Can States Mirror Federal Laws? Obama v. AZ

[Republicanideal]

please explain exactly what that means.

Congruence in the sense of state and federal law means the Federal Law is the given law and States can make complimentary laws to this federal law to enforce it on the state level or even lessen it in some cases on the state level but cannot conflict with the Federal law in enforcement. Take for example the medical Marijuana issue. The states of Oregon, Washington, and California and others have state laws allowing the use of Medical Marijuana but the Federal laws regarding Marijuana are that it is an illegal narcotic no matter what the usage. This is an example of a state law lessening on the state level. It is not in conflict, it is congruent and has not been challenged or overturned because it is not hindering Federal enforcement but simply limiting state enforcement of the same law.

The same would be with the Arizona Immigration law on the opposite end. It is not lessening, but enforcing through state action on the state level of Federal Laws by providing the manpower from the state to enforce it and not preventing the Federal Governement from enforcement at the same time.

 

[Republicanideal]

just like abortion.

precisely. I may not like it but they were not being activist. the case was brought to the supreme court on the issue of privacy and they sought a right in the Constition and applied the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th amendments throught he Due process clause of the 14th to get a right to privacy(Griswald v. Connetticut) and applied it to abortion as a privacy issue for the mother(Roe v. Wade). I dont agree with this ruling but I do not consider it Judicial activism it is the Supreme Court doing its job like it or not.

 

[Republicanideal]

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.

lets first get a picture of what invasion actually is defined as and how it is being used differently between liberals and Conservatives.

invasion n.
1. (Military) the act of invading with armed forces
2. any encroachment or intrusion

According to this definition the flow of illegals across the border constitutes an invasion. The problem is that you are trying to say that Arizona is "making" its own immigration law. It is not. The bill simply provides for state level enforcement of current federal immigration laws by directing state resources to the enforcement. This is common misconception by liberals who simply want to be right without even reading the bill.

 

[Groucho]

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!

OK, ready? I AGREE WITH YOU.

As I said in many many threads, there is no such thing really as "judicial activism." Judges interpret the Constitution -- that's what the do -- yet whenever they do so and produce a result conservatives don't like, they scream "judicial activism".

The Constitution is not always clear and concise for every issue, and this is one of them. So what are conservatives doing to make their case? They are INTERPRETING it the way that benefits themselves. They are encouraging "judicial activism."

Good luck getting any of them to admit it.

 

[Republicanideal]

OK, ready? I AGREE WITH YOU.

As I said in many many threads, there is no such thing really as "judicial activism." Judges interpret the Constitution -- that's what the do -- yet whenever they do so and produce a result conservatives don't like, they scream "judicial activism".

The Constitution is not always clear and concise for every issue, and this is one of them. So what are conservatives doing to make their case? They are INTERPRETING it the way that benefits themselves. They are encouraging "judicial activism."

Good luck getting any of them to admit it.

Liberals do the same type of complaining when they dont get the result they want. So this is not just a conservative thing.

 

[Groucho]

Liberals do the same type of complaining when they dont get the result they want. So this is not just a conservative thing.

Well, I will complain if a judge ignores the Constitution, of course. And I will disagree with decisions that I don't like.

That's not the same thing are complaining that the judges are being "activists." That's a key word conservatives use that means "liberal." And it's hypocritical, because I can easily point to conservative decisions that are just as "activist".

 

[Kernel Sanders]

lets first get a picture of what invasion actually is defined as and how it is being used differently between liberals and Conservatives.

invasion n.
1. (Military) the act of invading with armed forces
2. any encroachment or intrusion

According to this definition the flow of illegals across the border constitutes an invasion. The problem is that you are trying to say that Arizona is "making" its own immigration law. It is not. The bill simply provides for state level enforcement of current federal immigration laws by directing state resources to the enforcement. This is common misconception by liberals who simply want to be right without even reading the bill.

According to that definition a telemarketer calling during dinner constitutes an invasion

 

[Republicanideal]

According to that definition a telemarketer calling during dinner constitutes an invasion

I would think more of a hacker who hacks you personal files on your computer if we are going form the physical to the non physical types of invasion IMHO.

 

[Republicanideal]

Well, I will complain if a judge ignores the Constitution, of course. And I will disagree with decisions that I don't like.

