My Solution for Arizona- Ignore the Federal Court Ruling!

I would rather have a civil war before another war in someone else's backyard. I'm tired of the government bullying other countries in my name all the while letting the rape an pillage of the citizens by a foreign country.

reply to post by stirling

Perhaps this is what the Feds are trying to provoke....whatever happens from that confrontation would be grounds for all kinds of actions by the fed to curb all kinds of rights of the people. I am thinking matial law or worse....it wouldnt take much of a show of force to give the feds the right to call an emergency and come down on everyone.

Where is the government going to get the troops? They're all over in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other posts around the world. Besides, many of the militia members are ex-US soldiers. US troops will not fight US troops.

Even liberals would not support such a move by their "leader". He would be impeached in a second.

reply to post by jam321

Even though there are many other laws the feds don't enforce.(Medical Marijuana comes to mind)

Oh really? Feds raid six Sacramento, Elk Grove pot houses

That was only 3 months ago, I'm sure I could find more if I felt like taking more than 10 seconds to look.

I don't think it's the worst Idea.

If Arizona ignored the ruling I think it would really only re-embolden the State-rights movements and humble the federal government a bit. If they were to even find the troops to send to Arizona to enforce their law I don't think there would be a civil war, maybe some short skirmishes but it wouldn't be any bloodier than what the Government already promotes.

Declaring war on a state might just be enough to wake everyone to the Governments shenanigans at once.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


It wouldn't work. The reason is real simple. Part of the law that the govenor signed makes it illegal for any "officials, agencies, and political subdivisions" to refuse to cooperate with or hinder federal laws and law enforcement. So, basically by refusing to follow the ruling handed down they would be in violation of their own laws. That would mean they would all have to forfeit their jobs and possibly face criminal prosecution.

You have to be carefull what you write in to a law. Sometimes it will bite your rear in unexpected ways.

This thread definitely points out more contradictions than I've seen in a long time. However, to the people that keep saying that the Fed's will send in troops like they did to enforce desgregation in the south...I think you are looking at the issue all wrong. This issue, immigration is very very different than desgregation. With desegregation I believe the populus of the U.S. generally suppported the federal actions and desegregation. However, in this situation I believe public sentiment in the U.S. generally favors Arizona.

Ultimately, things are falling apart fast in the U.S. Immigration is just one of the major problems. The State's right issue WILL come to the forefront in the next few months.

The Fed's are failing their responsibilities to Arizona...I think Arizona should be able to do whatever they see fit to secure their state.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


Article 4 section 4 clause 2 is the more appropriate argument.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by ProfEmeritus

 

It wouldn't work. The reason is real simple. Part of the law that the govenor signed makes it illegal for any "officials, agencies, and political subdivisions" to refuse to cooperate with or hinder federal laws and law enforcement. So, basically by refusing to follow the ruling handed down they would be in violation of their own laws. That would mean they would all have to forfeit their jobs and possibly face criminal prosecution.

You have to be carefull what you write in to a law. Sometimes it will bite your rear in unexpected ways.

So one could conclude by your statement that Arizona need only announce that they are simple following state law by enforcing federal immigration laws currenty in effect. Not to do so would leave them liable to criminal prosecution, and termination.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Well, ProfEmeritus, in theory I agree with you, but! What you suggest is tantamount to secession, and I don't think Arizona, or any other State is ready to do that just yet. Some have actually said the word, like Tennessee the other day, and it may happen eventually. That being said, the reason, in my considered opinion, the White House is fighting this is simple to compute.
If Arizona is successful in sealing their border, then the cartels will come across New Mexico, then they will seal their border, then the cartels will come across in California only, and then California will be forced to seal their border, and there goes NAFTA, there goes the new world order plans, and there goes the White House. Obama cannot afford to seal the border until the elections are over and done. Just my opinion, nothing more.

I think we should just let all the crimnals out of jail
now that Obama says, Laws do not apply.

Change= Ignore all laws give all criminals amnesty.
Hope= You can get along with criminals.

I like this Comment.

Maxine's Best says:
We need to show more sympathy for these people.

* They travel miles in the heat.
* They risk their lives crossing a border.
* They don't get paid enough wages.
* They do jobs that others won't do or are afraid to do.
* They live in crowded conditions among a people who speak
a different language.
* They rarely see their families, and they face adversity all day ~ every day.

I'm not talking about illegal Mexicans. I'm talking about our military troops! Doesn't it seem strange that many Democrats and Republicans are willing to lavish all kinds of social benefits on illegals, but don't support our troops, and are even threatening to defund them?

www.examiner.com...

reply to post by autowrench


Secession is just the end result here, what he is asking all of Arizona's law enforcement officials to do is commit treason before that!

He wants to tear apart the US Constitution in order to cause a civil war in order to take down the federal government. I mean does anyone else here see this? The OP is talking about killing the United States, he wants a revolution, a war in your own back yard.

This war would be bloody and horrible too. Obviously the OP does not grasp modern warfare and troop deployments. To say also that I do not understand the sentiments of the American people when in fact that is a large part of my job, is just hubris.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Excellent idea prof.

Look at what happened just a week ago.

The administration was afraid of what a talk show host was going to say, and caused a huge debacle because of it.

Imagine what they would do if an entire state whipped them the bird.

S&F OP!

edit to add-seems a lot of other states have been keeping an eye on the insane feds over the last 5 years.

Just google 10th amendment declarations.

I would say that someone had an idea though, just enforce the exact federal law. If the federal government does not take the illegal in custody, hold them until you have 100 people in custody and send them to Washington DC and drop them off. Either that or drop them off at the Mexican border. One or the other.

[edit on 7/29/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by Phedreus


Then one would come to the wrong conclusion. I am saying that if they refuse to follow the new federal regulation they are in violation of their own law. To refuse to follow the court order would violate Arizona law. That would then make them all criminals that could be forced to quit their job.

They can't say that they are enforcing the federal law and that put them in compliance. They can help enforce federal law through 287(g). To go with the original intention of of the law and the original wording regarding checking immigrant status would put them in violation of the court order. The order was handed down using the supremacy clause because Arizona's law would place an undue burden on the federal government and force the government to divert assets from other operations and prioritys. It would also disrupt the "harmonious whole" of national immigration law and put undue burden on legal aliens.

In other words, as written and intended, the law would put the wants of Arizona above the federal government's prioritys and attempts at addressing the problem. It would also place an undue burden on legal aliens and leave them open to police actions that may cause disloyalty or diplomatic problems. That means it could effect foreign policy and that is an area that is the sole domain of the federal government.

That means that it is now a violation of a federal court order for Arizona to enforce A.R.S. § 11-1051, A.R.S. § 13-1509, A.R.S. § 13-2928(C), and A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5). To enforce those parts of the law would violate A.R.S. § 11-1051(A), according to the wording of the judges decision. That means any official knowingly disregarding the decision would be a criminal according to Arizona law. That means that they would most likely have to quit their job or be fired.

Interesting. I've been wondering lately what would happen if someone, or some state, just said "no". That's all, just "no". It's been a long time since a state told the Supreme Court to stuff it, but it's been done. The way I understand it, Bolton's take was to block portions of the law until it could be sent up to the higher courts.

The problem I see with Arizona standing on this one before a SCOTUS ruling is, what would they do with the illegals until the ruling? O's admin has basically said that they will just refuse to take any illegals handed over to ICE, and AZ can't do the deportation themselves, can they?

Originally posted by Mountainmeg
Interesting. I've been wondering lately what would happen if someone, or some state, just said "no". That's all, just "no". It's been a long time since a state told the Supreme Court to stuff it, but it's been done. The way I understand it, Bolton's take was to block portions of the law until it could be sent up to the higher courts.

The problem I see with Arizona standing on this one before a SCOTUS ruling is, what would they do with the illegals until the ruling? O's admin has basically said that they will just refuse to take any illegals handed over to ICE, and AZ can't do the deportation themselves, can they?

Where did you hear that the Obama Administration has instructed ICE not to take any illegal immigrants turned over to them? I was not aware of that decision at all. I was under the impression that the INS is actually working overtime these days from my contacts within it.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by ProfEmeritus

 

It wouldn't work. The reason is real simple. Part of the law that the govenor signed makes it illegal for any "officials, agencies, and political subdivisions" to refuse to cooperate with or hinder federal laws and law enforcement. So, basically by refusing to follow the ruling handed down they would be in violation of their own laws. That would mean they would all have to forfeit their jobs and possibly face criminal prosecution.

You have to be carefull what you write in to a law. Sometimes it will bite your rear in unexpected ways.

What federal law(s) would the "officials, agencies and political subdivisions" be breaking by ignoring the judge's decision? A temporary injunction is not a law.

