Politics

SCOTUS Upholds Most Controversial Part of AZ Immigration Law

SCOTUS Upholds Most Controversial Show Me Your Papers Provision of AZ Immigration Law

Supreme Court of the United States (File photo)

The U.S. Supreme Court voted to strike down three of four provisions in Arizona’s controversial immigration law, ruling in favor of the federal government.

However, justices upheld the so-called “show me your papers” provision that requires police in Arizona to check an individual’s immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” the person is in the U.S. illegally.

Even there, though, the justices said the provision could be subject to additional legal challenges.

Though the decision upholds the most controversial part of the law for the moment, it takes the teeth out of it by prohibiting police officers from arresting people on minor immigration charges.

Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the court that was unanimous on allowing the status check to go forward. The court was divided on striking down the other portions.

“Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns,” Kennedy said in the Supreme Court opinion. “Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service. Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that bear on this Nation’s international relations.”

The provisions that made it a crime for immigrants to seek work without work permits, to not carry their immigration papers and allowed law enforcement to arrest individuals they suspect committed crimes that would require their deportation were all struck down indefinitely, Fox News reports.

Read the entire SCOTUS opinion here.

SCOTUS Upholds Most Controversial Show Me Your Papers Provision of AZ Immigration Law

The Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Front row (L-R): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back Row (L-R): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. (TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images)

Part of the ruling was based on the notion that states can’t pursue policies that undermine federal law. Under the Constitution, the federal government is given the authority to enforce immigration policy, not the states.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer released a statement shortly after the ruling calling today’s decision by the Supreme Court “a victory for the rule of law.” More from the governor’s statement:

It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens. After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

While we are grateful for this legal victory, today is an opportunity to reflect on our journey and focus upon the true task ahead: the implementation and enforcement of this law in an even-handed manner that lives up to our highest ideals as American citizens. I know the State of Arizona and its law enforcement officers are up to the task. The case for SB 1070 has always been about our support for the rule of law. That means every law, including those against both illegal immigration and racial profiling. Law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual’s civil rights.

Of course, today’s ruling does not mark the end of our journey. It can be expected that legal challenges to SB 1070 and the State of Arizona will continue. Our critics are already preparing new litigation tactics in response to their loss at the Supreme Court, and undoubtedly will allege inequities in the implementation of the law. As I said two years ago on the day I signed SB 1070 into law, ‘We cannot give them that chance. We must use this new tool wisely, and fight for our safety with the honor Arizona deserves.

Justin Cox, a staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants Rights Project, also released a statement on the Supreme Court’s ruling on SB 1070. He said they “won” on three of four provisions and the “fight continues” to overturn the fourth provision.

“We’re obviously still reading the opinion right now, but I think I general it’s not everything that we wanted, but it does go a long way towards reinforcing what we’ve been saying all along, which is immigration is a federal issue and the states have , there’s very little that a state can do constitutionally to affect immigration,” the statement read.

“They didn’t say that the show me your papers provision is legal, they just said that the reasoning and basis that the lower court ruled to keep it preemptive was not adequate.”

The state has geared up for massive protests in preparation of the Supreme Court ruling. Both supporters and staunch critics of the law have reportedly planned protests at the Arizona State Capitol building.

SCOTUS Upholds Most Controversial Show Me Your Papers Provision of AZ Immigration Law

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer. (AP Photo/Matt York)

Brewer recently issued a two-page executive order essentially telling the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board to redistribute a training DVD for SB 1070.

The videos are to be distributed to all law enforcement agencies across the Arizona. The DVD discusses everything from reasonable suspicion to foreign vehicle registration.

A major point is made in the video instructing officers to not racially profile. It also includes types of acceptable identification that should end an officer‘s suspicions about a person’s immigration status.

SB 1070 was passed two years ago and signed into law by Governor Brewer. The move sparked a massive debate and legal challenges which have ultimately led to the Supreme Court.

As many news reports have indicated, the ruling is hardly the end to the heated immigration debate, but rather just the latest development in an ongoing political battle.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

This is a breaking story and updates will be added.

Comments (183)

1 2 3 4
  • SquidVetOhio
    Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:18am

    Jeb Bush is jumping for joy right now. Freaking pink-o RINO loser.

    Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • oldguy49
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 12:19pm

      why don’t we just have a immigration law like mexico???????……..i blieve you get 2 years in prison for bing illega there

      Report Post »  
    • Mil-Dot
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 1:09pm

      Yeah, these SCOTUS goons are no different than the Repubs or the Dems. They are obviously more interested in letting the invasion of our country continue unabated. They must be taking their marching orders from somebody else in some foreign country somewhere. They are not looking out for us, that is for sure.

      Report Post »  
    • hauschild
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 1:42pm

      After seeing this, how the SCOTUS favors big government intervention, then believing that Obamacare will be declared ENTIRELY unconstitutional is foolish. Roberts might make it 6-3 in favor of keeping it.

