A lesson for tenthers in the Arizona ruling
On the angry end of the political spectrum, secession is in the air and a narrow reading of the US Constitution — with severely limited powers for the federal government — is all the rage. But the Constitution is interpreted by federal courts (according to the Constitution), and an Arizona federal judge has delivered a blow to tenthers who believe that the federal government should be allowed to do very little.
In rejecting key parts of the Arizona immigration law, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton agreed with the Obama administration’s views on “pre-emption,” a belief that states cannot usurp important federal powers.
From the WSJ:
A judge’s ruling blocking major portions of Arizona’s immigration law strengthened the Obama administration’s hand in a battle over states rights that appears destined for the Supreme Court.
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton in Phoenix sided with the Justice Department on the most important federal arguments accusing the state of crossing a constitutional line with a law aimed at curbing illegal immigration.
Several other states are considering similar laws, amid broad anti-immigration sentiment, and the ruling likely will contribute to deterring some of them. Underscoring the political implications of the legal fight, Arizona Republican Gov. Jan Brewer used her gubernatorial-campaign website to vow an appeal of the ruling, and the Republican Governors Association sent out a fund-raising letter from Ms. Brewer seeking donations. . .
Federal courts have given the federal government wide latitude over immigration laws, dating to 1880s laws aimed at limiting Chinese migrants. But in recent decades, courts have also allowed state laws that rely on federal law for their force.Jonathan Benner of Reed Smith LLP said the judge’s ruling was “surgical” in carving out areas where he believed the state clearly crossed the line. “She’s dealing with an area that’s suffused with federal authority,” he said.
An analysis in the NYT agrees that the ruling will likely deter other states from adopting a harsh law similar to Arizona’s:
Although Judge Bolton’s ruling is not final, it seems likely to halt, at least temporarily, an expanding movement by states to combat illegal immigration by making it a state crime to be an immigrant without legal documents and by imposing new requirements on state and local police officers to enforce immigration law.
“This is a warning to any other jurisdiction” considering a similar law, said Thomas A. Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund , which brought a separate suit against the law that is also before Judge Bolton.
I doubt if the ruling will serve to deter many states from similar laws. There may be a few governors and state legislatures who have the good sense — in these times of gaping state budget deficits — to refrain from engaging in expensive lawsuits they are unlikely to win. But most will not.
After all, governors and legislatures are endorsing such laws strictly for political reasons — to appease a nativist constituency that is angry over immigration. That backlash won’t be halted by common sense.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
355 comments Add your comment
polly
July 29th, 2010
2:09 pm
Illegal immigrants will be taken out of this country by this country’s patriots, whether or not the current clownish federal gov’t agrees with them. Those who entered the country illegally have used our hospitals, school systems and countless city/county resources for free, yet have paid no taxes to help support such resources. They should be removed by any means necessary.
The question conservatives can't answer
July 29th, 2010
2:11 pm
Notice how “From the Government and here to help” insist on using the term “ILLEGAL” to describe the immigrants here illegally, but when it comes to the CRIMINALS who knowingly hire them, “From the Government” insist on calling them “American Business Owners”?
So much for the “rule of law”.
mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!
July 29th, 2010
2:12 pm
Friends and supporters have rushed to the aid of military mom Patricia Roberts just days before she was to be evicted from her Lithonia home.
This is how it’s supose to work, neighbors, family, friends, churches…NOT government handouts from tax payers.
HDB
July 29th, 2010
2:13 pm
I’m here from the government and I’m here to help
July 29th, 2010
2:07 pm
…from SB 1070 (the part that permits racial profiling)!
A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.
It SHOULD read: A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may NOT consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.
It’s racial profiling…because it’s the LAW!! And I’m not using the “assume” defense…try the “driving while black” reality — been there, done that….seen the abuse!!
I’m here from the government and I’m here to help
July 29th, 2010
2:03 pm
The question conservatives can’t answer,
Duh, let me see. Turn in the ILLEGALS or the AMERICAN business OWNER. Which would you pick, dumb-ass!
If you stop it from the BACK end (employers), you’d eliminate the problem at the FRONT end (labor)……Who’d I pick! Start getting employers to follow the LAW and the rest would take care of itself!! I call them undocumented…because they don’t have the proper papers!!
I'm here from the government and I'm here to help
July 29th, 2010
2:13 pm
The question conservatives can’t answer,
Please tell me your not that dumb or maybe you are, who cares.
