It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama wants Supreme Court Ruling on Arizona

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Obama wants Supreme Court Ruling on Arizona


www.washingtonpost.com

The Obama administration on Friday urged the Supreme Court to review and set aside an Arizona law that sanctions employers who hire illegal immigrants, saying it would disrupt the "careful balance" that Congress struck in federal immigration law.

The act in question is not the strict new Arizona law that President Obama and other members of his administration have criticized. That measure authorizes police to question the immigration status anyone who appears to be in the country illegally.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 30 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Unreal... The federal government can't help themselves on forcing their agenda down the state's throat! The shady "North American Union" is going to be forced upon us, no matter if we want it or not.

www.washingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
That's going to go over quite well. Especially this being right after he royally ticked them off at the last State Of The Union address.

Then again Obama could do something rare, like engage in some leadership and deal with either enforcement or alteration of federal immigration statutes.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
It should be interesting to see how the country reacts if the Supreme Court forces Arizona to change it's law.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
The Obama administration on Friday urged the Supreme Court to review and set aside an Arizona law that sanctions employers who hire illegal immigrants, saying it would disrupt the "careful balance" that Congress struck in federal immigration law.



I guess I have an issue w/ Constitutional separation of powers on this one. Normally, a law gets reviewed when someone has been injured (I.e., they establish standing = injury, causation, repressibility). Any constitutional scholars out there want to expound on whether Obama has the authority to make the Supreme Court review a law he doesn't like?



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
*sigh*

Some say this is criminal... Steps leading to NWO... Police state implementation...

From a Canadian perspective, honestly, I think they are giving, for once, what the American people are calling for and that is a "real" tough stance on Illegal Immigration. I mean.. It's your tax dollars they are taking out of the system and out your pockets.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by CanadianDream420]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
From the OP's link:


The Obama administration on Friday urged the Supreme Court to review and set aside an Arizona law that sanctions employers who hire illegal immigrants, saying it would disrupt the "careful balance" that Congress struck in federal immigration law



Well, at least we can presume that SOMEbody on the Supreme court will actually read the AZ bill.

Right?



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by argentus
From the OP's link:

The Obama administration on Friday urged the Supreme Court to review and set aside an Arizona law that sanctions employers who hire illegal immigrants, saying it would disrupt the "careful balance" that Congress struck in federal immigration law

Well, at least we can presume that SOMEbody on the Supreme court will actually read the AZ bill.
Right?



Good one. I think the odds of that happening are very slim. Considering obama's own attorney general hasn't read it ( ten to fifteen pages) except what the news told him of it.


[edit on 30-5-2010 by Chance321]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
 



And just what will happen if by some miracle the Supreme Court does the right thing and rule infavor of Arizona?
I don't really see how they couldn't, all Arizona's bill is, is an enforcement of the federal law.
The way I see obama can't let this happen. If the Supreme Court rules for Arizona then other states'll follow their lead and that won't make obama's buddy the president of mexico very happy.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
I support the arizona bill eventhough I don't think it will do much to alleviate problems. Illegal immigration was and still is the responsibility of the federal government to enforce but since INS was absorbed by the controversial(and probably treasonous) Department of Homeland Security its services have gone downhill rather rapidly...much like FEMA!

From wikipedia,the free encyclopedia!


Prior to the signing of the bill, controversy about its adoption centered on whether the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency should be incorporated in part or in whole (neither were included). The bill itself was also controversial for the presence of unrelated "riders", as well as for eliminating certain union-friendly civil service and labor protections for department employees. Without these protections, employees could be expeditiously reassigned or dismissed on grounds of security, incompetence or insubordination, and DHS would not be required to notify their union representatives.


Notice the bolded text to understand we are NOW LIVING in a right-wing dictatorship since government employees can be fired for anything and union representation is strongely discouraged!

[edit on 30-5-2010 by EarthCitizen07]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Yes because keeping the large number of incompetent and possibly bordering on dangerous, employees on the tax payer doles, so the unions can maintain thier union dues and membership is the "right-thing" to do.


