Originally posted by sh76It appears so. But isn't the Federal govt required to respond to AZ law enforcement's queries? Alito said as much in his opinion (pg 55-56 of the PDF):
Heh.
So they're essentially telling Arizona: Ha! You lost in Court! Now, drop dead.
In addition, Congress has mandated that neither the Federal Government nor any state or local government may “prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, [the Federal Government] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” §1373(a); see also §1644 (providing that “no State or local government entity may be prohibited,or in any way restricted, from sending to or receivingfrom [the Federal Government] information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States&rdquo😉. And while these provisions preserve the authority of state and local officers to seek immigration status information from the Federal Government, another federal statute, §1373(c), requires that the Federal Government respond to any such inquiries “by providing the requested verification or status information.”
Seems a little brazen to just blow them off.
Originally posted by sh76"Is there any precedent for a successful suit against the executive branch for failing to enforce a law? I can't think of any offhand."
Yeah, you're probably right.
Is there any precedent for a successful suit against the executive branch for failing to enforce a law? I can't think of any offhand.
Is this right? For example, if ObamaCare survives, could President Romney just fail to enforce its implementation without consequence?
Originally posted by Sleepyguy
It appears so. But isn't the Federal govt required to respond to AZ law enforcement's queries? Alito said as much in his opinion (pg 55-56 of the PDF):In addition, Congress has mandated that neither the Federal Government nor any state or local government may “prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or ...[text shortened]... verification or status information.”
Seems a little brazen to just blow them off.[/b]I've only heard a couple of comments and not read any of the opinions, but the initial announcement on ABC News, left the impression with me that they said go ahead and check papers, but there isn't a thing you can do about it. In short they took out any teeth the law had in it.
A local radio host read part of Scalia's dissent, which had to do with sovereignty, and he contended that without sovereignty, it is doubtful the Constitution would have been ratified. If Arizona is denied policing of its border, it has no sovereignty, and neither does any other State.
As a side note, the costs of illegal immigration are largely State costs, not federal.
Originally posted by normbenignI don't see a difference between a state cost and a federal cost. Arizona is part of the United States.
I've only heard a couple of comments and not read any of the opinions, but the initial announcement on ABC News, left the impression with me that they said go ahead and check papers, but there isn't a thing you can do about it. In short they took out any teeth the law had in it.
A local radio host read part of Scalia's dissent, which had to do with so ...[text shortened]... .
As a side note, the costs of illegal immigration are largely State costs, not federal.
Originally posted by sh76States have their own budgets, revenues, and responsibilities created by their own legislatures. If there is no difference, then we might as well do away with the fiction that the States are sovereign, and make them provinces instead.
I don't see a difference between a state cost and a federal cost. Arizona is part of the United States.
If the difference is in name only, then we ought to quit fooling ourselves.
It is easy to see with Arizona's proximity to the border, that it has far greater expenses generated by illegal immigration than Minnesota, or New Hampshire.
Often States far away from the border, create targets for immigration with very liberal welfare laws. These are often targets for immigration by welfare recipients from nearby States that ask more questions, and have lower benefit levels.
Originally posted by normbenignOkay, then can you please define the "costs" of illegal immigration that you were referring to? I assume you meant something beyond the fiscal costs of policing the immigrants.
States have their own budgets, revenues, and responsibilities created by their own legislatures. If there is no difference, then we might as well do away with the fiction that the States are sovereign, and make them provinces instead.
If the difference is in name only, then we ought to quit fooling ourselves.
It is easy to see with Arizona's proxim ...[text shortened]... y welfare recipients from nearby States that ask more questions, and have lower benefit levels.
Originally posted by no1marauderSo you conceed that SCOTUS is nothing more than a poliitical entity that could care less about the Constitution?
The "no-brainer" got 3 votes to the contrary on 5(c) and 6 though Alito voted with the majority that 3 was pre-empted (p. 11 of his dissent; p. 66 of the pdf).
The Skeptical Fairy standing on my shoulder whispering into my ear informs me that this is a bone thrown to the Left right before Health Care Reform gets completely tossed. The SCOTU ...[text shortened]... uled that mandatory life without parole sentences for 14 year olds violates the 8th Amendment.
Originally posted by no1marauderNoah Feldman thinks the same thing.
The "no-brainer" got 3 votes to the contrary on 5(c) and 6 though Alito voted with the majority that 3 was pre-empted (p. 11 of his dissent; p. 66 of the pdf).
The Skeptical Fairy standing on my shoulder whispering into my ear informs me that this is a bone thrown to the Left right before Health Care Reform gets completely tossed. The SCOTU ...[text shortened]... uled that mandatory life without parole sentences for 14 year olds violates the 8th Amendment.
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-25/justice-kennedy-leans-liberal-for-now.html
Something of the kind may also have been in the mind of Chief Justice John Roberts, usually part of the conservative bloc. In a highly unusual move, Roberts joined Kennedy on the liberal side in the immigration case despite the dissenting votes of Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. We might read this as a sign that Roberts, too, was hoping to bring Kennedy to his side in the health-care decision. A few years ago, when Kennedy was a necessary fifth vote for extending his corpus rights to prisoners in Guantánamo, then- Justice Stevens joined Kennedy and the conservatives in an important case about treaty interpretation. Many observers interpreted his vote as a gesture toward Justice Kennedy.
There are other possible explanations for Roberts’ vote in the immigration case. Under the Supreme Court’s rules, with only eight justices sitting, a four-to-four tie would have meant affirming the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which struck down all of the Arizona provisions including “papers, please.” By joining Kennedy’s opinion, Roberts at least assured that one of the law’s provisions would be formally upheld. There is a certain logic to this deduction, but it seems like a slender reed on which to hang Roberts’ uncharacteristic vote.
Roberts may also have been trying to shape his own image as a nonpartisan “umpire” -- a term he famously used about his future role in his confirmation hearings -- by voting in accordance with the Obama administration. If he intends to vote against the health-care bill, his supporters might be able to point to the Arizona case as proof that he is not partisan but objective.
Originally posted by sh76Most illegals coming across the southern border have few skills, are likely to arrive in ill health, dragging children, and a pregnant female. The obvious costs to the State are social service and welfare, schools, and law enforcement.
Okay, then can you please define the "costs" of illegal immigration that you were referring to? I assume you meant something beyond the fiscal costs of policing the immigrants.
I guess you could include extra unemployment of legal state residents as a tangential cost.
Originally posted by normbenignThose are costs associated with every person. It's still the federal government's job to regulate immigration.
Most illegals coming across the southern border have few skills, are likely to arrive in ill health, dragging children, and a pregnant female. The obvious costs to the State are social service and welfare, schools, and law enforcement.
I guess you could include extra unemployment of legal state residents as a tangential cost.