Surprise, No Mention of Discrimination in the Arizona Lawsuit | Dronetek While some might by surprised, I'm certainly not. Predictably, the case being brought against Arizona for enforcing our immigration laws makes NO mention of discrimination. This makes perfect sense, since there is no discrimination and Obama used that sort of langue purely for the appeal to emotion. Of course the federal law is exactly the same and there is no discrimination there. This makes me angry for many reason. One of which is the death threats against police in Arizona. If it weren't for the president inciting of hatred and violence, those cops might be able to sleep a little better at night. Instead, they have a president who cares more about Mexico and its citizens, than Americans citizens. The media seems confused by this as well. Especially since they executed the white house points to the letter. Now they're wondering why everything they said has been nullified. ABC News's Jake Tapper wondered what happened last night: Justice Department Sues Arizona for Immigration Law -- But Does Not Make Charges of "Discrimination" - Political Punch Jake Tapper, you poor useful idiot you.
Yes the federal law reads the same as the state law, THEY DID THAT ON PURPOSE. The lawsuit is trying to uphold the fact that it is the FEDS job to regulate immigration, not the state. They want this to be challenged, they created this law knowing this would happen. Obama would not be talking about immigration unless AZ made that law, period. The whole point of creating the law was to stir up debate, its working. If your a smart person and actually read the news and the new developments, you too will agree that this is more of a lawsuit based on emotional appeal. otherwise why would the fed bitch about the same law they have.....like 2 kids fighting over sum f'n toys
Probably because there is already supreme court precedents (sp) about cases like these (state gov interfering with fed gov laws), so it would be easier for the supreme court to find in favor of the federal government. And obviously civil rights have been tried in the supreme court before but not something like this law. Basically they arent talking about the discriminatory part because they can win easier and eliminate that aswell if they use the fed gov's power over immigration law.
Thats some warped as logic my friend..... Obama and Democrats go on for months about the racist Arizona law, yet its the weakest argument in their case? Not only that, but arguing that its the fed's job (when the feds REFUSE to do their job), is a stronger argument? Man, you've taken a trip to the twilight zone.
No its not warped logic, I didn't mean to say that the discrimination argument is weak, but that there is a precedent for the law suit they are filing. And, while I am not a law student, I am presuming that cases are much easier to win when there are precedents.
No, he's not really in the twilight zone dude. I'm no lawyer, but think about it from legal stand point. The law itself was carefully crafted so that, legally speaking, there is no racism or discrimination inherent in its language. A judge, therefore, probably cannot and will not accept a lawsuit based on this principle. Courts need to see it as black and white, and in this case I'm sure the way in which the law is worded it's not explicitly said that Mexicans are to be singled out. However, those who are granted the right to enforce said law are allowed to and do so in a way that would qualify as a racial or discriminatory profiling but proving this is court is not so simple. Or it may be simple but the repercussions are focused on the officer doing the enforcing and not necessarily the law that allows them to do it. In other words, challenging the law in court on the grounds of discrimination is not so easy. Trumping state law with federal law, on the other hand, has been done many times by many presidents, including conservatives who preach states should have the right to do whatever they want. Again I'm no lawyer, but it seems like this is pretty simple logic. Not sure why you're having a hard time grasping it.
You're not a lawyer, and it's not simple logic. How is Arizona interfering with Federal law? Since this law is congruous with Federal law, they are actually complementing it. Yet there are states out there that give license privileges to illegal immigrants and even provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants... why isn't the Federal government suing them for interfering with Federal law? Obviously this is a political move... Obama just wants the votes. The other claim is that the state is violating the commerce clause by preventing the movement of illegal aliens. Do you agree with that one?
Read carefully my friend. The question I was addressing was not whether they are interfering with federal law. Frankly I don't know as I'm not a lawyer and cannot answer the question. Maybe they are, maybe they are not. The question I addressed was why there is no mention of discrimination in the lawsuit. Proving inherent and intentional discrimination in a openly and vaguely worded law is not an easy thing to do. This is one of many reasons racism, sexism, favoritism, etc. openly persist and are all-to-commonly accepted to this day. On the other hand, proving an inherent violation of federal law may likely require less interpretation, less subjectivity and fewer personal opinions and more of an assessment of the facts. As a lawyer, I would imagine you'd want to stick with objectivity rather than subjectivity.
you're confusing subjectivity and objectivity (the two should be switched) but otherwise I think you're entirely correct.
Why does it surprise you that a politician has an agenda to get votes? Bush pushed similar agendas simply for the votes (MMJ laws, Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage etc.)...and so will Obama, and so will every president until the day we die. Not saying it's right, but it comes as no surprise.
Dont surprise me at all. Your the one who quoted aaronman, i just wanted you to address the point that he made
I'm sorry, but when you address a question regarding the "trumping" done by a Federal law, which is the "no interfering with Federal law" law, I'm going to assume that's what you're addressing. I get the point you were trying to make, but you should probably learn more about this case before mocking others. There is no legal precedent, the Federal government has never sued a state for "interfering with Federal law" by complementing Federal law, nor tried to associate illegal trafficking with the interstate commerce clause. In fact, precedent is on Arizona's side if they sue based on the supremacy clause. And the kid you're defending is in the twilight zone. So really it just looks like you're defending some hardcore apologist and attacking Dronetek because he has a history of being Dronetek.
Not true, there are countless examples of state legislation being invalidated by the courts because they attempted to occupy areas of federal law. Fields where these invalidations often occur are energy regulation, trade policy, water resource protection, emissions regulation, and yes, immigration. ummm ... Raich v Gonzales The state officials (actually the guy making the argument in your article is a former county attorney, not actually an Arizona state official, despite the headline) are making a silly argument by pointing towards De Canas as proof legal precedent is on their side. The reason 2805(a) of the CLC was upheld under federal challenge is because the courts determined that the statute was not a regulation of immigration, despite being a regulation on immigrant labor. This clearly isn't going to help SB1070 because the Arizona lawmakers purposefully mirrored federal immigration statutes when crafting their own policy!
I believe you, but lets see examples. Sorry, by illegal trafficking I meant the movement of illegal immigrants. That's my question.