      I think what many people are finally coming to grips with is what I realized 10 years ago – Even conservative judges can be RINO’s.

      RINO Presidents lead to RINO SCOTUS nominations.

      Report Post »  
    • lukerw
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 2:17pm

      WTF? If the Federal Government… can selectively Inforce Laws… and can implement Policy that is counter to Congress… plus the SC can support it… then, THERE IS NO LAW NOR JUSTICE in the UNITED STATES!

      DO WHATEVER YOU WANT!

      Report Post » lukerw  
    • Red Meat
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 2:20pm

      Roberts was a Bush pick. Enough said.

      Report Post » Red Meat  
    • old white guy
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 2:25pm

      too freakin bad the court did not say the feds have to do their job. freaking idiots. living proof that being educated does not mean that you know anything.

      Report Post »  
    • lukerw
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 2:59pm

      RUSH: HomeLand Security to Arizona… DO NOT CALL US (DROP DEAD)!

      Arizonans… will have to FLEE or FIGHT!

      Report Post » lukerw  
    • anomnomnommm
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 3:02pm

      There there guys… didn’t like the Supreme Coury ruling?. You’ll be singing the praises of the Supreme Court tomorrow when they rule on “Obamacare” so keep your flipflops on.

      Report Post »  
    • I.Heart.America
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 3:25pm

      JanPac

      http://www.janpac.com/

      Report Post » I.Heart.America  
  • SquidVetOhio
    Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:16am

    We’re screwed. Is there any reason to believe the Justice Kennedy cares at all what the Constitution says. Just heard the guy who wrote the law say Kennedy ignored a 1996 law congress passed that says that the Feds “have NO descretion” as whether or not to deport a known illegal alien.

    Starting to feel like Obama care may stay since the law doesn’t matter, only how Kennedy feels about it.

    Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • Godfather.1
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:31am

      You clearly don’t understand how the law works. You say that he doesn’t care what the Constitution says and back that up by saying he ignored a law passed in 1996. Tell me, is that 1996 law part of the Constitution?

      Report Post »  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:48am

      I clearly do understand how it works. I’m saying that he clearly did not take into account the 1996 law or probably was even aware of it.

      Since you are clearly a constitutional genius, when Kennedy says that the Fed should take discretion because some illegals are only trying to work but others are dangerous, which part of the Constitution says that SCOTUS can decide the constitutionality of a law based on “human factors”? Where are “human factors” enumerated or defined in the Constitution? I‘m pretty sure that’s a policy consideration, not a legal consideration. I’ve actually taken a law class, you might try it. Bring Anthony Kennedy with you if you do.

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • red_white_blue2
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 12:35pm

      In the end, the good guys will win..even if it’s the end of the world that acheives it!

      Report Post » red_white_blue2  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 1:36pm

      Your argument doesn’t make sense. The SCOTUS struck down the law on the premise that the Federal Government (that would be congress since they write the law) has the sole authority to enforce immigration. The Federal Government passed a law in 1996 that said the I.N.S or ICE agents can NOT decide whether or not to deport a known illegal alien. They all must be put into deportation process. Kennedy said the Feds should chose, he clearly is not aware of or is ignoring the 1996 law.

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • Godfather.1
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 1:58pm

      @SquidVetOhio

      Oh, you’ve taken a law class have you? I guess that must make you a supreme authority on the Constitution. In fact, it definitely makes you more qualified than Kennedy to speak on the subject. I mean, he’s only practiced as an attorney, taught Constitutional law, and served as a federal Judge for over 30 years.

      But, I‘m sure you’re right. Your “law class” surely makes you more informed on the Constitution than Kennedy.

      Report Post »  
    • old white guy
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 2:26pm

      you are not screwed if you use the second amendment as it was meant to be used.

      Report Post »  
  • LameLiberals
    Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:15am

    I am starting to hate watching the news. There is so much stupidity and lack of common sense everywhere.

    NOW this Supreme Court decision which is is also VAGUE and lacks common sense.

    Basically they SCREWED UP ON PARTS AND PUNTED on the last part.

    The Supreme Court did NOT address the REAL REASON which is WHEN THE FEDS ARE NOT ENFORCING FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS (which is ILLEGAL), can the states ENFORCE FEDERAL LAWS WHICH ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS?

    The answer is MAYBE which is RIGHT BACK TO SQUARE ONE.

    What the hell is WRONG with COMMON SENSE? If the feds are NOT enforcing the laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS – the Supreme Court shoud have said STATES COULD ENFORCE THEM.