If an Illegal gives me a green card and it check’s out with ICE, who am I (AMERICAN BUSINESS OWNER) to say differently. Its’ the FEDS job not mine. I have a company to run. Which is a PROFIT based company not a charity.
Scout
July 29th, 2010
2:14 pm
The question conservatives can’t answer :
I am about as conservative as one can get and I agree with you …………. go after the business owners ……. every last one and the illegals will have to go home at least the great majority.
mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!
July 29th, 2010
2:15 pm
The question conservatives can’t answer – It’s easy enough for me – a vast right winger – send them both to jail You need to check on the dems – Charlie Rangel and his ilk (back door deal makers). Come on Cynthia where’s the outrage? Oh, that’s right he’s a hands off dem.
I'm here from the government and I'm here to help
July 29th, 2010
2:15 pm
The question conservatives can’t answer,
I have duly noted that you have no idea about how a company operates and therefore you are not worth my time in debating.
Sarah Palin
July 29th, 2010
2:16 pm
I shoot ilk from my helicopter.
HDB
July 29th, 2010
2:16 pm
mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama – BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!
July 29th, 2010
2:12 pm
Friends and supporters have rushed to the aid of military mom Patricia Roberts just days before she was to be evicted from her Lithonia home.
This is how it’s supose to work, neighbors, family, friends, churches…NOT government handouts from tax payers.
But when it DOESN’T work that way…and no one can help….what are the resorts a family has left?? I’m not saying that it’s to be a permanent situation…but there are cases that not even family, churches and friends could cover!! The Roberts’ advantage: MILITARY!!! Not all have that aspect!!
I'm here from the government and I'm here to help
July 29th, 2010
2:18 pm
HDB,
If you turn in the employers, then where are you going to get your Church’s Fried Chicken from?
JohnD
July 29th, 2010
2:19 pm
So, if the decision to limit the AZ law is that the state is pre-empting federal law, why doesn’t the federal government go after sanctuary cities that say they will not allow enforcement of federal immigration law?
The question conservatives can't answer
July 29th, 2010
2:20 pm
From the government, you haven’t even “duly noted” that you can READ. I specifically said employers who KNOWINGLY hire illegal aliens, yet you still insist on calling those who KNOWINGLY hire illegal aliens “American Business Owners’ and NOT the criminals they are.
mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!
July 29th, 2010
2:21 pm
HDB – Oh well, peolpe make stupid choices all the time. Cell phone, car, big screen TV, house instead of an apartment….If you can’t afford it, don’t buy it. Sorry, but I have NO pitty for the “I need it Now” folks that can’t really afford it.
I'm here from the government and I'm here to help
July 29th, 2010
2:21 pm
HDB,
If you turn in the employers and cause them to defend themselves and it turns out they obeyed the law to the best of their ability. Are you prepared for the civil suit for the damages you caused? Can you afford it? Do you have a job where I could garnish your wages for years to come. Think about it, son!
HDB
July 29th, 2010
2:22 pm
I’m here from the government and I’m here to help
July 29th, 2010
2:13 pm
Here’s the point that “The question conservatives can’t answer” is stating: for those employers who are NOT using due diligence, i.e., using e-Verify, would you go after them with the same enthusiasm as you would the laborers looking for work?? THAT’S the key here! Since most Arizona employers aren’t using e-Verify (see my 2:07), what is their liability??
Bawney Fwank
July 29th, 2010
2:24 pm
Just show more liberal judicial activism, ignoring the Constitution and rule of law!
Tech Man
July 29th, 2010
2:24 pm
HDB
July 29th, 2010
1:53 pm
That’s not a savings. That is the taxpayer subsidizing the state contribution.
It’s the federal government throwing out some sugar to aliviate the pain later on.
Rafe Hollister
July 29th, 2010
2:25 pm
Bush and his buddy John McCain had no problems with open borders and Amnesty. Obama pretty much agreed with them. Now that he is putting more resources on the Border than Bush did, he is suppossed to be credited with closing the border. I don’t think so. It is like a bucket with hundreds of holes in its bottom. Barry dropped some caulk over two of the holes and he is to be celebrated. He knew the bucket would still leak enough undeocumented democrat voters to help him.
If he refuses to enforce laws the congress passed, he should be impeached for failing to fulfill his oath of office. I believe he is sworn to protect us from all enemies foreign and domestic.
HDB
July 29th, 2010
2:26 pm
I’m here from the government and I’m here to help
July 29th, 2010
2:21 pm
HDB, If you turn in the employers and cause them to defend themselves and it turns out they obeyed the law to the best of their ability….