The avenues of recourse available to the executive branch of the government wouldn't be favorable towards the federal government: petition to have all arrests made in violation of the judge's decree reversed, which would put the gov't in the odd position of fighting for the release of a known criminal; filing contempt of court charges against police, sheriff and other officers and such whom have defied the court order which would put the gov't in the uncomfortable situation of acting against law enforcement, something the Constitution explicitly states is the responsibility of the president and the executive branch of the government: to execute and enforce laws.

Military forces would be useless in enforcing the judges "temporary" injunctions as such would require an armed military official be present at each and every instance where one's immigration status were checked- not likely, and doing such would essentially place local law enforcement under the jurisdiction of federal authorities which itself is not adherent to the principles of the Constitution.

Comparing this to the civil rights movement is not an accurate comparison as the Constitution and amendments guaranteed rights to people and states were not applying those equally, and such would be an instance for Federal involvement. What we have here is the Federal government not enforcing laws and a state assuming responsibility for enforcing those laws in the Fed's abscence.

If a local police officer can arrest me for violating equal opportunity employment or some other anti-discrimination law, which are Federal laws by the way, why cannot the same officer arrest an illegal immigrant, as undocumented immigration is a violation of Federal laws?

Or does violating Federal laws with a resultant arrest only apply to citizens of the country?

[edit on 7/30/2010 by abecedarian]

They have made their decision, now let them enforce it!

There is actually a legal precedent for defying a court order. In Worcester v Georgia, President Andrew Jackson defied the Supreme Court, and refused to enforce the decision rendered by that ruling. He is often quoted as saying:

"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

However whether or not he actually said this has been disputed. What is not in dispute is that he did say:

"the decision of the supreme court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate."

Of course, Jackson managed to avoid censure on the matter, and the State of Georgia managed to wiggle through a legal loophole regarding the ruling, and the loophole Jackson found was in that the State courts of Georgia did not directly defy The Supreme Court. Even so, the precedent of defying a court ruling is very much a part of American history, and nonacquiescence is as much a part of American jurisprudence as is acquiescence.

When the State of Georgia and Andrew Jackson engaged in their own form of non-acquiescence, the Constitution was not "shredded", it did not mark the end of "rule of law", and it did not lead to a civil war. Further, in regards to the rule of law, there is the matter of the 10th Amendment which is undeniably and irrefutably a part of the rule of law. If the State of Arizona does not vociferously raise an objection to their infringement of states rights, this failure to do so will be legally viewed as acquiescence to the court ruling.

Since this is a question of federal versus states rights, the State of Arizona has little choice but to challenge the ruling if they hope to assert their own 10th Amendment rights. If they fail to do so, then the federal governments argument of rights will become accepted as law, and the State of Arizona forfeits any future right to challenge this assertion. The battle lines have been drawn, and how Arizona acts in regards to this ruling will establish precedent on any future challenges. The O.P. has a sound legal argument.

Apparently AZ has appealed and the 9th circuit has agreed to an expedited review... which will take 28 days.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy

He wants to tear apart the US Constitution in order to cause a civil war in order to take down the federal government. I mean does anyone else here see this? The OP is talking about killing the United States, he wants a revolution, a war in your own back yard.

What I see is a foreign journalist who spends an awful lot of time posting in US Political Madness threads doing his level best to dismiss assertions of individual and state sovereignty. I see a foreign journalist who attempts to declare these freedom minded people as being people who want to "kill" the United States, and I see this foreign journalist speak to the Constitution for the United States of America, only conveniently pointing to certain sections and clauses while willfully ignoring other sections and clauses, and almost always willfully and clearly ignoring The Bill of Rights in order to argue for a strong centralized federal government with the authority to keep expanding as much as it wants, in spite of clear opposition from the people.

I see a foreign journalist who loves to use his "credentials" as a "journalist", constantly talking about "inside contacts", and poutily protesting that he has an understanding of the "pulse" of the American people, but who talks about "the rule of law" as if this rule of law has nothing at all to do with inalienable rights. A foreign journalist who rarely, if ever, acknowledges the existence of state constitutions and their declaration of rights, a foreign journalist who has on a number of occasions accused members in this site who are American citizens of being threats to The United States...a foreign journalist!

It is one thing to reasonably discuss matters of law and how they might apply practically, it is another thing entirely when a foreign journalist jumps in and begins declaring American citizens as threats to the Republic of the United States of America. As an individual, you have the right to your opinion, but when this opinion forgoes facts of law in favor of histrionics and fear mongering, it is then time for some one with a differing opinion to step in and ask the members if any one else can see that this is a British journalist who is accusing the O.P. of "killing The United States"?