The Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday over Arizona’s immigration-crackdown law, but Democrats
are already preparing for a potential loss by saying they’ll try to
pass legislation stripping states of the power to enact their own
immigration rules.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer,
New York Democrat, said his legislation would establish federal primacy
in immigration by blocking states from taking any action. That would
not only preclude state law enforcement efforts like the Arizona model
now before the court, but also would overturn a Supreme Court ruling last year that upheld a different Arizona law requiring businesses to verify their workers’ legal status.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
6 comments:
make Schumer live on the border or at least in the state of Arizona forever...
Looks like the Barack crew knows they are so wrong on so many issues, and are so ready to violate the Constitution at every turn, they are willing to take a flunky like Schumer to try to circumvent the inevitable. How're they going to do it with healthcare?
Democrats like Upchuck Shumer are once again proving they could carre less about the rule of law and only about the next election. They are trying their best to transform the U.S. to something that our ancesters would not recognize. God help us if Obama is re-elected and unchecked in a second term.
It's a disgrace and an insult to all Americans that one party is so hell bent on breaking the law.I can't understand how anyone could support these legislators.
It will never pass the House so Schumer can take a hike!
You know, after reading the last article on this where thr constitution was mentioned, I scoured the Constitution and all its amendments for anything having to do with giving control of immigration or citizenship and found the following:
Article 1 Section 8, "The Congress shall have the power... to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations;" which might be construed to maybr the underwear bomber, and any crimes committed outside out borders, but on our ships or planes. Nothing here about immigration policy.
And then there's Amendment 11, which states,"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the citizens of another state, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." This specifically prohibits the U.S. Judiciary from touching an immigration case.
Lastly, then, we come to the 9th and 10th Amendments, which state, (9)"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparge others retained to the people.", which gives the people the specific right to deal with immigration, and (10) "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the Poeple."
All saying, again, It's up to the States and their own people to deal with it.
Even if it is argued that in Article 2, Section 2 the President will be the Commander in Cheif of the Army and Navy, and he may be able through that to catch "Invaders", he still needs Congress' approval, and then it's only good for 2 years.
So, there.
Post a Comment