    LIke I said – the news is so depressing. The USA is doomed. This ruling just encourages more illegals to flood over the borders -borders which the feds WILL NOT guard. The Supreme Court already SCREWED UP and said illegal children HAVE to be taught in public schools which drove property taxes though the roof and education costs. The ONLY way to get out of teaching illegal children is to eliminate PUBLIC schools and give E-VERIFIED legal America children a school voucher to got to a PRIVATE SCHOOL which are NOT REQUIRED to teach illegal children.

    Report Post »  
    • theblazerunner
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:59am

      aye, common sense has left the building

      Report Post » theblazerunner  
    • crusaderx9
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 12:25pm

      spot on

      Report Post » crusaderx9  
    • FireMall
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 1:12pm

      There is ample case law precedent regarding Selective Enforcement of Legally enacted laws which have been Constitutionally vetted .
      Current & past events of similar precedent pretty well says the Supremes have been corrupted along with the other 2 branches.
      .
      Obviously the SCOTUS hasn’t had any dealings with this little tidbit of Equal Enforcement regardless of race , gender or religious beliefs.
      This ruling screams to high Heaven as being Political & Party Influenced.

      BTW: @ ENCINOM
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:18am
      @Publius Duo

      What are you chirppimg about, the Presidents directive. The executive sets the priority for the laws and determines how they will be enforced (I figured you would have learned that from the W. years).

      Encinom: Please show us where you got that pile of BS which gives Obama jack sheet in making ,enforcing a prescribing adjudication as per Executive Power ??.
      The executive branch swears an Oath to Govern by the Existing law & as per what used to be the Constitution’s separation of Powers..
      Why would one think the founding rules of Legislation give Congress the power to over ride a Presidential Veto if the POTUS can enact any freekin BS law he wants for the Greater Good of UmWah aka Obama & His Useful Idiots who only see the laws they approve of. ??

      Report Post » FireMall  
    • 321481
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 1:54pm

      lameliberals, I feel the same way, it is truly depressing.

      Report Post »  
    • old white guy
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 2:31pm

      sorry sport. until you actually understand what the second amendment means and have the courage to use it. too bloody bad. you lose. the vote means nothing today.

      Report Post »  
    • anomnomnommm
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 3:03pm

      The nonsense doesn’t stop here.

      Report Post »  
    • rose-ellen
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 5:09pm

      Arizoneans should pack up -families and all-migrate to washington d.c.They should.abandon the state,let the illigals flood in and let the federal government enforce ALL laws down there.

      Report Post »  
    • WEBWITHDEB
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 9:12pm

      No, Arizonans should each “hire” an illegal immigrant for $50 to get on a bus to Washington, D.C.,go “occupy” the people’s White House garden/yard, and protest the portion of the law that was upheld. Hey I bet all those bushes would at least be neatly trimmed when they were finally herded onto yet another bus to go have the government give them their new status identification in the form of an implanted chip. How in the heck else does a government “identify”, and thereby issue identity-identifying to, all of these 800,000 (to be multiplied after this) that Obama has identified in his “Federal” directive as not being subject to the law — with what you and I, you know, CITIZENS of the U.S. — are ALL subject to (otherwise known as “Equal Protection”) UNDER OUR LAWS.

      Report Post »  
  • RiseLiberty
    Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:14am

    The statute that allows the Fed ultimate immigration authority over the states should be upheld because what if a conservative were in the WH and did all he could do to ensure the security of the borders and the deportation of illegals, and you had a few liberal states that just decided to open their doors no questions asked, and in effect, grant total amnesty on their own? Can’t do that. If the POTUS is screwing up, gotta vote him out, that’s all.

    Report Post »  
    • LameLiberals
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:24am

      You are right – the lack of common sense Supreme Court ruling leaves the states at the mercy of whether the feds “decide to enforce the laws on the books or not”.

      Whether a liberal or conservative president in in office -THAT is NOT THE POINT. The president took an oath to enforce THE LAWS OF THE USA. The Supreme Court just said – if a president decides NOT to enforce the laws and states are screwed because of it – states can do NOTHING. SO much for states rights.

      SHAME ON THE SUPREME COURT. Our country is so screwed up from the top down and BOTTOM UP because we keep electing IDIOTS who appoint the IDIOTS on the Supreme Court.

      Whether Romney or Obama gets the presidency -ANOTHER LIBERAL JUDGE will be appointed and we are SCREWED. I am voting for Romney = the lesser of two evils abut his record of judge appointments are ALL LIBERAL JUDGES and some gay like Kagan and Sotamyer

      Report Post »  
    • RedDirtTexas
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 12:17pm

      Hold your horses! It doesn’t matter what the laws or the Constitution says anymore! If Romney wins and we can put his feet to the fire, all he has to do, by executive mandate ( thanks to Obamaism ), order his Justice Dept., and DHS to round them up and evict them. Because it’s the new Prez Sez law of the land!