What make you think that the Judge or court ignores the constitution? In every case I can cite there is a constitutional point cited to justify the ruling. Such as Mcdonald v. Chicago. The court ruled based on the 2nd amendment ruling of DC v. Heller. They simply took the federal ruling by the court and applied it to the states through the Due Process clause of the 14th. How is that ignoring the Constitution? I am assuming that you were agains thte McDonald v. Chicago ruling being a liberal. Correct me if I am wrong.

That's not the same thing are complaining that the judges are being "activists." That's a key word conservatives use that means "liberal." And it's hypocritical, because I can easily point to conservative decisions that are just as "activist".

I will sum things up in one word "Politics!" The activism word may not be used in Liberal circles to criticize a ruling that was not in their favor but that does not mean the same idea is not there just under a different word. I dont know the exact term then again I am not a Liberal. Conservatives just got to this word first and applied it to say "We disagree with this ruling!" It is also to say, if I may add, that Conservatives want a strict following of the constitution as opposed to a more liberal view of an evolving and living constitution that changes to the human condition and that we must be "sensitive" to people's needs in society.

 

[liblady]

lets first get a picture of what invasion actually is defined as and how it is being used differently between liberals and Conservatives.

invasion n.
1. (Military) the act of invading with armed forces
2. any encroachment or intrusion

According to this definition the flow of illegals across the border constitutes an invasion. The problem is that you are trying to say that Arizona is "making" its own immigration law. It is not. The bill simply provides for state level enforcement of current federal immigration laws by directing state resources to the enforcement. This is common misconception by liberals who simply want to be right without even reading the bill.

i'm sorry, you've mistaken me for someone else. i never claimed that az was making it's own immigration law, and, i have the read bill. so stop jumping to conclusions and read what people post before you spout off about "liberals". and btw, good luck with that intrusion definition. lol.

 

[Republicanideal]

i'm sorry, you've mistaken me for someone else. i never claimed that az was making it's own immigration law, and, i have the read bill. so stop jumping to conclusions and read what people post before you spout off about "liberals". and btw, good luck with that intrusion definition. lol.

Perhaps I did mistake you for someone else. I know assumptions and stereotypes can get in the way of proper posting. I apologize for lumping you in there.

Question: Do you think that Arizona is setting its own foreign policy and Immigration rules against Federal laws regulating immigration?

 

[liblady]

Perhaps I did mistake you for someone else. I know assumptions and stereotypes can get in the way of proper posting. I apologize for lumping you in there.

Question: Do you think that Arizona is setting its own foreign policy and Immigration rules against Federal laws regulating immigration?

i think the az is designed to appeal to the hysteria surrounding illegal immigration. i have no problem with az trying to force the feds to deport illegals, i have a problem with what i think will be the misuse of this law.

that said, i think amnesty, along with very tight border enforcement, denial of benefits to any new illegals, and at least temporarily doing away with the anchor baby law will go a long way towards solving the problem. oh, and vigorous enforcement of fines on employers who hire illegals, right down to the putz who hires illegals to cut his grass.

 

[Republicanideal]

i think the az is designed to appeal to the hysteria surrounding illegal immigration. i have no problem with az trying to force the feds to deport illegals, i have a problem with what i think will be the misuse of this law.

that said, i think amnesty, along with very tight border enforcement, denial of benefits to any new illegals, and at least temporarily doing away with the anchor baby law will go a long way towards solving the problem. oh, and vigorous enforcement of fines on employers who hire illegals, right down to the putz who hires illegals to cut his grass.

I am happy to know what you think about he matter but it still doesnt answer the question: "Do you think that Arizona is setting its own foreign policy and Immigration rules against Federal laws regulating immigration?"

 

[Groucho]

What make you think that the Judge or court ignores the constitution? In every case I can cite there is a constitutional point cited to justify the ruling.

Sure and in almost every one, there is a dissent that disagrees. Sometimes I agree with the majority and sometimes I agree with the dissent. Which one is "right?" Well, it depends on your interpretation of the Constitution.

I will sum things up in one word "Politics!" The activism word may not be used in Liberal circles to criticize a ruling that was not in their favor but that does not mean the same idea is not there just under a different word.

I can't think of any, and I teach Constitutional Law.

There's nothing at all wrong with criticizing what the court does. My complaint is that conservatives try to pretend they are above politics by saying any decision they disagree with is because the judges aren't using "strict interpretation" and other key words when really they should just stop and admit that they just don't like the decision.

