What’s the Difference Between the Two Federal Lawsuits?
By Krystle Weeks | Thursday, July 8th, 2010 | PolicyRecently, the Department of Justice has decided to take the State of Arizona to court over their new immigration law. This lawsuit is another way to take power away from the states and allow them to enforce the laws that the federal government ignores. Additionally, this lawsuit is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Even though, the Arizona immigration law follows the federal provisions (which prohibits racial profiling), the Obama Administration is suing on the basis that Arizona’s law will be a direct act of racial profiling.
Why is Arizona’s new law considered a “civil rights” issue? Arizona is merely cracking down on illegal immigration and enforcing the law, while the federal government is ignoring its duties to enforce the law.
Human Events reports that Arizona is fighting the Department of Justice lawsuit. They have every right to fight. Arizona has one of the highest crime rates in the nation, and with the federal government refusing to address the issue of illegal immigration, the state had to take matters into their own hands by enforcing the law.
“We’re not going to be intimidated by the Department of Justice,” said Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. “The federal government should be asking for our help instead of suing us.”
Arpaio plans the sheriff department’s 16th illegal immigrant sweep to coincide withSB 1070’s implementation date.
SB 1070 author and state Sen. Russell Pearce, (R.-Mesa) said the Justice Department lawsuit is merely “a continuation of the federal government’s failure to enforce federal law” and “violates” federal statutes by “consciously failing” to uphold the laws of the land.
Pearce rejected the government’s notion that SB 1070 will overwhelm the enforcement and judicial federal system that concentrates only on “serious” immigrant criminals. Pearce plans to introduce legislation meant to strip American citizenship from the “anchor babies” of illegal immigrants born in the United States. Certain to be challenge if passed, the courts would have to re-interpret the 14th Amendment’s citizenship rights to uphold such a law.
State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, (D.-Phoenix) opposes the SB 1070, but said the lawsuits should “settle questions” over what states can do when federal laws are inadequately enforced.
“I hope this galvanizes Congress to gain the moral courage they need to address this crisis,” Sinema said.
The Obama Administration again believes the federal government controls the states ability to enforce laws. We can also take a look at another lawsuit.
When the Commonwealth of Virginia took the Obama Administration to court over the federal health care mandate, the lawsuit was viewed as a waste of taxpayer dollars. Why? Was it because Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli recognized that the new mandate takes away the state’s right to set legislation or the simple unconstitutionality of the legislation? The residents in the Commonwealth of Virginia have the liberties to choose whether or not they want health insurance coverage. It’s their choice to do so. The legislature in Virginia recognized that, and Cuccinelli is challenging the federal government on the basis of this state law.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Growing up in Maryland typically does not yield a Republican. Fortunately, Krystle Weeks was one of the lucky few booted to the Commonwealth for her staunch conservative views. From an early age, she has been debating politics, and since 2006, she has been involved here in the Commonwealth helping Republican candidates to victory. Aside from politics, Krystle is a runner and a dynamite cook. You can email her here. Krystle also blogs at Crystal Clear Conservative and Charm Offensive Cooking.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
7 Responses to "What’s the Difference Between the Two Federal Lawsuits?"
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by bearingdrift and SteveTaff. SteveTaff said: RT@america1first What's the Difference Between the Two Federal Lawsuits? | Bearing … http://bit.ly/bPdI5u Help this Good Man! [...]
When we talking about the Obama administration, we are talking about people whose sole interest seems to be power. Instead of viewing the law as a means for resolving our disputes, too many of our political elites view the law as a means to enforcing their power over the People.
What these cases have in common is that they are litmus tests. There is no ambiguity about what these cases are about. Any politician opposed to Cuccinelli’s lawsuit needs to be tossed out on his ear. Ditto for any politician in favor of Obama’s lawsuit against Arizona.
[...] While LeBron James is the top news story in America and a disappointment to Cleveland Cavaliers fans everywhere, there are other important things we need to be concerned about. For example, President Obama and Congress continue to ignore the liberties granted to us in the Constitution, whether it is continuing to spend excessively while the nation faces a $13 trillion deficit, or continuing to waste taxpayer dollars on frivilous lawsuits against states for actually enforcing laws. [...]
Great similarities with a common catalyst. Both Cuccinelli’s suit and Holder’s suit are the result of Obama’s arrogance. In the first, he rammed through (by bribery) an unpopular health care entitlement program and, in the second, he asserts baseless claims to advance an unpopular immigration policy (to the extent there is one).
60% Favor Repeal of Health Care Law
56% Oppose Justice Department Challenge of Arizona Law; 61% Favor Similar Law In Their State
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
This is all quite interesting in lieu of the Federal District Court in Bostons decision today, declaring the Federal “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) unconstitutional, which it clearly is. Marriage, like abortion, is reserved to the states. I wonder what some of the Tea Party people like Catherine Crabhill have to say about this–you know, the ones who want to “protect the constitution” but then trample over everybody else’s rights under the same with a bible in one hand and a flag in the other? Interesting that Obama says he’ll defend DOMA while he attacks Arizona. At least he is consistent–Federal usurpation of everything, states be damned.
I would think Federal supremacy in foreign affairs, immigration and naturalization is fairly apparent (the Arizona issue). In the issue of whether the Constitution permits the federal government to mandate health coverage through commercial entities (the Virginia case), the question seems far more obscure. I don’t see any inconsistency in these two lawsuits. The feds could win in Arizona, and lose in Virginia, and the Constitution would be the winner in both cases. The DOMA case in Boston seems correctly decided, if not rigourously reasoned. Conservatives and Tenth Amendment advocates should be very happy with that outcome, although they seem to be hiding their exuberant glee from the blogosphere. It has received little mention, let alone overt support.
Leave your response