      Report Post » RedDirtTexas  
    • Tigress1
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 12:21pm

      @Lameliberals, unfortunately, Obama doesn’t want to enforce the laws, he wants to MAKE the laws by bypassing Congress, and appointing himself as part of the Legislative Branch of the government.

      Report Post » Tigress1  
    • LameLiberals
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 1:02pm

      @ Tigress1
      Bypassing Congress and making laws is called the president being a DICTATOR. The Supreme Court made that easier.

      The Rome Empire had a Senate – towards the end it was JUST A SHELL -because dictator in charge. I just watched History Channel show – Roman sheeple actually LIKED/WANTED their popular dictator and were upset when the senate killed him. Rome-basically ended then-Sheep killed it. The Roman ruler dictator gave the sheeple billions in entertainment and whatever they wanted to keep them happy and kept opening new military installations all over the world and soon Rome Empire went broke and broke up.

      The British Empire did the same thing – wars – military bases all over the world (the sun never set on the British Empire) and now they are a 2nd rate Socialist country with a 2 tier law system Sharia and English and no guns to protect themselves and a horrible health care system, etc etc I lived there for 4 years.

      Now the USA following same endless wars, massive military installations all over the world that taxpayers have to pay for and crushing endless SOCIALIST programs to bribe SHEEP like SS/Medicare/Medicaid/RomneyCare/ObamaCare – ALL financially unsustainable.

      The Romney/ObamaCARE MANDATE is Wrong – so is the SS and MediCARE/MediCAID MANDATE.

      Now our immigration laws not enforced/twisted & both political parties to pander to Hispanics who are voting in politicians who agree to continue to IGNORE the law.

      Report Post »  
  • theblazerunner
    Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:10am

    on cspan now

    Report Post » theblazerunner  
  • 321481
    Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:07am

    The SCOTUS won‘t allow states to do the job the feds refuse to do and we as citizens can not make the fed’s do. What does this ruling allow AZ to do, pull over a person for a violation, if the officer thinks the person may be illegal, check it out and if they are, then call ICE, so they can turn the person loose? So how does “we the people” get feds secure our border and enforce the law?

    Report Post »  
    • LameLiberals
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:27am

      I was thinking the same thing.

      So what if police arrest illegals – IF THE FEDS release them.

      This country is NO LONGER A NATION OF LAWS.

      Report Post »  
    • RGFROMTEXAS
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 12:06pm

      I dispute the fact that the Federal Government is not doing anything about it. The most illegal immigrants ever deported in one year was 396,000 last year by this administration and this year they are on a path to top that. Blaming Obama is rediculous, this is a problem that should have been taken care of years ago. Our last three Presidents(Bush,Clinton.Bush) did nothing once again leaving it in the lap of our current President

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/18/deportations-customs-remove-record-number_n_1018002.html

      Report Post »  
    • yiska8
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 1:04pm

      @Rgfromtexas
      Please remember the GWB ran on the theory that he could work with Mexico and Latin America. He wanted to do something about the illegal immigration nightmare, but understood the community down here and the problems our border faced. Being a pretty good Governor, I thought he would follow through.
      Then the USA got a visit from some wretched, stinking cowards from Saudi Arabia on 9-11. The Latin American and Mexican problem was never visited again. Don’t feel too sorry for the Prez. He asked for it. He wanted the job. This Prez just created a dangerous precedence by allowing a few million illegals to stay. The waters have been tested and someday in his second term, he’ll announce open borders and complete amnesty and make the border patrol agents pretty much useless. No President ever wanted to touch this issue, but we definetly have the worst possible one in office making the worst possible decisions and setting the Consititutional bar lower and lower each day. Barry had buried the Constitution.

      Report Post » yiska8  
    • LameLiberals
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 1:05pm

      @RGFROMTEXAS
      If the feds enforced the law – NO ILLEGALS would be here – because the border would have 15-20 Israeli type fencing around it and EVERY ILLEGAL who did come in would be deported.

      Report Post »  
    • RGFROMTEXAS
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 4:33pm

      LAMELIBERALS

      Thanks for your response. I agree with you but my point is that this should have been done years ago. I know it is not popular to defend the President on this board, however, he has put more agents on the border than ever before and has deported more illegal immigrants than any of his predecessors.

      Report Post »  
    • WEBWITHDEB
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 9:29pm

      Just another avenue for the feds to go after Sheriff Joe; if his officers detain any person they have reasonably ascertained is in this country illegally (dusty, smelly, has a stuffed back pack of sorts, has no identification papers, answers all inquiries put to him with whatever phrase is used these in his native language to indicate he doesn’t know anything, was found in a wrecked van off a side road in AZ with a group of like-looking, -acting, speaking, people with a dead driver who has thousands of dollars of cash on their person, the feds will FACILITATE a suit for racial profiling against said department against, you know it, WE THE PEOPLE.

