, hotels, retail stores, schools, colleges and yes water fountains) if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO!

Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics and do what is right, not what is just popular with the majority. Some men comprehend discrimination by never have experiencing it in their lives, but the majority will only understand after it happens to them.

Posted by: Benito at July 7, 2010 03:21 PM

Dear Benito:

I suspect few who read this site would disagree that the Golden Rule should be practiced by all, and that everyone's rights should be respected. But that's not at all the issue with the Arizona law, nor is it the issue with the immigration "controversy" in general. The issue is one of the respect for the rule of law.

Illegal immigration is a crime. It is a crime in every nation on Earth. It is a crime because one of the principal powers and responsibilities of sovereignty is to establish laws respecting immigration and naturalization and to enforce them. Those in the country illegally do not have, by law, the constitutional rights of legal residents. This too is the law in every nation on Earth. That America routinely affords those illegally in the country substantial privileges and protections is a measure of the kindness of Americans and of American generosity, but it should never be mistaken for the idea that those breaking the law by their mere presence within America's borders are somehow deserving of the benefits of legal citizenship. Citizenship, in any nation, must mean something. Those arguing for unlimited immigration argue for the destruction of the nation and of the rights and traditions that caused them to flee to America.

The Arizona law, for example, exactly mirrors federal law. It does not in any way establish new law that is more restrictive or draconian than already existing federal law. In fact, federal law is, in many way, far more demanding and restrictive. Anyone complaining about the Arizona law actually has an argument with the US Congress, not Arizona.

Americans support Arizona, and are angry about illegal immigration not out of racism or hatred, but because we are a fair, just people who believe in the rule of law and who understand that without the rule of law, applied evenly and fairly, we are all damaged and diminished and our rights will not be respected. We demand that the government close the borders because every problem we face due to illegal immigration starts with the crime of illegally crossing the border. Stop that first crime, and every crime and difficulty that flows from it will also cease. But we know from long experience that our federal politicians cannot be trusted to do that, and so the states are beginning to do what the Federal government will not. And they do, under our federalist system, have that power no matter how much President Obama and his supporters don't like it.

Americans are a kind people, people who give more and more freely than the peoples of any other nation, and by a huge margin, to those in need. We sympathize with people who leave their dangerous, desperately poor nations to seek a better life here. But without the rule of law, American becomes what they have fled.

If you truly want immigration "reform," understand who Americans are. Support an absolute and effective closing and continual control of our borders. Once that is established, you'll find Americans who appreciate freedom and justice more than willing to support changes in the law that allow honest, hard working people to work and live in America, and to become, legally and completely, assimilated Americans. Continue to call Americans racist, denigrate our states for doing no more than discharging their legal, moral duty to protect their citizens when the corrupt federal government will not, fly the flags of other nations and spout racist slogans in the streets, and Americans will not--and this should not be a surprise--support you. Do the citizens of other nations support such behavior within their borders?

Posted by: mikemcdaniel at July 7, 2010 04:08 PM

Well said, Mike McDaniel!

Posted by: Ruth J Campshure at July 8, 2010 07:40 AM

It seems that Rhode Island has done pretty much the same as Arizona, by executive order.
It seems that Rhode Island was previously sued ... unsuccessfully.
Estrada v. State of Rhode Island, No. 09-1149

Posted by: Neo at July 8, 2010 11:07 AM

“All Men are created equal”! The founders had it right, when attempting to form a perfect union and they also knew that they were not there yet but knew we one day would get there. Lincoln moved us forward as did JFK and LBJ. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.

It is my contention that this AZ law is not constitutional and will fail when challenged (unless, of course, they keep adding more amendments), pretty funny for this so called perfect law, that many internet bloggers claim it was copied “Word for Word” from the Federal law, which I frankly do not believe, if it was then no amendments would have been made, right?, of course, keep those lies coming.

As for the undocumented workers, as was attributed to Ronald Reagan “It’s the Economy, Stupid”. When the economy is good you say let’s all celebrate “Cinco de Mayo, my brothers” but when the economy is down “it’s all your fault, you damn immigrant”. This too will pass, the real problem is the narcos, arms and people smugglers and that’s what the focus should be on.

Don’t you find it funny that no one ever voted for Brewer for Governor, she is trying to get elected on the back of undocumented workers, it’s all about politics, do not be fooled. In the last few months Busy Brewer has passed S.B. 1070, no permit conceal weapons law, the famous Birthers law, banning Ethnic studies law, (could she be behind the Mural in Prescott, Arizona) and if history is a lesson and if she can read, she should look up Arizona’s House Bill 2779 from two years ago (which failed when legally challenged) and the craziest one the boycott of Martin Luther King Day, not wanting another holiday, how crazy is that. I believe there is an undercurrent to their enactment of new laws, they real love following a distinct pattern. Poor Brewer, in an attempt to gain sympathy, in an interview she first said her father had died in Germany fighting the Nazi in World War II (which ended 1945) and we find out her father was never in Germany and died in California in 1955 (watch her play the victim card, again) and then she went to Washington and came back empty as always, poor dear.

Posted by: Benito at July 12, 2010 08:12 PM