If §3 of the Arizona statute were valid, every State could give itself independent authority to prosecute federal registration violations, “diminish[ing] the [Federal Government]’s control over enforcement” and “detract[ing] from the ‘integrated scheme of regulation’ created by Congress.”
So it's all about federal 'control' and states can not enforce federal law??? Good to know. This should save the states a lot of their budget by not assisting the federal government with enforcement of any of their laws.
Break a federal law?; Don't worry about local police holding them in jail for the feds to take custody. This could be the first step in eliminating all those government agencies we lived fine without for the first few hundred years of this nation.
Scalia: [This decision] deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there.
The Government complains that state officials might not heed “federal priorities.” Indeed they might not, particularly if those priorities include willful blindness or deliberate inattention to the presence of removable aliens in Arizona.
No kidding.
Thomas: Despite the lack of any conflict between the ordinary meaning of the Arizona law and that of the federal laws at issue here, the Court holds that various provisions of the Arizona law are pre-empted because they “stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”
In other words, if congress doesn't want the law of the land enforced; states are prohibited from enforcing the law of the land. Picking and choosing which laws to enforce or not is the very definition of tyranny. We had a little thing called the revolution because of it.
Alito: The United States’ attack on §2(B) is quite remarkable. The United States suggests that a state law may be pre-empted, not because it conflicts with a federal statute or regulation, but because it is inconsistent with a federal agency’s current enforcement priorities. Those priorities, however, are not law.
Alito: The United States’ attack on §2(B) is quite remarkable. The United States suggests that a state law may be pre-empted, not because it conflicts with a federal statute or regulation, but because it is inconsistent with a federal agency’s current enforcement priorities. Those priorities, however, are not law.
Remarkable, when used by a supreme court judge, is quite remarkable. It means, really pay close attention to what I'm saying. Again, this is about a fall into tyranny, where the law of the land is not really the law of the land; rule of law is the only protection citizens have from tyranny. Eliminate that and we no longer live in the land of the free; the brave better do something this next election.
Update: my comment at Legal Insurrection.
Update: my comment at Legal Insurrection.
No comments:
Post a Comment