I am the extremist your Government warned you about....
Remember: "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch".....But you can help when you buy your AMAZON purchases through my links at no cost to you.
To give credit where is is due, the following was referenced by BadTux from his blog:
Do you know where that Supreme Court ruling came from that says that the Federal government can’t force cities to do stuff they don’t want to do? Guess what: It was a right wing lawsuit that did this. Specifically, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). This lawsuit was filed by a couple of right-wing gun nut sheriffs who didn’t want to do the firearms background checks called for by the Brady Bill. The final decision held that, under the 10th Amendment, the Federal government could not force local sheriffs to perform firearms background checks on behalf of the Federal government. To quote the decision: “… the Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program”. And immigration is decidedly a federal regulatory program, as pointed out in the Supreme Court ruling on another right-wing lawsuit, Arizona v. United States 641 F. 3d 339 (2012), which held that immigration was a Federal responsibility and states could not enact their own laws regulating or restricting immigration.
So. Any Federal judge worth their salt looks at Printz, looks at Arizona, and rules on the merits that the Federal government cannot force states to enforce Federal immigration law. If Trump really wants to argue this, he’ll be going all the way to the Supreme Court, and it’s doubtful that he’d win — even the right-wing judges on the court aren’t going to overturn their very own decision made in 1997, a decision that, by and large, is good for right wingers.
4 comments:
Aren't they all.
To give credit where is is due, the following was referenced by BadTux from his blog:
Do you know where that Supreme Court ruling came from that says that the Federal government can’t force cities to do stuff they don’t want to do? Guess what: It was a right wing lawsuit that did this. Specifically, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). This lawsuit was filed by a couple of right-wing gun nut sheriffs who didn’t want to do the firearms background checks called for by the Brady Bill. The final decision held that, under the 10th Amendment, the Federal government could not force local sheriffs to perform firearms background checks on behalf of the Federal government. To quote the decision: “… the Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program”. And immigration is decidedly a federal regulatory program, as pointed out in the Supreme Court ruling on another right-wing lawsuit, Arizona v. United States 641 F. 3d 339 (2012), which held that immigration was a Federal responsibility and states could not enact their own laws regulating or restricting immigration.
So. Any Federal judge worth their salt looks at Printz, looks at Arizona, and rules on the merits that the Federal government cannot force states to enforce Federal immigration law. If Trump really wants to argue this, he’ll be going all the way to the Supreme Court, and it’s doubtful that he’d win — even the right-wing judges on the court aren’t going to overturn their very own decision made in 1997, a decision that, by and large, is good for right wingers.
Dale
Interesting. I'll have to look into that. That is not, however, the arguments that they have been using.....
Sigh... Bought his way onto the court. Why am I NOT surprised...
Post a Comment