Back to topic: Even if this goes to the Supreme Court and the law is upheld, all it would take is another, quickie, back-door "real reform" to negate everything Arizona accomplished. Whether you agree with the bill or not, Obama/Pelosi/Reid and the rest of the uber left elite, want full amnesty and open borders. Well, "one-way" open borders anyhow. We would still be arrested and deported from Mexico if we tried it . You know....equality


[edit on 30-5-2010 by djvexd]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
OK once they find the AZ law unconstitutional, then they will undoubtedly have to find the Federal law unconstitutional as well. Then open the floodgates and America will be destroyed.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   
22 once seperate agencies have been absorbed by DHS in order to fight "terrorism". Do people realise just how dangerous it can get when ONLY ONE DEPARTMENT overseas ALMOST EVERYTHING?

Also the following is quite telling of just how wrong this is:


Employee morale
In July 2006, the Office of Personnel Management conducted a survey of federal employees in all 36 federal agencies on job satisfaction and how they felt their respective agency was headed. DHS was last or near to last in every category including;

33rd on the talent management index
35th on the leadership and knowledge management index
36th on the job satisfaction index
36th on the results-oriented performance culture index

The low scores were attributed to major concerns about basic supervision, management and leadership within the agency. Examples from the survey reveal most concerns are about promotion and pay increase based on merit, dealing with poor performance, rewarding creativity and innovation, leadership generating high levels of motivation in the workforce, recognition for doing a good job, lack of satisfaction with various component policies and procedures and lack of information about what is going on with the organization.[39][40]


[edit on 30-5-2010 by EarthCitizen07]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by djvexd
 


In a free democratic government everyone has a right to belong to a union and your response is quite disturbing to be honest! The less rights workers have, the more rights the controllers have.

Regardless what you think of unions, 22 agencies being absorbed by ONE DEPARTMENT is extremely dangerous due to consolidation of power and the lack of transparency that ultimately brings.

Of course you would never understand that because you inheritantly hate all forms of government. Libertarians are borderline anarchists...



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07In a free democratic government everyone has a right to belong to a union and your response is quite disturbing to be honest! The less rights workers have, the more rights the controllers have.

Regardless what you think of unions, 22 agencies being absorbed by ONE DEPARTMENT is extremely dangerous due to consolidation of power and the lack of transparency that ultimately brings.


I am completely against unions. They served a purpose in the early days for helping to establish health and safety standards, but how they have hijacked companies bleeding them dry and increased the cost to consumers.

I will agree with you that DHS is only bad news.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
It should be interesting to see how the country reacts if the Supreme Court forces Arizona to change it's law.


Prediction-

Two words: BANG and BOOM



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by someotherguy

Originally posted by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
The Obama administration on Friday urged the Supreme Court to review and set aside an Arizona law that sanctions employers who hire illegal immigrants, saying it would disrupt the "careful balance" that Congress struck in federal immigration law.


I guess I have an issue w/ Constitutional separation of powers on this one. Normally, a law gets reviewed when someone has been injured (I.e., they establish standing = injury, causation, repressibility). Any constitutional scholars out there want to expound on whether Obama has the authority to make the Supreme Court review a law he doesn't like?

urge - verb - to press by persuasion or recommendation, as for acceptance, performance, or use; recommend or advocate earnestly.

In what way is a request or recommendation from the President a separation of powers issue? The Obama Administration would like the Supreme Court to review the law and has stated so. They do not have the power to force them to, and have not tried to claim or exert such a false power to do so. Where is the problem in what they have said?

Members of Congress of both parties publicly urge the President to do things all the time, but nobody ever raises a separation of powers question when that happens.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by LifeInDeath
 


It really depends on who's in charge. Since calderon while visiting the US felt the need to slam the great state of Arizona and our fearless leader obama agreed with him. I just wonder if this isn't calderon pulling the strings.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
By any chance would this be the reason Obamas Panties are Bunched Up His A$$


I certainly hope so. Because I could care less about him, When he starts to care about the average American family, I might think differently of him.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   
The entire subject of one guy making the utterly massive quantity of fundamental, structural changes to business, government, and more that O has already, is frightening and sickening. Every time the man opens his mouth I know it's going to be horrible.

Why can't he just blow up some foreign f****ing country like every other president and leave the destruction of America itself alone.

RC



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join