Look, IF the employers did due diligence, I have no problem; they are not liable…but there are those who do NOT…and they are the ones that need to be reviewed…and fined!! (again…look at my 2:07)!!
Tech Man
July 29th, 2010
2:26 pm
HDB
from your post:
The savings, however, last only until the end of the decade, when the federal law shifts a greater share of financial responsibility for Medicaid expansion to the states.
It does nothing to control costs. It expands the control of the federal government.
The question conservatives can't answer
July 29th, 2010
2:26 pm
“Please tell me your not that dumb or maybe you are, who cares.”
For future reference, “From the government,” it’s probably best not to have two grammatical errors in a single sentence when you are calling someone else “dumb” in that same sentence.
Harry Callahan
July 29th, 2010
2:27 pm
LOL at Cynthia…”There may be a few governors and state legislatures who have the good sense — in these times of gaping state budget deficits — to refrain from engaging in expensive lawsuits they are unlikely to win. But most will not.”
Well gee, Cynthia, in this time of gaping deficits, maybe it would be a good idea to deport the illegals, deny them the billions of dollars of welfare, education, and other benefits they receive illegally, and then unemployed American citizens could take some of the jobs left behin, start paying taxes, and get off the unemployment benefits, all of which would help decrease the gaping deficits. Does the AJC not have an editor who reviews your illiterate garbage before it gets printed?
The question conservatives can't answer
July 29th, 2010
2:29 pm
“The question conservatives can’t answer,
I have duly noted that you have no idea about how a company operates and therefore you are not worth my time in debating.”
Translation: I just got my @ss handed to me in a debate by having my hypocrisy thoroughly exposed on the subject of immigration, so I’m going to leave with my tail tucked between my legs and save what little dignity and credibility I have left on this blog.
I'm here from the government and I'm here to help
July 29th, 2010
2:31 pm
Fits the topic.
1. Teaching Math In 1950s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit ?
2. Teaching Math In 1960s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?
3. Teaching Math In 1970s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?
4. Teaching Math In 1980s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.
5. Teaching Math In 1990s
A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20.. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers, and if you feel like crying, it’s ok. )
6. Teaching Math In 2009
Un hachero vende una carretada de maderapara $100. El costo de la producciones es $80. Cuanto dinero ha hecho?
7. Teaching Math In 2010
Who cares, just steal the lumber from your rich neighbor’s property. He won’t have a gun to stop you, and the President says it’s OK anyway cuz its redistributing the wealth.
HDB
July 29th, 2010
2:34 pm
@ TechMan….to take it further:
The major elements of federal health care reform become effective in 2014.
The peak savings for the state take place in fiscal year 2016, when the state will save an estimated $250 million. But the savings begins dropping off in the next fiscal year to $145 million, then to $80 million in fiscal year 2018 and $46 million in fiscal year 2019.
Maryland currently has between 700,000 and 800,000 uninsured residents, according to state health department estimates. The report notes that after the federal law is fully implemented, that number will be cut in half.
The reason it will only reduce the rate by half is largely because the law doesn’t apply to people who are not citizens and because not everyone who is eligible for Medicaid applies for it.
The report points out that federal health care reform will have unique effects in Maryland. That’s because the state in recent years extended coverage to more than 200,000 people by expanding Medicaid eligibility to low-income adults. Maryland also has helped small employers offer coverage. In 2003, Maryland formed a high-risk pool for people barred from insurance for health reasons.
What Maryland is saying is that it will adjust during the time frame prior to takeover to insure that “the state must focus on bending the cost curve early in order to improve the outlook at the end of the decade.”
It’s better than what else that has been proposed!!
The question conservatives can't answer
July 29th, 2010
2:36 pm
From “From the Goverment’s” economics class.
A criminal KNOWINGLY hires an illegal alien to work for him. The person who commits that CRIMINAL act is known as:
A) a criminal
B) a great American, and how dare you compare him to a criminal!
HDB
July 29th, 2010
2:39 pm
All…have a great weekend….driving to Minnesota and Iowa…..
Tech Man
July 29th, 2010
2:45 pm
HDB
July 29th, 2010
2:34 pm
Mr. Samuelson correctly stated that Massachusetts didn’t try to control costs in its 2006 legislation and that there’s no consensus yet there on how to control health-care spending.
His is an opposing opinion.