The problem is that when the exact same kind of reasoning is used to give them a decision they like, they don't go screaming "judicial activism" even though by an objective standard the decision clearly is.

It's the hypocrisy I hate, not the term.

I mean, even I agree that there can be such as thing as "judicial activism" -- Bush v. Gore is the most clear cut recent example. But I am not against judicial activism per se, because I am not a hypocrite.

Conservatives want a strict following of the constitution as opposed to a more liberal view of an evolving and living constitution that changes to the human condition and that we must be "sensitive" to people's needs in society.

Well, of course, that's what they say but that also isn't true. A strict reading would prohibit "In God We Trust" on our coins, for instance. (Even the Court has ruled it's a violation, but said it was "de minimus" -- so minor as to not be a violation). Good luck finding a conservative who supports that. A strict reading of the 2nd amendment could just as easily find that guns should be regulated (because the amendment is so poorly written). A strict reading of the 14th amendment prohibiting discrimination against any "person" could easily be interpreted to provide gay rights, since gays are people.

See what I mean?

I wish both sides would just stop playing games about it all, pretending that they're being consistent and true to the Constitution. Because the Constitution is subject to interpretation, there is not one "true" vision (even the founding fathers disagreed on its meaning).

 

[Republicanideal]

Sure and in almost every one, there is a dissent that disagrees. Sometimes I agree with the majority and sometimes I agree with the dissent. Which one is "right?" Well, it depends on your interpretation of the Constitution.

I see nothing wrong here

I can't think of any, and I teach Constitutional Law.

I'm sure there is I will have to do more research and see if there is an actual word used by Liberals.

There's nothing at all wrong with criticizing what the court does. My complaint is that conservatives try to pretend they are above politics by saying any decision they disagree with is because the judges aren't using "strict interpretation" and other key words when really they should just stop and admit that they just don't like the decision.

And Liberals are any different? Liberals are up in arms over the recent ruling on the issue of the 2nd amendment. In fact Liberal Richard Daley is already crafting new gun ban laws that he says "arent in violation of the constitution." Which is a bunch of crap.

The problem is that when the exact same kind of reasoning is used to give them a decision they like, they don't go screaming "judicial activism" even though by an objective standard the decision clearly is.

Which is why I say tha "Judicial activism does not exist. the only thing that is going on is the Supreme court doing its job of interpreting the Constitution.

It's the hypocrisy I hate, not the term.

Liberals are just as hypocritical if not worse so dont go throwing that term around so lightly.

I mean, even I agree that there can be such as thing as "judicial activism" -- Bush v. Gore is the most clear cut recent example. But I am not against judicial activism per se, because I am not a hypocrite.

Exactly how is Bush v. Gore not the Supreme Court doing its job?

Well, of course, that's what they say but that also isn't true. A strict reading would prohibit "In God We Trust" on our coins, for instance.

No it wouldnt.

(Even the Court has ruled it's a violation, but said it was "de minimus" -- so minor as to not be a violation). Good luck finding a conservative who supports that.

If you are referring to Lemon v. Kurtzman and just a few others I can tell you the court has ruled also that just passing references are allowe such as Lynch v. Donnelly.

A strict reading of the 2nd amendment could just as easily find that guns should be regulated (because the amendment is so poorly written).

What is funny is that Liberals cant seem to find any place where the framers poorly wrote the Constitution but then they get to the Second Amendment and say "wait a minute...." a Strict read would not lead to that conclusion it clearly says "The right of the people" not "the right of the militias."

A strict reading of the 14th amendment prohibiting discrimination against any "person" could easily be interpreted to provide gay rights, since gays are people.

The problem is that if you go that rout and apply equal protection of the laws then gay people are completely subject to the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the case anyway, which in of itself is not unconstitutional. There is no rout after that to go for "gay rights."

See what I mean?

Not entirely

 

[Harshaw]

Well, I will complain if a judge ignores the Constitution, of course. And I will disagree with decisions that I don't like.

That's not the same thing are complaining that the judges are being "activists." That's a key word conservatives use that means "liberal." And it's hypocritical, because I can easily point to conservative decisions that are just as "activist".

You were asked exactly how Arizona is setting its own foreign policy. I didn't see a response.

Please provide one, or link me to it if I missed it.

 

[Harshaw]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought.