![]() |
Quote:
|
Sorry I edited my post so many times. Trying to make sense of it.
|
I don't see "unconstitutional" anywhere really. CA demanding payment for accepting prostitutes is what "invades the right of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and is therefore void." not enforcing existing immigration law by state/local agencies.
In the context of, "If you don't pay us $500 per hooker on board, the ship may not dock." Quote:
|
If this case is precedent, and I dont know that it is, the Supreme Court said that Congress had exclusive power to regulate foreign commerce and immigration.
That is not to say the states cant help enforce...but they simply do not have the power to regulate immigration. |
Regulate, not enforce. AZ wants to enforce the regulations.
|
Quote:
The state already has the power to enforce the federal law. |
Beyond the legal issues:
A delegation of feds met with AZ officials yesterday to review the federal commitment to border enforcement. Among the highlights of those enforcement efforts: Quote:
But evidently not enough for the governor. |
If the right of the states to pass statutes to protect themselves in regard to the criminal, the pauper, and the diseased foreigner landing within their
borders exists at all, it is limited to such laws as are absolutely necessary for that purposeand, this mere police regulation cannot extend so far as to prevent or obstruct other classes of persons (legal aliens?) from the right to hold personal and commercial intercourse with the people of the United States. |
Sounds reasonable to me. I still think the Feds are trying to make a problem out of something and they are having a really hard time becoming creative about it. But given the ability of lawyers to twist laws and facts around I am sure they will come up with some thing.
|
Henderson V. Mayor of NYC
Quote:
|
I dont see any of the cases you cited as precedent for various reasons, the most clear of which is that they were adjudicated BEFORE Congress acted to regulate immigration, starting in the late 19th century.
What the Court has said since then is that Congress alone has the power to regulate immigration. Enacting a state law criminalizing illegal immigration is regulating....beyond enforcing the federal law. But whatever the case, IMO, the federal courts should make the determination. |
Link(s)?
And any chance you could note the edits/changes in arguments you make to your posts after the fact? |
Quote:
But as I said, IMO, the constitutionality should be determined by the federal courts. Hey, if the courts say it is constitutional, I will have no complaints. And my edits were grammatical or typos, no change in the substance of my post. |
The reason I went off on the USSC precedence tangent was because you said, unlike the drug laws, immigration law has only ever been entirely a Fed issue (paraphrased, I'd quote it if it was still there). Now it doesn't make sense...
And now you're saying courts made it a Fed issue later. |
With all due respect, neither one is trained to interpret the law or previous Court decisions.
There are experts on both sides of the issue. From my layman's perspective, I think there is a supremacy clause issue or a conflict pre-emption issue, as described here http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/con...reemption.html You can find other opinions. Because of the controversy, IMO, it needs to be resolved through a legal process. That is one reason we have a federal judiciary....to resolve issues of state v federal powers. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:36 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.