      I ask any person who honestly feels they are intelligent to come here and draw another conclusion than the above person can ONLY be ascertained to possibly be an illegal immigrant via the use of racial profiling.

      Report Post »  
  • Diomasach
    Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:01am

    This is actually good news.
    They struck down the Statel-level misdemeanor laws against illegal immigration/working without green card which were redundant anyway. And they struck down the warrantless arrest provision, which frankly was unconstitutional.
    But they kept the most important part, which was the part about being able to ask immigration status.

    Report Post »  
    • cessna152
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:09am

      Does it really matter? Regardless of what happens or the ruling, once these illegals are turned over to the Feds, they’ll just let them go anyway.

      Report Post » cessna152  
  • cuzifit
    Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:00am

    Arizona & other States that think that the Fed should be “Enforcing the LAW”, should buy a dozen jets! Empty their prisons and holding cells of every illegal and fly them all to Washington DC and dump them all off. Let them deal with the problem. It would be cheaper than housing them.

    Report Post » cuzifit  
    • 321481
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:09am

      Obama’s mansion in Chicago sets empty, house them there.

      Report Post »  
    • HKS
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 12:09pm

      I would think that Arizona and other states could sue the federal government for neglecting the laws on the books, reimbursement of cost associated in dealing with non-citizens as a result and put them in court defending their actions. Let the supreme court chew on that one. I just think any good law suit has to show a loss to you as the result and no one is talking about that.

      Report Post » HKS  
    • bdsconserv
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 3:14pm

      great idea! right on the steps of the white house.

      Report Post »  
  • joe alexich
    Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:51am

    this is what happens when the voters do not realize what they are voting for.SOTO and KAGAN and RUTH.Big mistake dems and independents.Your children will feel the heat.

    Report Post »  
    • VanceUppercut
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:08am

      How about ALITO and ROBERTS, who fought off claims that they would just be shills for Big Business, and then once they were on the Court they sided with Big Business EVERY SINGLE TIME.

      Report Post »  
    • TiocFaidhArLa
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:13am

      lol you seriouslt lumped independants with democrats? Lol there is more difference between democrates and independents than republicans and democrates (two sides of the same unconstitutional coin!)

      Report Post »  
    • Godfather.1
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:35am

      Kagan had nothing to do with this decision. She recused herself because she was solicitor general when it first started rising through the courts. Plus, Kennedy and Roberts were also in the majority, that’s right, two conservatives.

      Nice try to lump it all on a few people. You should really get your facts straight next time.

      Report Post »  
    • sWampy
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:40am

      There are no independents, just flip floppers, that vote based on popularity.

      Report Post »  
  • donedunn
    Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:48am

    This is the constitutional decision, protecting the borders and immigration is the Federal Governments responsibility. Unfortunately , they have chosen to ignore their responsibility. All the more reason to vote people in that will uphold the Constitution.

    Report Post »  
  • ProudConservative69
    Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:45am

    Not true “COTUS Strikes Down Majority of Arizona Immigration Law as Unconstitutional”. Who writes your headlines. They said the state law is invalid because it is already a federal law. Noting unconstitutional about that blaze!!

    Report Post »  
    • Randyco02
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:23am

      @ PROUSCONSERVATIVE69, actually you are wrong. Under the constitution if state law is preempted by a comprehensive federal scheme then states may not enact “duplicate” law and if they do then that law is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional procedurally because the state is barred from enacting the law (not because the content of the law is unconstitutional. Therefore the headline is fine, learn your constitution!!

      Report Post »  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:51am

      So state murder laws are unconstitutional because the Feds have laws covering murder? I suggest you learn yours.

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • Randyco02
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:59am

      No, state murder laws are not preempted by the federal govt. Remember, state laws are only preempted where 1. the federal law specifically states that they don’t want the state to enact a similar law, 2. there is a comprehensive scheme of legislation that excludes participation by the state (immigration law for example). The federal gov’t has never asserted that only they will prosecute murders. On the other hand, the States have traditionally had jurisdiction over police powers. I know my constitution very well

      Report Post »  
    • Mil-Dot
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 2:08pm

      Randy,
      Who gives a crap what you know about the constitution. The bottom line is that the SCOTUS is going to allow the invasion to continue. Case closed.

      Report Post »  
    • Randyco02
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 2:26pm

      I doubt anyone gives a crap what I know. I just wish others would take an interest in what the constitution says, rather than being partisan hacks. And regarding the “invasion”, SCOTUS has no constitutional power to stop “it”. they have an obligation to determine the constitutionality of laws and in this case it appears they did a good job. They have to stay in framework of the constitution, Even if the result of their decision doesn’t stop the “invasion”

      Report Post »  
  • Oldphoto678
    Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:45am

    Yup, it really sucks when your uneducated, simplistic interpretation of the constitution gets overruled by someone that actually knows what their talking about.