David S
July 29th, 2010
2:46 pm
Read “Nullification” by Thomas Woods and see if you don’t agree that Nullification of unconstitutional federal legislation is not only allowed, but is a functional, necessary, and well-established mechanism that has been used successfully to push back the overreach of the federal government. Those of us who understand the limits the constitution was supposed to put on the federal government recognize that something must be done to reign the beast in. Nullification is the peaceful approach that states must ALL be willing to take.
It was used by Wisconsin to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act (yes, you black racists, it is not just for upholding slavery), and it has most recently been used to nullify the Real ID act, and federal anti-marijuana laws (medical marijuana). When California legalizes marijuana outright in November, hopefully another unconstitutional federal ban will begin to fall and the rest of the country can begin the road to freedom from the totalitarian war on drugs and financially destructive war on hemp.
Cynthia, your lack of historical knowledge never ceases to amaze me.
Cynthia Tucker is a racist.
July 29th, 2010
2:49 pm
HDB -
Watch out for uninsured Mexican drunk drivers.
Tech Man
July 29th, 2010
2:49 pm
HDB
July 29th, 2010
2:34 pm
GOP Senators Ask Sebelius To Justify Claims About Premiums.
The Hill (7/23, Lillis) reports in its Healthwatch blog, “Last month, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told reporters the total effect on premiums of all the insurance reforms under the new healthcare law ‘is likely to be less than 1 percent,’” and “on Thursday, some well-placed Senate Republicans asked Sebelius to reveal how she crunched that figure.” Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) said, “Every objective analysis I’ve seen points to higher costs and more spending — by government, by families and by employers. … HHS needs to open the books and explain how it came up with these low numbers before we send the taxpayers a bill for another half a trillion dollars.”
Decatur Taliban
July 29th, 2010
2:52 pm
Cynthia, this is just the 1st battle lost on the way to the Supreme Court which will, i predict, rule 5-4 against the government by next summer. On this level it’s going to be political payback to President Obama for insulting them at the last State of the Union speech, which he deserves.
uga_b
July 29th, 2010
2:52 pm
Here are some other interesting constitutional sections:
8th Amendment
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies (btw GM’s restructuring violated this one) throughout the United States;
VS.
8th Amendment
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
10th Amendment
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.
If I were Arizona, I would declare that they are iminent Danger (from drug lords), being invaded, and that the Feds are delaying. Would be interesting to see how the courts would rule. The Fed would have to put forth that their uniform Naturalization policy is non-enforcement.
Tech Man
July 29th, 2010
2:54 pm
HDB
July 29th, 2010
2:34 pm
Op-Ed: Massachusetts, National Health Reform Share Same Flaws.
Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, writes in a Kaiser Health News (7/22) op-ed, “If Massachusetts is a harbinger — and all evidence indicates it is — the new federal health overhaul legislation is headed for serious trouble.” Turner adds, “Massachusetts and the federal government built their reform efforts using similar architectural plans — strict regulation of health insurance, mandates on individuals and businesses, expensive new taxpayer-funded subsidies and a major expansion of Medicaid — and both share a central structural flaw in failing to address rising health costs.” She concludes, “Health reform in the Bay State has increased demand without increasing the supply of health care providers, it continues to keep people in the dark about the true cost of health care and health insurance,” and “Washington’s health overhaul law has the same structural flaws.”
Arizona Says Health Insurance Costs Will Rise Up To 37 Percent Due To Health Reforms.
The Arizona Republic (7/21, Alltucker) reports Arizona “state and university employees with families can expect to see their monthly health-insurance costs rise as much as 37 percent next year, depending on the type of plan they choose.” Figures provided by the Arizona Department of Administration “show that health plans for families and single adults with children” will bear “the most-expensive monthly premium increases” beginning Jan. 1, while “individuals will pay modest increases.” The Department of Administration “cited federal health reform as the reason” the state’s health plans will carry “greater expenses and higher premiums for members.”
Ohio May Need $1 Billion More Next Year For Medicaid.
The Columbus Dispatch (7/21, Siegel) reports that “unless Ohio gets more federal stimulus help, state leaders will have to spend $1 billion more next year on Medicaid just to keep the same level of coverage that’s in place today.” The “sobering statistic” was one of “many relayed during a four-hour hearing today of the Budget Planning and Management Commission,” the bipartisan legislative panel that is examining ways “to deal with a future budget shortfall that could reach $8 billion.” The hearing focused on Medicaid because it is the “single-largest area of spending in the budget and has grown fast – an estimated 30 percent in three years by the end of June 2011.” Some have “proposed ideas such as capping hospital payments” and cutting “the 12.5 percent administrative allowance for HMOs.”
cgatlanta
July 29th, 2010
2:56 pm
What’s a “tenther”?
cgatlanta
July 29th, 2010
2:58 pm
Nevermind, I looked it up. State’s Rights? What is so wrong with that?
