Thread: Justice Dept. expected to sue Ariz. on immigration, citing '

Justice Dept. expected to sue Ariz. on immigration, citing 'preemption' grounds

By Jerry Markon
Tuesday, July 6, 2010; A02



The Justice Department has decided to file suit against Arizona on the grounds that the state's new immigration law illegally intrudes on federal prerogatives, law enforcement sources said Monday.

The lawsuit, which three sources said could be filed as early as Tuesday, will invoke for its main argument the legal doctrine of "preemption," which is based on the Constitution's supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes. Justice Department officials believe that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility, the sources said.

A federal lawsuit will dramatically escalate the legal and political battle over the Arizona law, which gives police the power to question anyone if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal immigrant. The measure has drawn words of condemnation from President Obama and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and opposition from civil rights groups. It also has prompted at least five other lawsuits. Arizona officials have urged the Obama administration not to sue.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton first revealed last month that the Justice Department intended to sue Arizona, and department lawyers have been preparing their case, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the government has not announced its plans. The filing is expected to include declarations from other U.S. agencies saying that the Arizona law would place a undue burden on their ability to enforce immigration laws nationwide, because Arizona police are expected to refer so many illegal immigrants to federal authorities.

The preemption doctrine has been established in Supreme Court decisions, and some legal experts have said such a federal argument likely would persuade a judge to declare the law unconstitutional.

But lawyers who helped draft the Arizona legislation have expressed doubt that a preemption argument would prevail. The law, signed by Gov. Jan Brewer (R) in April, is scheduled to take effect later this month.

www.washingtonpost.com

Added to Homepage:
http://www.alipac.us/article-5426--0-0.html

So the Justice Department is going to sue the state of Arizona for doing what the Justice department is mandated by the Constitution to do and is failing to do . Thats an absurd position for the government to take. The government is supposed to do what the Constitution instructs it to do. Its case against Arizona is absurd. This makes the government look more and more STUPID.

Originally Posted by USA_born

So the Justice Department is going to sue the state of Arizona for doing what the Justice department is mandated by the Constitution to do and is failing to do . Thats an absurd position for the government to take. The government is supposed to do what the Constitution instructs it to do. Its case against Arizona is absurd. This makes the government look more and more STUPID.

its corruption, barack obama style.
chicago style, too

Because there is not justice coming from the justice department.

The filing is expected to include declarations from other U.S. agencies saying that the Arizona law would place a undue burden on their ability to enforce immigration laws nationwide, because Arizona police are expected to refer so many illegal immigrants to federal authorities.

But I thought that Illegal Immigration as a problem, and the numbers involved were greatly exaggerated by the "enforce the laws that are there" crowd... If that is the case then how could there be "so many illegal immigrants" as to be such a problem just from one state?

The Obama administration is way out of touch with the American people on this issue, and this further shows that he has no desire or intention to secure the border and enforce the law -- and also shows why we can never agree to "comprehensive immigration reform" amnesty.

Premption Doctrine:

A doctrine based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution that holds that certain matters are of such a national, as opposed to local, character that federal laws preempt or take precedence over state laws. As such, a state may not pass a law inconsistent with the federal law.

A doctrine of state law that holds that a state law displaces a local law or regulation that is in the same field and is in conflict or inconsistent with the state law.

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution provides that the "… Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." This Supremacy Clause has come to mean that the national government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power. The federal preemption doctrine is a judicial response to the conflict between federal and state legislation. When it is clearly established that a federal law preempts a state law, the state law must be declared invalid.

A state law may be struck down even when it does not explicitly conflict with federal law, if a court finds that Congress has legitimately occupied the field with federal legislation. Questions in this area require careful Balancing of important state and federal interests. Problems arise when Congress fails to make its purpose explicit, which is often the case. The court must then draw inferences based on the presumed objectives of federal law and the supposed impact of related State Action

preemption n. the rule of law that if the federal government through Congress has enacted legislation on a subject matter it shall be controlling over state laws and/or preclude the state from enacting laws on the same subject if Congress has specifically stated it has "occupied the field." If Congress has not clearly claimed preemption, a federal or state court may decide the issue on the basis of history of the legislation (debate in Congress) and practice. Example: Federal standards of meat or other products have preempted state laws. However, federal and state legislation on narcotics control may parallel each other.

The filing is expected to include declarations from other U.S. agencies saying that the Arizona law would place a undue burden on their ability to enforce immigration laws nationwide, because Arizona police are expected to refer so many illegal immigrants to federal authorities.

I am sure Sheriff Joe would have no problem deporting the illegals himself, all his needs from the feds is their database to determine who is illegal.

The filing is expected to include declarations from other U.S. agencies saying that the Arizona law would place a undue burden on their ability to enforce immigration laws nationwide, because Arizona police are expected to refer so many illegal immigrants to federal authorities.

Federal "occupation of the field" occurs, according to the Court in Pennsylvania v Nelson (1956), when there is "no room" left for state regulation. Courts are to look to the pervasiveness of the federal scheme of regulation, the federal interest at stake, and the danger of frustration of federal goals in making the determination as to whether a challenged state law can stand.