Brewer’s response to the federal lawsuit
I like the cut of Governor Brewer’s jib:
Today I was notified that the federal government has filed a lawsuit against the State of Arizona. It is wrong that our own federal government is suing the people of Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law. As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels. Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice. Today’s filing is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds. These funds could be better used against the violent Mexican cartels than the people of Arizona.
Since the feds have the deep pockets, not the state of Arizona, Brewer goes on to say that she has set up a way for people to contribute to Arizona’s legal defense at the website “keepazsafe.com.”
You can find an excellent discussion the “merits” of the federal government’s suit against Arizona here. Pay particular attention to the comments section; there are an unusual number of very fine ones, such as this summary of the government’s argument (by commenter “Brad DePalma”):
This appears to be Justice’s argument:
1) Congress enacted a series of immigration laws which prohibit foreign citizens from entering the United States except under certain conditions.
2) Arizona enacted a law which expressly enforces federal immigration law.
3) Justice claims that the state law which expressly enforces federal immigration law violates the Supremacy Clause because it is contrary to the Obama Administration’s policy of not enforcing the federal immigration law and :::gasp::: might create work for the border patrol deporting illegal aliens.
Amazing reasoning there guys.
So why is Obama pushing this? One reason seems to be to appeal to (and ultimately swell the ranks of) Hispanic voters, whom he is courting and whom the Democratic Party desperately needs, since much of its traditional support has eroded. Another is that this administration is throwing down the gauntlet to states in general and in favor of more and control by the federal government vis a vis states.
Their goal is power, power, power, and then more power—to do exactly what they want, including not enforcing laws they find inconvenient until they can figure out a way to pass more convenient ones or do things by executive fiat. This is the direction in which tyranny always tends to go, and it is a very consistent move for Obama and his administration.
Nearly every single thing he has done so far has been in the direction of increasing chaos and going against the will of the people, as well as growing the power of the federal executive branch. This is hardly an accident.
[NOTE: Ace has a good discussion of the same subject, and a nice summary of the question any lucid, thinking person should be asking the feds and the courts:
Arizona’s law is the same as the feds’. The big difference is not in the law, but in the policy: the feds have a policy of non- or minimal enforcement; they are angry at Arizona not because Arizona has passed fresh law but because Arizona intends a different policy — a policy of actual enforcement.
So yes, federal law trumps state law, but does mere federal policy trump state policy, especially when federal policy is in fact at odds with its own stated law?
Can the feds basically argue that it’s their policy to ignore the law and then demand that Arizona be instructed by the Supreme Court to follow them in their policy of ignoring the law?
We are in Orwell territory here, folks.]
It seems to me that the governors and legislatures of the various states, consistent with at least the Tenth Amendment, justify most legislation on the basis that it is intended to protect the health, safety and welfare of their citizens.
Given the outbreak of violence on the streets of Arizona cities, and the great number of kidnappings occurring in that state that involve drug gangs composed of illegal aliens, together with the now conceded failure or refusal of the federal government to enforce federal laws that would otherwise protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Arizona, the State of Arizona can make a very strong case for the need for its new law. Whether the courts agree with Arizona or not, the Dope’s administration is arguing that Arizona cannot lawfully adopt immigration laws intended to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens even if the federal government is unable or unwilling to protect the citizens of Arizona and other states. Besides making the case for the dire need for the Second Amendment, as citizens will be thrown to their own defenses if governments fail or refuse to protect them, the stupidity of the politics behind the Attorney General’s argument in this suit is mind boggling.
Don’t we elect presidents (and all other office holders, for that matter) in the understanding that their first duty is to protect us? If the Dope’s understanding is otherwise, can we expect that our relationship as citizens with this federal administration will soon be universally recognized as nothing more than us against them?
They never cease to amaze!
Obama only needs to find a liberal judge to upend reason and reality. We already have four in the Supreme Court and thousands more in the lower courts.
The lawsuit allows Obama and Dems in Congress the cover needed to gather Hispanic support, without adding fuel to the midterm elections’ fire. In this regard, watch the Dems in Congress become strangely on the issue of amnesty… ahem, I mean,comprehensive immigration reform.
Obama knows the law will be found to be constituional, as he chose the weakest argument to base their claim on (Federal Preemption). A 2L from law school, fresh off of a spring break bender, can win that argument in favor of AZ’s law. Case law and federal law support state and local gov’t asking about one’s immigration status during a lawful detention.
A claim based on civil rights infringment/discrimination would garner “strict scrutiny” from the court, which is the highest standard of burden on the state when passing a law. I suspect the DOJ is saving that argument for a later challenge. If they roll out the big guns up front, and lose, they’re screwed with lesser standards of burden.
In the spirit of plucking at the same conspiracy string over and over…if the intent was, from whomever is actually calling the shots from the White House (I do not believe Obama is anything more than a mouth piece), to disrupt the fabric of America sufficiently to create complete anarchy would that not potentially put us in a similar situation that got Obama elected in the first place?
Common sense isn’t a prerequisite for voting, and as we saw this last Presidential election, is sometimes absent in a sufficient number of people to make up enough of a majority to put goons in office. I’m not convinced in the upcoming elections there will be sufficient common sense present to either field enough votes to send a definitive message to Washington that we, the people, want our country back, or sufficient votes to tip the balance of power away from the Democrats. I hope it’s the former – I’d settle for the latter.
This upcoming election aside…if anarchy became the norm (horrible economy, increasing private sector unemployment, increasing public sector employment, illegal aliens/amnesty, taxes, Federal Govt battling states, ecological disasters, bail-outs, etc.) wouldn’t it be possible for someone else to step in with promises of new hope and new changes – and voters, gullible as we can be, vote ourselves right out of the deep-fat fryer and into the fire?
Anyway, as it relates to Neo’s post…the Federal lawsuit is IMHO just another diversion amongst other diversions. The administration doesn’t give one hoot or whistle about what the people want, and is more than happy, and capable, of providing as many diversions and distractions as it takes to get their agenda implemented if they remain unchecked.
I am no fan of OBAMA, but it is unsemely for a high visibility public official such as a governor to characterize the motivation of another elected official. No one can look into his soul.
Next time a DEM decides to slur a REP, the same
thing applies.
The lawsuit stinks on its merits and if the feds win, bad things will happen all over the country. That much is obvious.
John: Your complaint about Brewer being “unsemely” is unlikely to receive favor at this blog. We here are all looking into Baraq’s “soul” (as you put it) all the time, and we despise what we see. But that may be OK with you; we are not elected officials, after all.
Get with the program!
Mr. Dubose.
Where is the slur? Just the facts, man.
“Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice. Today’s filing is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds.”
Not too late to get Holder in the dead pool. But it will be soon.
“Other interests” had better get their Nikes on, because they’re about to be pursued.
“”Where is the slur?””
Musta been the “under attack” part. I think that qualifies as hate speech now.
Despite how well Arizona’s law withstands the attack by the current l’etat c’est moi feds, Gov. Brewer is an inspiring example of a good person not doing nothing in the face of bad people.
John DuBose:
Please direct me to where the governor characterized the motivation of the POTUS.
Neo: “Nearly very single thing he has done so far has been in the direction of increasing chaos and going against the will of the people, as well as growing the power of the federal executive branch. This is hardly an accident.”
That should go on a header somewhere.
The end of all this can only be the known thing that happens in chaos and tyranny. There will be “civil unrest” of shocking proportions.
We have 4 precious months to correct the error. If we fail….the almost inevitable consequences are unthinkable.
“… but it is unsemely for a high visibility public official such as a governor to characterize the motivation of another elected official. No one can look into his soul.”
Please! One’s actions are consistent with one’s character. While it may certainly be far too easy to misunderstand the motivation of an individual or isolated action of another, en masse and over time they do reveal the heart of the person acting.
“… but it is unsemely for a high visibility public official such as a governor to characterize the motivation of another elected official. No one can look into his soul.”
Moreover, even if your assertion were true, and it isn’t, alleged-President Obama is quite comfortable with characterizing the motivations os other elected officials … and of millions of citizens. He seems especially fond of the “RAAACIST!” characterization.
A great video from a certain Krista Branch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw&feature=player_embedded
We need more of this sort of thing, more of the time. We need to get loud.
Actions speak louder than words.
Go to: http://www.keepazsafe.com/
and give ’em a hand. I just did. This is a clear case of Obama using the DOJ to act vengefully against those who don’t agree with him.
Why has the DOJ not sued Rhode Island? They have essentially the same laws and enforce them.
Go here to read about it:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjkzMmNjMjIxMjIxYWNmODA0OGI3ZTU5MmIyZGUyMjg=
This IS Orwell territory.
How does DOJ have standing to sue?
Usually, there has to be a specific harm shown to give a claimant standing to sue. Not a theoretical harm that an UNKNOWN person’s civil rights MIGHT be abridged by AZ by some future UNKNOWN action.
Usually, there has to be a way for the claimant to be made whole, i.e. to fix the harm. Since there is no SPECIFIC harm, just vague theories, there’s no violable restitution to be provided by the Accused to the Complainant.
The specific harm would be putting a lot of ACORN workers out of work signing up new democrat voters, as they cross the border.
“I like the cut of Governor Brewer’s jib”
Neo, have you been listening to Dennis Miller?
“We are in Orwell territory here, folks.”
With first Bush and now Governor Brewer playing Emanuel Goldstein.
And we all know who wants to be Big Brother.
Are you sure we are not in Franz Kafka territory?
Herr United States awoke on Jan. 23, 2009 and found out it had turned into a giant cockroach…..