Obama is over
July 29th, 2010
3:22 pm
Obama once again is using Chicago style gangster politics to attract Hispanic voters because he has lost the confidence of most educated Americans-regardless of race. The bad news for Obama is that George W. Bush is no longer in office. Comparisons are a moot point at this stage because Obama has been in office long enough to establish his own track record. Since the Democrats cannot run a campaign based on the current adminstration’s accomplishments, they have to disparage Republicans as being narrow minded racists.
Wanted: Charitbale Seamstress
July 29th, 2010
3:22 pm
Is there a seamstress who would be kind enough to help “From the Government” reattach some detached buttocks? Not looking for a government handout, just a charitable contribution from a qualified seamstress, because from the looks of it, “From the Government” just got their @ss handed to them in a debate on immigration today, and we don’t want to hurt “From the governments” productivity by having them have to walk around, buttocks in hand.
Thank you in advance.
ken R
July 29th, 2010
3:34 pm
This Judge was appointed by Clinton, i believe in 93, do you think she wears a Blue Dress.
kjd
July 29th, 2010
3:43 pm
granny – they are being deported at a slower rate than they are imported
Can'tdenytheFACTS
July 29th, 2010
3:43 pm
Interesting how ppl post facts (like Granny) and inbreds (like Peadawg) don’t seem to understand…it’s not PC it’s Common Sense…stupid.
Williebkind
July 29th, 2010
3:45 pm
Well now is a quick trip to the 9th progressive liberal law making circuit then onto the Supreme Court. With the make up of the supreme court we will get a real decision based on constitutional law. Only then will I be calm enough to just stare at the illegal immigrants and continue to blame progressive liberals for attempting to destroy the republic. But as Glenn Beck points out that is their plan. Soft revolution.
Big D
July 29th, 2010
3:48 pm
This is real simple you LIBERAL lemmings…let’s think of our country as we would our house or home we live in….you with me so far. Now …what do we call it when a person or persons come into our homes un-invited??? Trespassing, so what does the law say about that?? The law says that if they have entered your home illegally you CAN shoot them. If these ILLEGAL trespassers can come into the country with your blessings ask yourself righteous butts this one..what would you do if they just came on in your house..would you complain,hide, shoot them. Get a grip you idiots..just some common sense.
Mike
July 29th, 2010
3:49 pm
Yap Yap Yap Yap…..Either the US Gumment will do its job or states will be forced to do it themselves….
SouthGeorgiaDawg
July 29th, 2010
3:49 pm
Cynthia, and the rest of the Media are buying way too much into this “ruling.” Its only a preliminary injunction. There has been no trial, and the Arizona law hasn’t been found unconstitutional. Stop acting like there’s been any “victory” here by the Obama administration.
The war has just begun, and something tells me that once this finally winds its way up to the Supreme Court, Arizona will come out on the right side of the ruling.
Williebkind
July 29th, 2010
3:50 pm
Can’tdenytheFACTS
July 29th, 2010
3:43 pm
You are the blind one commrad! Granny is just spewing the socialist propaganda she was taught in her earlier years while she was having orgies in the meadows listening to the popular rock & roll and smoking weed. Weed and sex got everyone’s attention and then the socialist elite planted their seeds(no pun intended).
Big D
July 29th, 2010
3:54 pm
Willie,
If one has Not figured out that Granny is not quite there anymore… you have not been on this blog very long.
Figures Don't Lie Liars Figure
July 29th, 2010
4:03 pm
I guess if Bush is going to get the credit for the oil leak then he gets the credit for the increase in deportation also. Correct?
Ramblin' Man
July 29th, 2010
4:07 pm
In all of my travels, I have never been to a country with more lax immigration laws than the U.S. In other countries, I am expected to have my passport and visa with me at all times. I have been profiled and asked for my documentation mulitple times. Each time, I produce the documents without a fuss; I have nothing to hide when I’m in a country legally. I EXPECT to be profiled when I am the only gringo for miles; whatever. If you are in this country illegally, it is apparently an infringement of someone’s rights to require them to have documents with them. WTF? The immigrants from Mexico and other latin American countries are some of the nicest, hardest working people you can meet. Can’t we find a way to speed up and streamline our immigration system so we can make it easier to become a law-abiding, TAX PAYING, citizen?