    Just one more beat down. Nudge, nudge…..

    Report Post »  
    • SamIamTwo
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:52am

      Actually Section 2B is a big win…it was at the heart of the topic…the others were struck down because idiots voted in an administration that does not comply with public law…get it? LMAO

      Report Post » SamIamTwo  
    • sWampy
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:55am

      Just because they are judges on the supreme court doesn’t mean they made the right decision. Unfortunately the supreme court has tract record of bad decisions, at least 25% of the laws in this nation would be ruled unconstitutional if this stupid precedence gets followed, because they mirror existing federal laws.

      Report Post »  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:14am

      Our simplistic interpretation of the Constituton is the correct one. Justice Anothony Kennedy is a liberal POS that needs to go away. I guess you think Ginsberg is brilliant when she recites foreign laws in her decision? Careful of the precedent you pink-O liberal set, we (conservatives) will be in charge soon and Ginsberg ain’t no spring chicken. Just sayin…..

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • bumfuzeled
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:22am

      Your comment carries no weight since “your side” felt the asking for proof of citizenship was THE problem. Victory Jan Brewer and the citizens of the United States.

      Report Post » bumfuzeled  
    • bumfuzeled
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:26am

      The parts “struck down” mirror the federal law…soooo….. The feds are once again usurping constitutional power.

      Report Post » bumfuzeled  
  • HKS
    Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:42am

    Wow, just get across the boarder and they can’t even ask you if your here legally. Is this a great country or what. Let’s see now, Under that same logic if I can rob the bank and get away they can’t ask me if I robbed the bank, (I’d lie anyway) sounds good to me, shoot out the cameras and it‘s home free and someone said crime doesn’t pay.

    Report Post » HKS  
  • MonkeyBeagle
    Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:41am

    Looks like Obama will get his Illegal voter block yet :( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_zD-Kb7FX4&feature=relmfu

    Report Post »  
    • VanceUppercut
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:19am

      I guess it‘s a good thing illegals can’t vote, despite what the Glen becks of the world tell you to stir up fear.

      Report Post »  
  • LeftistsAreRegressive
    Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:38am

    Deport Sotomayor.

    Report Post »  
    • VanceUppercut
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:21am

      @LeftistsAreRegressive
      Deport her to where, New York City? That‘s where she’s from.

      Report Post »  
    • LeftistsAreRegressive
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:59am

      Anywhere that values the musings of a “wise Latina woman” rather than the 10th Amendment.

      Report Post »  
  • SamIamTwo
    Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:36am

    Basically SCOTUS is saying if you don’t like the current FEDERAL administration NOT ENFORCING current federal law, VOTE THE RATBASTARDS OUT OF OFFICE.

    Report Post » SamIamTwo  
    • MrButcher
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:43am

      Ding! Ding! Ding!

      We have a winner.

      Exactly!

      Report Post » MrButcher  
    • TheSoundOf Truth
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:45am

      you stole my picture!

      Report Post » TheSoundOf Truth  
    • SamIamTwo
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:53am

      Sorry dood, you could be a long distant cousin?

      Report Post » SamIamTwo  
    • VRW Conspirator
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:57am

      there you go…correct interpretation of the decision…. the SCOTUS said the Fed is responsible for enforcement not the States so the States can’t make laws telling their agents to enforce Fed law….but the SCOTUS did say that the States CAN ask people to prove they are here legally whe they break OTHER State laws…like speeding…and once asked and proven illegal…the State officers MUST detain and inform the Fed agency – ICE – in charge of enforcement… SWEET…

      can we make Sheriff Joe the State of AZ AG and have him set up desert detainee camps with pink jumpsuits and undies and hold all the illegals caught until ICE comes to get them…which will be never since Obama won’t let them enforce the laws….then AZ can sue the Fed for the cost…

      Report Post » VRW Conspirator  
    • AZMarc
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:17am

      “States can’t make laws telling their agents to enforce Fed law…” I think our Governor should issue an order to all Arizona Law Enforcement agancies to immediately stop enforcing all Federal Laws. Bank robbers, if the FBI doesn‘t get you then you’re home free.
      Actually I think 100 years has been a good trial period and it‘s been fun but now it’s time to end the relationship and vote for independence.

      Report Post »  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:23am

      The court did not uphold the “ask for papers”. They only said that the reason given for striking it down is not valid and is sending it back down to the courts. It will get struck down by an activist court in a different way. But the SCOTUS did NOT say that it was constitutional.

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
  • barber2
    Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:36am

    ” AFTER a crime is committed if probable cause is found.” Oh, I feel so much safer. Oh, and define ” crime .“ Is driving without a license and without insurance considered ” a crime ?” Are we talking only felonies ? Oh, and define ” probable cause.” Yeah, this really clears up all of that illegal mess….

    Report Post »  
    • SamIamTwo
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:43am

      Pull over, your left tail light bulb is out…pull over your left rear tire is flat…etc etc etc

      Report Post » SamIamTwo  
  • DIVINEPROVIDENCE1776
    Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:36am

    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
    Amendment 14, Section 1 – “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    Report Post » DIVINEPROVIDENCE1776  
    • BannedByHuffpo
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:54am

      “…subject to the jurisdiction thereof …”

      Mexicans aren’t subject to U.S. “jurisdiction”. Neither are Canadians, Brazilians, Germans, etc., etc., even if they happen to be “visitors” (legal or otherwise) in our soverign republic.

      Report Post » BannedByHuffpo  
    • RedDirtTexas
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:48am

      @ Banned… You are 100% correct! There is no ambiguity here. Only decades of liberal justices reading what they want it to say instead of what it actually says! If someone who is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada comes here illegally, they are still subject to the jurisdiction of Canada. If they have a child while here illegally, the child is subject to the jurisdiction of the parents and thus still Canadian. If one parent is American and harboring an illegal which is a crime, it still shouldn’t make the child a citizen!

      Report Post » RedDirtTexas  
    • DIVINEPROVIDENCE1776
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 12:10pm

      I agree Banned and Red. The SCOTUS ruling is unconstitutional, not the Arizona law. The left continually defies the law and undermines it. They are the real radical extremists along with their muslim buddies.

      Report Post » DIVINEPROVIDENCE1776  
    • yiska8
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 2:08pm

      So after all this, an officer that pulls someone over is going to do what he/she would normally do? Simply asking for someone‘s driver’s license and or photo ID and registration? Who the hell doesn’t get asked this when given a ticket or pulled over for anything? I‘ve never known an illegal immigrant to have a driver’s license. They get pulled over all the time here and our local city impound lot is filled, because their car is towed, not because they are ILLEGAL, but because they are driving without liability and/or insurance. My guess is that they aren’t even deported unless they are in our system for a warrant. How are cops supposed to be trained on how not to profile when everything they are taught is to be wary and ask the right questions, practice “plain feel, plain sight” ,and implement full authoritative discretion safely? Arizona took the case to the top and it seems like law enforcement needed to have the Supreme Court give them permission to do their jobs at the local and state level.

      Report Post » yiska8  
  • momrules
    Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:34am

    I am NOT surprised at all. Keep fighting Gov. Brewer, American patriots are with you.

    Report Post »  
    • mike_trivisonno
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:41am

      The Supreme Court NEVER finds against increased Federal Power. They are just as corrupt and just as evil as the rest of the criminals in Washington, DC.

      The Supreme Court is corrupted and no longer defends the US Constitution of my Bill of Rights.

      Report Post » mike_trivisonno  
    • VanceUppercut
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:23am

      Gov. Brewer is a liar and a piece of garbage.

      Report Post »  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:33am

    Not unexpected, but at least a portion of it did survive. Now watch for Obama to start crowing while threating my homestate once again over the fact the SCOTUS held up one portion of it. I have heard there will be protests downdown near the county and city jails over this according to the local radio.

    Obama is going to make AZ pay if he can, in fire and blood over this matter given the least excuse on it.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • SamIamTwo
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:40am

      LOL yes he will be out chest thumping on some of this…making a mole hill into a mountain.

      Report Post » SamIamTwo  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:41am

      Technically, all of the portions survived. The three “struck down” were struck down because they are already dealt with by Federal law (which is true). The new provision, the status check, stood. In every way, everything in the act is now law (or was law already). :)

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • cemerius
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:49am

      But when Obamacare is struck down entirely he will NOT be saying a peep……it’s a shame we will NEVER get immigration straightened out because of all these “babies of illegals” that got instant citizenship are protesting ANYTHING that is done!!!! I say we adopt Mexico’s immigration laws post haste……let them scream and hollar then!!!

      Report Post » cemerius  
  • SamIamTwo
    Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:32am

    “However, Justices upheld the provision that allows police in Arizona to check immigration status after a crime is committed if probable cause is found.’

    Good, got a toe in the liberal door.

    Report Post » SamIamTwo  
  • HorseCrazy
    Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:30am

    oh great so a pickup truck with 15 people hiding under a tarp in the truck bed is ok because it would be racist to ask why they are speeding away from the border. good no crime here folks look away

    Report Post »  
    • Diane TX
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 1:12pm

      Not true, because the truck can be stopped for speeding and the driver asked – What’s under the tarp?

      Report Post »  
  • barber2
    Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:30am

    Wish someone could sue the Federal Government for not effectively securing our borders and then playing legal games with states over this unmet obligation.

    Report Post »  
    • SamIamTwo
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:38am

      I’m with you on that…a class action lawsuit for THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CHOOSING NOT TO PERFORM FEDERAL LAW.

      Report Post » SamIamTwo  
    • theblazerunner
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:37am

      would be expensive…100′s of millions of dollars.
      kept in courts for years.

      Report Post » theblazerunner  
  • encinom
    Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:30am

    Another lose for the GOP’s attack on the Constitution.

    Report Post »  
    • SamIamTwo
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:34am

      Not a done deal and section 2b was upheld.

      Report Post » SamIamTwo  
    • GatorSkin
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:35am

      WTF are you babbling about??????? Go vote for your fraud and leave the adults alone, MORON!!!!!!

      Report Post » GatorSkin  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:38am

      Actually kid, in case you didn’t read, the ability to check immigration status on a legal stop if the officer suspects they are illegal, has stood. Additionally, the rest of the provisions were brought down because they are *redundant* law with the Federal government’s statues already on the book.

      In essence, everything in the act is now legal. :)

      Attend to the details instead of the talking points you’re told to recite.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • Fubared
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:41am

      Encinomom gets more non-english speaking voters to help legalize crimes. Viva encinomom.

      Report Post »  
    • sWampy
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:43am

      Every day is opposite day to the liberal mind. I use mind loosely, but I guess even a gnat has a mind, even though they are very small, so it still fits.

      Report Post »  
    • Publius Duo
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:53am

      Quick Encinom who makes Immigration law per the Constitution? Without googling it. You can’t can you?

      Report Post » Publius Duo  
    • ferggie
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:55am

      Hay DUMBA$$ you might want to read the outcome. The part struck down were already law so they didn’t need to be approved. They accepted the only section that was not already law so basically AZ won and Obama lost. Stick that in your pipe loser.

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:58am

      Did you resad the Opinion, basically, the Court held that it was too early to hold 2(b) unconstitutional and is waiting for the State courts to issue rulingins regardig it. Basically, putting the State on notice to conform with Federal Law.

      “There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced. At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume §2(B) will be construed in a waythat creates a conflict with federal law….This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law asinterpreted and applied after it goes into effect.”

      Report Post »  
    • Publius Duo
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:07am

      Times up Encinom. Per the Constitution, Congress makes the Immigration Law. The President’s job is to enforce the Immigration law. Also according the the Constitution, upon being sworn President, he must take an oath to uphold the Constitution. By not enforcing Immigration law, the President is in violation of the Constitution, by willfully not enforcing laws passes by Congress, by this violation he is also reneged on his oath required by the Constitution to uphold it. So if anyone is attacking the Constitution, it’s Mr. Obama. Next time you want to attack any group come to the debate with the facts.

      Report Post » Publius Duo  
    • Publius Duo
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:12am

      What the ruling also says it‘s the Federal Government’s job to enforce Immigration laws which are on the books. By Obama not enforcing the existing Immigration law, he is breaking the law.

      Report Post » Publius Duo  
    • VanceUppercut
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:16am

      @encinom

      So, it was an attack on the Constitution because the Court affirmed the the Federal government is the only body that can CONSTITUTIONALLY enforce national immigration laws? So, you’re basically saying, “How dare they attack the Constitution by upholding the Constitution!?”. Still more proof that Cons know nothing about the things they claim to strand for. (e.g. so-called Christians who are perfectly fine with people dying because they don’t have health insurance, or their general “I’ve got mine, so screw everyone else” attitude).

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:18am

      @Publius Duo

      What are you chirppimg about, the Presidents directive. The executive sets the priority for the laws and determines how they will be enforced (I figured you would have learned that from the W. years).

      Report Post »  
    • Publius Duo
      Posted on June 26, 2012 at 11:11am

      @Encinom
      The laws are the laws. No one has the choice of which they want enforce. Show me where exactly in the Constitution does it give the President the ability to choose which laws to enforce. We don’t have a selective justice system, at least by Constitutional law anyway. But I forgot, you libs deal in case law, because the Constitution is old and antiquated, right? Just for the record genius, I said the same thing when Bush was the president. As a Libertarian, I have no political bias, unlike yourself. Again, come to the debate with the facts, not your opinion of what the facts are based on your political bias.

      Report Post » Publius Duo  
    • dmerwin
      Posted on June 26, 2012 at 5:40pm

      encinom
      Look knucklehead the federal government is not complying with federal law. Thus the issue.

      Report Post » dmerwin  
  • sWampy
    Posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:29am

    This is the kind of ****** rulings we get when we load our courts with corrupt idiots, instead of the best and brightest. Our kids are so screwed.

    Report Post »  
    • VanceUppercut
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:11am

      @sWampy
      “This is the kind of ****** rulings we get when we load our courts with corrupt idiots, instead of the best and brightest.”

      Hey, don’t talk about Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas like that. They can’t help being stupid, it’s some sort of glandular problem.

      Report Post »  
1 2 3 4

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love