• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can States Mirror Federal Laws? Obama v. AZ

friday

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
801
Reaction score
196
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Obama is officially suing the state of Arizona for usurping the Federal Government’s immigration enforcement responsibilities. He is not arguing that the text of Arizona’s law itself is unconstitutional, which is good since it mirrors Federal law. Instead, the administration is arguing that according to the constitution, ONLY the Federal government can implement and enforce immigration laws.

Obama is a constitutional scholar. Is he right?

Here’s an even better question. What are the implications? If only the US Federal government can enforce immigration laws, then what about other laws? What about kidnapping or crossing state lines? If a state cop pulls someone over and discovers they have violated federal law, do they constitutionally have to let them go and hope the federal authorities find them? In fact, if Arizona’s immigration laws are unconstitutional, what about Florida’s kidnapping laws?

By Obama’s scholarly constitutional interpretation, if a state cop pulls over an illegal immigrant engaged in kidnapping, stealing major art works from a museum, federal tax evasion, using counterfeit money, having just come from assassinating the President with a machine gun, the state cop has to let them go because only the Federal Government can enforce federal crimes. In fact, by Obama’s reasoning, states cannot even write laws making counterfeiting, grand theft, kidnapping, etc illegal.

Article IV, Section 4 of the US constitution says that the US government must protect the states from foreign invasion. Should it be Arizona that is suing Obama and his administration for not protecting them from foreign invasion? Is Obama’s refusal to fight illegal immigration a violation of the constitution?

Article I, Section 10 says this: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

“Unless actually invaded”? It sounds to me that Arizona has the constitutional authority to not only write and enforce their own illegal immigration laws, but to also declare war on the cartels and other violent illegal invaders.

What is clear from the constitution is not that Arizona is enforcing immigration laws and shouldn’t be. It is that Obama should be enforcing immigration laws and isn’t.
 

Groucho

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
933
Location
Pocono Mountains, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yes, he's right. You can't have states deciding foreign policies. You can't have 50 states each having their own separate rules regarding other countries.

All the conservatives who yell about the original intent and the plain meaning of the Constitution surely agree, right? I mean, otherwise you'd be blatant hypocrites.

Your example of a state cop having to let someone go who he catches in the act of committing a federal crime is ridiculous and is not the law and is NOT what Obama is saying.

But then again, the best way to debate a point you are going to lose is to make up something the person never said and attack that instead, isn't it?

Should I add "dishonest" to the "hypocrite" description?
 
Last edited:

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
28,234
Reaction score
11,693
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yes, he's right. You can't have states deciding foreign policies. You can't have 50 states each having their own separate rules regarding other countries.

All the conservatives who yell about the original intent and the plain meaning of the Constitution surely agree, right? I mean, otherwise you'd be blatant hypocrites.

Your example of a state cop having to let someone go who he catches in the act of committing a federal crime is ridiculous and is not the law and is NOT what Obama is saying.

But then again, the best way to debate a point you are going to lose is to make up something the person never said and attack that instead, isn't it?

Should I add "dishonest" to the "hypocrite" description?

How is AZ 1070 setting foreign policy? Is CA 834b code setting foreign policy?
 

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
90,644
Reaction score
29,133
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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 people.
So what's been prohibited by the Constitution?
 

Groucho

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
933
Location
Pocono Mountains, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
So what's been prohibited by the Constitution?

You know, I started to write a really long and detailed response but then I decided "Why waste my time?" You know as well as I do that foreign policy is the sole power for the federal government, but you'll find some way to bend upside down and backwards to create some loophole to argue it doesn't apply.

As I pointed out, strict construction unless you disagree. Buncha hypocrites.
 
Last edited:

bicycleman

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
4,244
Reaction score
945
Location
Old Virginny
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
You know, I started to write a really long and detailed response but then I decided "Why waste my time?" You know as well as I do that foreign policy is the sole power for the federal government, but you'll find some way to bend upside down and backwards to create some loophole to argue it doesn't apply.

As I pointed out, strict construction unless you disagree. Buncha hypocrites.

So do you believe that American law should be determined by European law?
 

Crunch

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You know, I started to write a really long and detailed response but then I decided "Why waste my time?" You know as well as I do that foreign policy is the sole power for the federal government, but you'll find some way to bend upside down and backwards to create some loophole to argue it doesn't apply.

As I pointed out, strict construction unless you disagree. Buncha hypocrites.

So you have no defense for your idea that the Arizona law is setting foreign policy? Good, the idea is absurd.

I think American's point was that the Fed has no jurisdiction over immigration policy, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.... but you probably think the Constitution is a "living document", lib speak for “we can make it say whatever we want it say“.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,164
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
So you have no defense for your idea that the Arizona law is setting foreign policy? Good, the idea is absurd.

I think American's point was that the Fed has no jurisdiction over immigration policy, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.... but you probably think the Constitution is a "living document", lib speak for “we can make it say whatever we want it say“.

you seriously believe states have a right to set their own immigration policy?
 

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
you seriously believe states have a right to set their own immigration policy?

I believe that anyone, any settlement, any town, any City, any State, any Country individually has the right to protect itself from foreign invasion.
If the Government will not defend then the individual will be compelled to defend their territory.
Believing anything else means you would be agreeable to anyone entering your house and using it for their purposes regardless of your protests.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,164
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I believe that anyone, any settlement, any town, any City, any State, any Country individually has the right to protect itself from foreign invasion.
If the Government will not defend then the individual will be compelled to defend their territory.
Believing anything else means you would be agreeable to anyone entering your house and using it for their purposes regardless of your protests.

that does not describe setting immigration policy in any way. and the constitution prohibits the states going to war unless invaded or in imminent danger. illegal immigration hardly qualifies.
 

Republicanideal

New member
Joined
Jul 13, 2010
Messages
32
Reaction score
3
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Obama is officially suing the state of Arizona for usurping the Federal Government’s immigration enforcement responsibilities. He is not arguing that the text of Arizona’s law itself is unconstitutional, which is good since it mirrors Federal law. Instead, the administration is arguing that according to the constitution, ONLY the Federal government can implement and enforce immigration laws.

Obama is a constitutional scholar. Is he right?

Here’s an even better question. What are the implications? If only the US Federal government can enforce immigration laws, then what about other laws? What about kidnapping or crossing state lines? If a state cop pulls someone over and discovers they have violated federal law, do they constitutionally have to let them go and hope the federal authorities find them? In fact, if Arizona’s immigration laws are unconstitutional, what about Florida’s kidnapping laws?

By Obama’s scholarly constitutional interpretation, if a state cop pulls over an illegal immigrant engaged in kidnapping, stealing major art works from a museum, federal tax evasion, using counterfeit money, having just come from assassinating the President with a machine gun, the state cop has to let them go because only the Federal Government can enforce federal crimes. In fact, by Obama’s reasoning, states cannot even write laws making counterfeiting, grand theft, kidnapping, etc illegal.

Article IV, Section 4 of the US constitution says that the US government must protect the states from foreign invasion. Should it be Arizona that is suing Obama and his administration for not protecting them from foreign invasion? Is Obama’s refusal to fight illegal immigration a violation of the constitution?

Article I, Section 10 says this: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

“Unless actually invaded”? It sounds to me that Arizona has the constitutional authority to not only write and enforce their own illegal immigration laws, but to also declare war on the cartels and other violent illegal invaders.

What is clear from the constitution is not that Arizona is enforcing immigration laws and shouldn’t be. It is that Obama should be enforcing immigration laws and isn’t.


actually the state can enforce Federal immigration laws through a state level legislative act. The constituion prohibits treaties and trade agreements, and the collection of import taxes and tariffs. It does not prohibit a state to make a legislative act to enforce a pre-existing federal law to its fullest. In fact the SCOTUS has ruled in many instances that a state statute is only void insofar as it conflicts with a federal statute this can be found in Edgar v. Mite Corp for example. So to say a law or statute that is passed by a state to enforce a federal law is in conflict is just plain nonsense. It does not conflict or hinder in any sense of the word it actually helps it.
 

Republicanideal

New member
Joined
Jul 13, 2010
Messages
32
Reaction score
3
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
that does not describe setting immigration policy in any way. and the constitution prohibits the states going to war unless invaded or in imminent danger. illegal immigration hardly qualifies.

Enforcing a Federal law written in the consitution through a state legislative act is not "declaring a war" it is simply enforcing a Federal law written in the Constitution through a state legislative act.
 

Republicanideal

New member
Joined
Jul 13, 2010
Messages
32
Reaction score
3
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
you seriously believe states have a right to set their own immigration policy?

As long as it is congruence with Federal Law as per the Supreme court Rulings on Federal and State law congruence and confliction.
 

Crunch

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
you seriously believe states have a right to set their own immigration policy?

Show me in the Constitution where the fed has authority to set immigration policy.

(hint.... the word "immigration" does not appear in the Constitution, so the 10th amendment would apply)
 

Crunch

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
As long as it is congruence with Federal Law as per the Supreme court Rulings on Federal and State law congruence and confliction.

Welcome to the board.
 

Republicanideal

New member
Joined
Jul 13, 2010
Messages
32
Reaction score
3
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Show me in the Constitution where the fed has authority to set immigration policy.

(hint.... the word "immigration" does not appear in the Constitution, so the 10th amendment would apply)

you might try section 1 of the 14th amendment. Naturalization is immigration. This is the clause giving the United States Government the power to regulate who is a legal immigrant and who isnt. What this does not do is prohibit states from making laws enforcing such laws by the Federal Government as determined by the Supreme court regarding State and Federal law congruence.
 
Last edited:

Crunch

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
you might try section 1 of the 14th amendment. Naturalization is immigration. This is the clause giving the United States Government the power to regulate who is a legal immigrant and who isnt. What this does not do is prohibit states from making laws enforcing such laws by the Federal Government as determined by the Supreme court regarding State and Federal law congruence.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Nope, sorry.... that is the false argument for anchor babies.

What you are looking for is 1,8,4.

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Last time I looked, immigration had a different definition than naturalization.

1. the movement of non-native people into a country in order to settle there

immigration - definition of immigration by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

naturalization
the process of assuming or being granted citizenship of a country, usually a country other than that of the person’s origin.

naturalization - definition of naturalization by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Yup, still different. :mrgreen:
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Arizona law mirrors Fed law. If any one should be sued by the Fed Gov, it should be santuary cities. They are the one's making their own Immigration laws.
I agree with a post earlier where it was said Arizona should sue the Fed Gov for not doing their job.
 

Republicanideal

New member
Joined
Jul 13, 2010
Messages
32
Reaction score
3
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Nope, sorry.... that is the false argument for anchor babies.

What you are looking for is 1,8,4.

Minor v. Happersett disagrees.


The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Last time I looked, immigration had a different definition than naturalization.


Really? This will be addressed below but definition will be posted here:

Naturalize: 1. To grant full citizenship to (one of foreign birth).

Immigration: 1. the movement of non-native people into a country in order to settle there

Immigrate:To enter and settle in a country or region to which one is not native.


Keep these bolded areas in mind as we compare the two.







Think about this for a minute. Non Native people in comparison to those who are foreign born. Hmmm something seems to be up there must be a congruence here when comparing the two words. Now lets see Grant citizenship and Settle there. In the climate of nation states one must be granted citizenship in that particular state in order to settle there in the ideal legal fashion, not the bleeding border we have in the US. Unless you are in the state of nature where you have certain rights and one would be the right to everything. Luckily for us this isnt political theory class and we do not live in a state of nature we live in the real world with laws.
 
Last edited:

Groucho

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
933
Location
Pocono Mountains, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Sure does seem that conservatives are doing their best to take the Constitution and interpret it to mean what they want it to mean. I believe that's called "judicial activism" -- you know, that thing conservatives supposedly hate.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,164
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Enforcing a Federal law written in the consitution through a state legislative act is not "declaring a war" it is simply enforcing a Federal law written in the Constitution through a state legislative act.

did you miss this in the op?

“Unless actually invaded”? It sounds to me that Arizona has the constitutional authority to not only write and enforce their own illegal immigration laws, but to also declare war on the cartels and other violent illegal invaders.
 

Republicanideal

New member
Joined
Jul 13, 2010
Messages
32
Reaction score
3
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Sure does seem that conservatives are doing their best to take the Constitution and interpret it to mean what they want it to mean. I believe that's called "judicial activism" -- you know, that thing conservatives supposedly hate.

That is the typical blowhard response I would expect from a liberal. Explain to me how the citation of Judicial rulings on a subject of State and Federal law congruence or even rulings on who or who is not not a citizen, naturalized or native born, under the constitution constitutes Conservatives interpreting the Constitution in their own way? I hate to break it to you but the complaint of judicial activism by either side is just plain silly and politically motivated partisanship. The Supreme Court is doing its Constitutional Job of interpreting the Constitution and other laws. That is not activism! The Supreme Court just recently applied the 2nd amendment to the States throught he Due process clause of the 14th amendment, as it should have been applied. They were doing their Job in applying the 2nd amendment this way because all of the other amendments were applied to the states this way also through the Due process clause of the 14th Amendment. This is not Judicial activism this is the Supreme Court doing its job and thus becomes settled law!
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,164
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
That is the typical blowhard response I would expect from a liberal. Explain to me how the citation of Judicial rulings on a subject of State and Federal law congruence or even rulings on who or who is not not a citizen, naturalized or native born, under the constitution constitutes Conservatives interpreting the Constitution in their own way? I hate to break it to you but the complaint of judicial activism by either side is just plain silly and politically motivated partisanship. The Supreme Court is doing its Constitutional Job of interpreting the Constitution and other laws. That is not activism! The Supreme Court just recently applied the 2nd amendment to the States throught he Due process clause of the 14th amendment, as it should have been applied. They were doing their Job in applying the 2nd amendment this way because all of the other amendments were applied to the states this way also through the Due process clause of the 14th Amendment. This is not Judicial activism this is the Supreme Court doing its job and thus becomes settled law!

just like abortion.
 
Top Bottom