Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
The opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Arizona, et al. v. United States (.pdf), cite as 567 U. S. ____ (2012), is some 76 pages in the .pdf format. The Syllabus of the opinion, however, will tell you the substance of the Court's decision. I have added emphasis to some portions of the Syllabus.
An Arizona statute known as S. B. 1070 was enacted in 2010 to address pressing issues related to the large number of unlawful aliens in the State. The United States sought to enjoin the law as preempted. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing four of its provisions from taking effect. Section 3 makes failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor; §5(C) makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work in the State; §6 authorizes state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person “the officer has probable cause to believe . . . has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States”; and §2(B) requires officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest to make efforts, in some circumstances, to verify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the United States had established a likelihood of success on its preemption claims.
Held:
1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to“establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1, 10. Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories ofaliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so, see §1227. Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal aliens. It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which provides immigration status information to federal, state, and local officials around the clock. Pp. 2–7.
2. The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law. A statute may contain an express preemption provision, see, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting, 563 U. S. ___, ___, but state law must also give way to federal law in at least two other circumstances. First, States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U. S. 88, 115. Intent can be inferred from a framework of regulation “so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it” or where a “federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230. Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67. Pp. 7–8.
Arizona Legislature 2014: not much new under the sun
By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings
A couple of early updates from the new session of the legislative session:
While some of the names have changed, some things haven't changed at the Capitol. Like the arrogance and culture of entitlement among the majority caucus.
Exhibit 1: They're proposing to pay any legislators, current and past, who claim to have incurred legal costs from lawsuits against their infamous anti-immigrant measure, SB1070. (Arizona Capitol Times, subscription required)
Something similar to this has been proposed before this week; after former senator Russell Pearce was recalled. There was a move to reimburse him for the costs of his campaign in (unsuccessful) defense of him. That move didn't go far, not least because he didn't actually pay for his defense - contributors did.
Pearce's acolytes in the lege may have failed the first time, but they haven't stopped looking for ways to funnel taxpayer money to him.
Exhibit 2: One state legislator, Sen. Don Shooter (R-Yuma), in response to proposals to end the practice of legislators accepting tickets to sporting events from lobbyists, proclaimed that unless legislators get a pay raise he's going to keep accepting bribes tickets.
For the record: I actually agree with Shooter on one thing - legislative pay should be raised. Most would-be public servants are honest and honorable people. However, they also have families to support and cannot do that on the current legislative salary of $24K per year.
So, instead of people who want to work for the best interests of their constituents and the state, Arizona ends up with the majority of the legislature is made up of whackjobs and grifters.
I'll leave it to readers to determine for themselves which category (or both, they're not mutually exclusive) that Shooter fits in.
In any event, he knew what the pay level for legislators was *before* he took his oath of office. While I think that legislative pay is too low, that doesn't justify corruption. He gets absolutely no sympathy on this.
Continue reading "Arizona Legislature 2014: not much new under the sun" »
Jan 15, 2014 9:07:20 PM | Arizona State Legislature, Commentary, Corruption, CPMAZ Craig McDermott, Religion, SB1070