Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Federal Law Is Not To Be Enforced

Does this mean that all federal laws are not to be enforced within the boarders of a state, or just some of the laws, or maybe just one of the laws??? Why does congress bother to pass laws that if any state dares to enforce them, they are taken to court? Obviously Obama doesn’t know the purpose of Law, just the purpose of tyranny.

By de Andréa

A federal judge on Wednesday blocked some of the toughest provisions of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s illegal immigration law, putting on hold the state's attempt to have local police enforce existing federal immigration policy.

Though the rest of the law is still set to go into effect, the partial injunction on SB 1070 means Arizona, for the time being, will not be able to require police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest, in other words, no usual background checks. If I were the chief of the Arizona state police, I would tell Obama and his communist goons, to go suck an egg. And to some degree this is just what he might do.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also struck down the section of law that makes it a crime not to carry immigration registration papers. The judge apparently doesn’t know that the congressionally passed federal law has for many years, required immigrants to carry visas and or green cards. And also the provision that makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek or perform work. How about the provision that makes it a crime to seek or perform a crime? I guess that one is gone as well…

Click here to read the ruling.
In all, Bolton struck down four sections of the law, the ones that opponents called the most controversial. Bolton said she was putting those sections on hold until the courts resolve the issues.

The ruling said the Obama administration, which sought the injunction, is likely to "succeed on the merits" in showing the above provisions are preempted by federal law.
"The court by no means disregards Arizona's interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns, and money," the ruling said. "Even though Arizona's interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preemptive laws."

So what this is telling me is --- that because the fed believes that all federal law is preemptive, then it is not in the public interest for federal law to be enforced within the boarders of any state. Sound confusing? Well it should. This is what happens when law is abandoned for the sake of tyranny.

Does this ruling apply to all states? Is this a federal preemptive ‘ruling’? If yes, then if one is --- lets say, is stopped for running a red light or exceeding the posted speed limit by 5 miles or so, can you just say to the officer “لا أفهم يا سيدي الضابط الإنكليزي and then he will have to let you go because he cannot ask you for your identification?

Is this a court ruling that preempts the law? This is case law --- does it preempt federal law already on the books? Is this a case of ruling the country from the bench? Of course it is…

A number of provisions will still go into effect as the case is litigated. Arizona will still be able to block state officials from so-called "sanctuary city" policies limiting enforcement of federal law that require that state officials to work with federal officials on illegal immigration; allow civil suits over sanctuary cities; and make it a crime to pick up day laborers.

The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations to speak out against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.

Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said the court "ruled correctly" with its decision Wednesday. "While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement and would ultimately be counterproductive," August said. Got news for you Hannah, it isn’t Arizona that has the broken immigration system, it isn’t even the immigration system that is broken, it is the Federal Government that is broken…

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., one of the most vocal advocates on immigration issues on Capitol Hill, applauded the decision. Now --- the following statement typifies the stuck on stupid ignorance of the Democrat Communist Liberals. "Arresting people based on their appearance and holding them until you can investigate their immigration status is patently un-American and unconstitutional," Rep. Gutierrez said. Mr. Gutierrez,,, READ THE LAW, the law has nothing to do with how they are dressed or how they appear. Moreover, ‘you’, along with the illegals are the ones who are un-American Mr. Gutierrez.

By contrast, someone who obviously has at least read the law: Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., called the ruling "misguided." --- "The federal government has a right and a responsibility to enforce existing laws, but when they fail to meet that responsibility, we should not stand in the way of the states that take action to respond to the very real threat of border violence, drug cartels, and human smuggling.” He said in a written statement. "There's nowhere in the Constitution that says a state is limited to what it absolutely won't do and can be stopped for what it might do and to exercise a judgment against a state that has passed a law that is consistent with existing federal law is beyond absurd."

The volume of the protests will likely be turned down a few notches because of the ruling by Bolton, a Clinton advocate appointee who suddenly became a judge and a crucial figure in the immigration debate when she was assigned the seven lawsuits filed against the Arizona law.

Lawyers for the state of Arizona contend the law was ‘a constitutionally sound attempt’ by Arizona -- the busiest illegal gateway into the country -- to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing, and providing health care for illegal immigrants.

Opponents argued the law ‘will’ lead to racial profiling, (now the communists are fortune tellers seeing into the future, they can’t even see the nose in front of their face) and conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. What could be more serious than fighting crimes of murder, rape, kidnapping, and a host of other violent crimes committed by illegal criminal aliens.

Localities inside Arizona were already preparing to enforce the law. The hardest-line approach was expected in the Phoenix area, where Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio plans his 17th crime and immigration sweep. He plans to hold the sweep regardless of the ruling. Thumbs up Sheriff.

Arpaio, known for his tough stance against illegal immigration, plans to send out about 200 deputies and volunteers who will be looking for traffic violators, people wanted on criminal warrants and others. He has used that tactic before to arrest dozens of people, many of them illegal immigrants. "We don't wait. We just do it," he said. "If there's a new law out, we're going to enforce it."

Now you might be inclined to misinterpret this as racial profiling or discrimination on point of origin. But this is your programmed indoctrinated liberal mind talking without thinking. Take a closer look at what the sheriff plans to do, nowhere is there any reference to race, point of origin, or ethnicity. The Quote, “…will be looking for traffic violators, people wanted on criminal warrants and others”… This is what law enforcement does, this is what law enforcement is suppose to do. Enforce the law and arrest the criminals. It just so happens that 70% of the criminals in Arizona are illegal aliens from Mexico and the Middle East.

THE BOTTOM LINE: California --- look out! A large number of illegals have already moved into southern California, anticipating the new law. The Liberal Communists of Los Angles might get a real backlash for their attempted boycott of Arizona.

But then this might just wake up some of those sleeping politically correct tolerant multi-Culturalistic elitist aristocrats in L.A. that nothing uncomfortable ever touches, to the reality of the foreign criminal invasion that has been going on unabated for years in America.

Ask yourself, as a legal citizen, what crimes am I going to be exempt from?

Arizona is standing up for their sovereign rights --- that’s why they are in trouble with the National Dictatorship…

de Andréa

No comments: