States have the power to nullify federal laws. Time to use it

[Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals]

The federal Supreme Court frequently nullifies state laws as they did
with portions of the AZ anti-illegal law, but no where does the
constittuion give them that authority. The Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution says in Article 6

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.

That says federal laws are supreme ONLY if made in pursuance of the
constitution. So any state has the right so declare a federal law in
violation of the constitution and void.!!!

Remember the states came first and they created the federal govt
merely to act as their agent in selected matters such as fighting a
war. In no way did the founding fathers want the federal govt put
above the states.


__________________
NAACP = Negro Affirmative Action, Caucasian Persecution

[Naughtius]

On Jun 27, 11:03 am, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway

WRONG On EVERY Point... AS USUAL...

No, DUMBASS... *Among Other Things*, States DO NOT Have That
"Power"... NEVER Did... NEVER Will...

Naughtius "Are You STUPID? Or Am I Asking RHETORICAL QUESTIONS?
Again..." Maximus

[deadrat]

On 6/27/12 12:03 PM, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway

criminals wrote:
> The federal Supreme Court frequently nullifies state laws as they did
> with portions of the AZ anti-illegal law, but no where does the
> constittuion give them that authority.

Article III. Judicial power.

> The Supremacy Clause of the
> Constitution says in Article 6
>
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
> made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
> made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
> Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
> any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
> notwithstanding.
>
> That says federal laws are supreme ONLY if made in pursuance of the
> constitution. So any state has the right so declare a federal law in
> violation of the constitution and void.!!!
>
> Remember the states came first and they created the federal govt
> merely to act as their agent in selected matters such as fighting a
> war.

No, that was the Articles of Confederation.

> In no way did the founding fathers want the federal govt put
> above the states.

And yet, federal law still preempts state law in the prescribed fields
of operation. And you're still a loser.

Go figure.
<snip/>

[Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals]

On Jun 27, 12:10 pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

>
> And yet, federal law still preempts state law in the prescribed fields
> of operation.

Where does the constitution list any "prescribed fields of operation"?

[Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals]

On Jun 27, 11:45 am, Naughtius <naught...@netscape.net> wrote:
> n
>
>   WRONG On EVERY Point... AS USUAL...
>
>   No, DUMBASS... *Among Other Things*, States DO NOT Have That
> "Power"... NEVER Did... NEVER Will...

As always, all you have is namecalling.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Jun 27, 12:03 pm, Judy La Loca Borracha <beta...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> Anyone known to be in america illegally should be deported - no
> exceptions. Why won't obama enforce the law?

What law are you referring to? What law says:

"Anyone known to be in america illegally MUST be deported - no
exceptions."

I will give you a little help:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text

Chapter, Page and Paragraph, por favor.

-Ramon

[deadrat]

Por favor? That's enough to get you detained in Arizona.

[Naughtius]

On Jun 27, 12:44 pm, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway

As Always, Ms DooMAZ, That's All YOU & Your Various ENERGY VAMPIRE
Incarnations are Worth Responding To/By/With...

Naughtius "WASTE My Time... PLEASE!" Maximus

[Rachel Bolan]

"Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals" wrote in message
news:f2464f9c-aafe-41c8...@h20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

That's what YOU use and rely on, you drunken donkey fucking retard!

[Rachel Bolan]

"Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals" wrote in message
news:1a0f190e-a24f-46d6...@h9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

<^^^^

Sober up, stunt cunt.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Jun 27, 2:17 pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

> "Por favor"? That's enough to get you detained in Arizona.

Hey, Esteemed Rodent, you blew my cover!!

You see, a bunch of amigos and I are practicing for the next move. See
below.

-Ramon

------------------------------

Word on the street, among the Latinos of Arizona is that they plan
to:

- Bait the police.

- Clog the courts with lawsuits.

After all, none other than Justice Kennedy not only allowed, but
INVITED lawsuits.

http://tinyurl.com/18r

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>The federal Supreme Court frequently nullifies state laws as they did
>with portions of the AZ anti-illegal law, but no where does the
>constittuion give them that authority.

Try reading it.

[deadrat]

Article I, Sections 8 and 10.

[deadrat]

Read it? He can't even spell it.

[Bill Graham]

Any unconstitutional law is automatically, "Null and Void". SCOTUS has
already decided that. It is the principal I have been operating on my wholke
life. I intentionally disobey all unconstitutional laws, as a matter of
course. That's why they call me a libertarian.......

[deadrat]

On 6/27/12 6:34 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals
>>> <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>> The federal Supreme Court frequently nullifies state laws as they did
>>> with portions of the AZ anti-illegal law, but no where does the
>>> constittuion give them that authority.
>>
>> Try reading it.
>
> Any unconstitutional law is automatically, "Null and Void". SCOTUS has
> already decided that. It is the principal I have been operating on my
> wholke life.

principle. Principle. PRINCIPLE.

(Sorry, I'm OK now.)

> I intentionally disobey all unconstitutional laws, as a
> matter of course. That's why they call me a libertarian.......

Listen more carefully. That's not what they're calling you.

[deadrat]

On 6/27/12 2:35 PM, Rachel Bolan wrote:
>
>
> "Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals" wrote in
> message
> news:f2464f9c-aafe-41c8...@h20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Jun 27, 11:45 am, Naughtius <naught...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> n
>>
>> WRONG On EVERY Point... AS USUAL...
>>
>> No, DUMBASS... *Among Other Things*, States DO NOT Have That
>> "Power"... NEVER Did... NEVER Will...
>
> As always, all you have is namecalling.

Yeah, namecalling and being right. Amongst his weapons are such diverse
items as ...
>
<snip/>

[deadrat]

On 6/27/12 1:43 PM, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway

[Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals]

On Jun 27, 1:11 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 12:03 pm, Judy La Loca Borracha <beta...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>  > Anyone known to be in america illegally should be deported - no
>  > exceptions.  Why won't obama enforce the law?
>
> What law are you referring to? What law says:
>
> "Anyone known to be in america illegally MUST be deported - no
> exceptions."
>

Hey stupid. You might as well ask "What law says "anyone known to be a
murderer must be prosecuted' ".

THINK you brainless beaner hind.

[Kent Wills]

You failed to answer Ramon's question. Since there is no such
law, you couldn't.

--
"I'm a ten gov a day guy. It's all I know, and it's all
you need to know, gov!"
- Shouting George

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Jun 27, 10:43 pm, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway

criminals <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 1:11 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 27, 12:03 pm, Judy La Loca Borracha <beta...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:

>>> Anyone known to be in america illegally should be deported - no
>>> exceptions.  Why won't obama enforce the law?
>

[Ramon:]

>> What law are you referring to? What law says:
>
>> "Anyone known to be in america illegally MUST be deported - no
>> exceptions."

> Hey stupid. You might as well ask "What law says "anyone known
> to be a murderer must be prosecuted' ".
>
> THINK you brainless beaner hind.

Hmm??? How can they prosecute anyone known to be a murderer? That is
impossible. Are you aware of the "Presumption of Innocence"??? It
works in this time sequence:

(1) The suspect is prosecuted. S/he is NOT a murderer at this point.

(2) A jury makes a decision. Only THEN the person is a murderer.
Cannot be prosecuted. Was prosecuted already.

As usual your logic necessitates artifacts like precognition, time
travel and paralyzing laser beams from Mexican satellite that prevent
"real patriots" like yourself from taking action, corroborating the
Herrera Maxim:

Hatred Fries Neurons.

-Ramon

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Jun 27, 10:43 pm, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway
criminals <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:

"Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., an iconic figure to many
conservatives, sided with the court’s liberals to reject several key
provisions in the law and even declare that as a “general rule, it is
not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United
States.”

http://tinyurl.com/7vtxuzb

-Ramon

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>"Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>Hmm??? How can they prosecute anyone known to be a murderer? That is
>impossible. Are you aware of the "Presumption of Innocence"??? It
>works in this time sequence:
>
> (1) The suspect is prosecuted. S/he is NOT a murderer at this point.

You're just pretending to be stupid to make a point here, right?

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Jun 28, 5:53 am, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

According the Law, the person is not a criminal until convicted in a
court of law by a jury of his peers.

Maybe s/he is a murderer before the eyes of God (or witnesses, or a
camera), but not before the Law.

Blame it on the Founders.

-Ramon

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>"Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Jun 28, 5:53 am, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> >"Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>> >Hmm??? How can they prosecute anyone known to be a murderer? That is
>> >impossible. Are you aware of the "Presumption of Innocence"??? It
>> >works in this time sequence:
>>
>
> >>  (1) The suspect is prosecuted. S/he is NOT a murderer
> >> at this point.
> >
> > You're just pretending to be stupid to make a point here, right?
>
>According the Law, the person is not a criminal until convicted in a
>court of law by a jury of his peers.

Try reading for comprehension.

"The suspect is prosecuted. S/he is NOT a murderer
at this point."

If they murdered someone, of course they are a murderer at that point.

>Maybe s/he is a murderer before the eyes of God (or witnesses, or a
>camera), but not before the Law.

The law says nothing about it.

[Kent Wills]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 03:08:10 -0700 (PDT), "Ramon F. Herrera"

<ra...@conexus.net> wrote:

>On Jun 27, 10:43 pm, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway
>criminals <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Jun 27, 1:11 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 27, 12:03 pm, Judy La Loca Borracha <beta...@earthlink.net>
>> > wrote:
>
> >>> Anyone known to be in america illegally should be deported - no
> >>> exceptions.  Why won't obama enforce the law?
> >
>
> [Ramon:]
> >> What law are you referring to? What law says:
> >
> >> "Anyone known to be in america illegally MUST be deported - no
> >> exceptions."
>
> > Hey stupid. You might as well ask "What law says "anyone known
> > to be a murderer must be prosecuted' ".
> >
> > THINK you brainless beaner hind.
>
>Hmm??? How can they prosecute anyone known to be a murderer? That is
>impossible. Are you aware of the "Presumption of Innocence"??? It
>works in this time sequence:
>
> (1) The suspect is prosecuted. S/he is NOT a murderer at this point.
>

Actually, they can be.

> (2) A jury makes a decision. Only THEN the person is a murderer.
>Cannot be prosecuted. Was prosecuted already.

A convicted murderer, yes.
Since a murder will have occurred, someone had to commit the
murder. That person is a murderer even if they have not yet been
convicted.

--
Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin.
I poked a badger with a spoon.

[Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS]

On Jun 28, 4:09 am, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
> "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., an iconic figure to many
> conservatives, sided with the court’s liberals to reject several key
> provisions in the law and even declare that as a “general rule, it is
> not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United
> States.”
>
>

It is when a state makes it a crime.

[deadrat]

Except that SCOTUS just ruled that a state cannot make it a crime.

Obama is still President, Holder is still AG, the ACA is still
Constitutional, and you're still a loser.

Go figure.

[RD Sandman]

"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS"

<josego...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:a9ae8adc-95f8-4b17-871c-
227e7a...@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:

I'm sorry to inform you that someone in the country illegally is NOT a
state crime.

--

Some folks must learn to look at their problems as their dogs do....
If you can't hump them or eat them, ... piss on them ... walk away!!

Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[RD Sandman]

deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
news:1bWdnTZClcPwTXHS...@giganews.com:

> On 6/28/12 4:20 PM, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS
> wrote:
>> On Jun 28, 4:09 am, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>>> "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., an iconic figure to many
>>> conservatives, sided with the court’s liberals to reject several key
>>> provisions in the law and even declare that as a “general rule, it
>>> is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United
>>> States.”
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It is when a state makes it a crime.
>
> Except that SCOTUS just ruled that a state cannot make it a crime.

Bingo!

> Obama is still President, Holder is still AG, the ACA is still
> Constitutional, and you're still a loser.
>
> Go figure.
>
>
>
>

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA08099E46...@216.196.121.131...

> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS"
> <josego...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:a9ae8adc-95f8-4b17-871c-
> 227e7a...@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Jun 28, 4:09 am, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>>> "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., an iconic figure to many
>>> conservatives, sided with the court's liberals to reject several key
>>> provisions in the law and even declare that as a "general rule, it is
>>> not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United
>>> States."
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It is when a state makes it a crime.
>>
>
> I'm sorry to inform you that someone in the country illegally is NOT a
> state crime.

No, but when that person is in the state illegally is certainly is.

Besides....I'm unaware that in any other area states are prohibited from
enforcing federal law.

I suggest that Arizona should simply inform the federal government that they
will no longer enforce federal drug laws, anti-counterfeiting laws, EPA
regulations, etc...

I mean, if the states can't enforce federal law, then they can't enforce it,
and should stop attempting to do so across the board.

I bet the federal government would filing a case in court within a matter of
hours demanding that the court require them to enforce federal law.

It would be a 3 ring circus as the federal government attempts to require
them to enforce their laws which they have just sued to prevent being done.

Maybe I should suggest this to the Arizona governor?

[deadrat]

On 6/28/12 5:32 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XnsA08099E46...@216.196.121.131...
>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS"
>> <josego...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:a9ae8adc-95f8-4b17-871c-
>> 227e7a...@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Jun 28, 4:09 am, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>>>> "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., an iconic figure to many
>>>> conservatives, sided with the court's liberals to reject several key
>>>> provisions in the law and even declare that as a "general rule, it is
>>>> not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United
>>>> States."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is when a state makes it a crime.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sorry to inform you that someone in the country illegally is NOT a
>> state crime.
>
> No, but when that person is in the state illegally is certainly is.

This is pretty much the point. You can't be in a state illegally.

>
> Besides....I'm unaware that in any other area states are prohibited from
> enforcing federal law.

In every other area of federal law, states are not allowed to and cannot
be coerced into enforcing federal law. The feds may give states
permission to enforce federal law under federal supervision. And some
areas of the law are a shared responsibility.

>
> I suggest that Arizona should simply inform the federal government that
> they will no longer enforce federal drug laws, anti-counterfeiting laws,
> EPA regulations, etc...

There are programs whereby state officials participate with agencies
like the DEA to enforce drug laws. Arizona does not enforce
anti-counterfeiting laws and it does not enforce EPA regulations.

>
> I mean, if the states can't enforce federal law, then they can't enforce
> it, and should stop attempting to do so across the board.

There's very little "across the board." The feds generally don't want
the local bozos involved. Arizona is free to drop out of
federally-supervised joint enforcement programs.

> I bet the federal government would filing a case in court within a
> matter of hours demanding that the court require them to enforce federal
> law.

This is a bet you would lose. It is Constitutionally forbidden for the
feds to require state officials to enforce federal law.

>
> It would be a 3 ring circus as the federal government attempts to
> require them to enforce their laws which they have just sued to prevent
> being done.

This can never happen.

>
> Maybe I should suggest this to the Arizona governor?

She seems as ignorant as you. Go ahead and give her a call. Maybe
she'll invite you on her next hunt for decapitated bodies.

[Kent Wills]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:32:07 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
>"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:XnsA08099E46...@216.196.121.131...
>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS"
>> <josego...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:a9ae8adc-95f8-4b17-871c-
>> 227e7a...@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Jun 28, 4:09 am, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>>>> "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., an iconic figure to many
>>>> conservatives, sided with the court's liberals to reject several key
>>>> provisions in the law and even declare that as a "general rule, it is
>>>> not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United
>>>> States."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is when a state makes it a crime.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sorry to inform you that someone in the country illegally is NOT a
>> state crime.
>
>No, but when that person is in the state illegally is certainly is.
>

If that state has a law against it, yes. I'm not aware of any
state that has such a law.

>Besides....I'm unaware that in any other area states are prohibited from
>enforcing federal law.
>

Aside from all of them, you're right.

>I suggest that Arizona should simply inform the federal government that they
>will no longer enforce federal drug laws, anti-counterfeiting laws, EPA
>regulations, etc...
>

Since they can't do that anyway, no biggie.

>I mean, if the states can't enforce federal law, then they can't enforce it,
>and should stop attempting to do so across the board.

I'm not aware of any doing so.

>
>I bet the federal government would filing a case in court within a matter of
>hours demanding that the court require them to enforce federal law.
>

There's been no need to date.

>It would be a 3 ring circus as the federal government attempts to require
>them to enforce their laws which they have just sued to prevent being done.
>

City, county and state law enforcement can't enforce federal law.

>Maybe I should suggest this to the Arizona governor?
>

You may suggest whatever you want to whomever you want.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:jsim1e$2tp$1...@dont-email.me:

>
>
> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XnsA08099E46...@216.196.121.131...
>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS"
>> <josego...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:a9ae8adc-95f8-4b17-871c-
>> 227e7a...@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Jun 28, 4:09 am, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>>>> "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., an iconic figure to many
>>>> conservatives, sided with the court's liberals to reject several
>>>> key provisions in the law and even declare that as a "general rule,
>>>> it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the
>>>> United States."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is when a state makes it a crime.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sorry to inform you that someone in the country illegally is NOT
>> a state crime.
>
> No, but when that person is in the state illegally is certainly is.

Yes, and they can be turned over the feds for further action. The
problem is that the feds are refusing to do any further action. That was
one of the reasons for SB1070 in the first place. So, in that line,
nothing has changed.

> Besides....I'm unaware that in any other area states are prohibited
> from enforcing federal law.

Well, they can't deport. ;)

> I suggest that Arizona should simply inform the federal government
> that they will no longer enforce federal drug laws,
> anti-counterfeiting laws, EPA regulations, etc...

With a right wing legislature, that simply won't happen.

> I mean, if the states can't enforce federal law, then they can't
> enforce it, and should stop attempting to do so across the board.

They can enforce federal law. The problem is that they need to turn the
folks that they catch over to federal authority and they are only going
to pay attention to their priority list which is known criminals, some
one who has been previously deported and those that are freshly caught.
That statement from the feds was issued within an hour of the Supreme's
decision being announced.

> I bet the federal government would filing a case in court within a
> matter of hours demanding that the court require them to enforce
> federal law.
>
> It would be a 3 ring circus as the federal government attempts to
> require them to enforce their laws which they have just sued to
> prevent being done.
>
> Maybe I should suggest this to the Arizona governor?

You can suggest it all you want. She is dumber than a bunch of rocks and
would not go along on the drug stuff anyway. ;)

[RD Sandman]

deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
news:2sCdnQVTL8CUbHHS...@giganews.com:

> On 6/28/12 5:32 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:XnsA08099E46...@216.196.121.131...
>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS"
>>> <josego...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:a9ae8adc-95f8-4b17-871c-
>>> 227e7a...@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 28, 4:09 am, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>>>>> "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., an iconic figure to many
>>>>> conservatives, sided with the court's liberals to reject several
key
>>>>> provisions in the law and even declare that as a "general rule, it
is
>>>>> not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United
>>>>> States."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is when a state makes it a crime.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sorry to inform you that someone in the country illegally is NOT
a
>>> state crime.
>>
>> No, but when that person is in the state illegally is certainly is.
>
> This is pretty much the point. You can't be in a state illegally.

You most certainly can and some of those will be handled by the feds.
Many will not. The state can arrest them and turn them over to the feds.
From there it is a federal problem.

>> Besides....I'm unaware that in any other area states are prohibited
from
>> enforcing federal law.
>
> In every other area of federal law, states are not allowed to and
cannot
> be coerced into enforcing federal law.

Hmmmm, not even bank robberies or murder of a federal agent?

The feds may give states
> permission to enforce federal law under federal supervision. And some
> areas of the law are a shared responsibility.

Ahhhh.......

>> I suggest that Arizona should simply inform the federal government
that
>> they will no longer enforce federal drug laws, anti-counterfeiting
laws,
>> EPA regulations, etc...
>
> There are programs whereby state officials participate with agencies
> like the DEA to enforce drug laws. Arizona does not enforce
> anti-counterfeiting laws and it does not enforce EPA regulations.

True. Other than to run the EPA facilities for automobile pollution and
require smog testing per federal law in order to have your vehicle
licensed in the state.

>> I mean, if the states can't enforce federal law, then they can't
enforce
>> it, and should stop attempting to do so across the board.
>
> There's very little "across the board." The feds generally don't want
> the local bozos involved.

Many of the local law enforcement think the bozos are those in the
federal alphabet soup entities.

Arizona is free to drop out of
> federally-supervised joint enforcement programs.
>
>> I bet the federal government would filing a case in court within a
>> matter of hours demanding that the court require them to enforce
federal
>> law.
>
> This is a bet you would lose. It is Constitutionally forbidden for the
> feds to require state officials to enforce federal law.
>> It would be a 3 ring circus as the federal government attempts to
>> require them to enforce their laws which they have just sued to
prevent
>> being done.
>
> This can never happen.
>>
>> Maybe I should suggest this to the Arizona governor?
>
> She seems as ignorant as you. Go ahead and give her a call. Maybe
> she'll invite you on her next hunt for decapitated bodies.

There were several....problem is that they were on the other side of the
border.

[RD Sandman]

Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ihsqu7d6b6ipeaouf...@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:32:07 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:XnsA08099E46...@216.196.121.131...
>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS"
>>> <josego...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:a9ae8adc-95f8-4b17-871c-
>>> 227e7a...@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 28, 4:09 am, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>>>>> "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., an iconic figure to many
>>>>> conservatives, sided with the court's liberals to reject several
>>>>> key provisions in the law and even declare that as a "general
>>>>> rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in
>>>>> the United States."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is when a state makes it a crime.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sorry to inform you that someone in the country illegally is NOT
>>> a state crime.
>>
>>No, but when that person is in the state illegally is certainly is.
>>
>
> If that state has a law against it, yes. I'm not aware of any
> state that has such a law.

Arizona did. It was part of SB1070. It doesn't have it now.

>>Besides....I'm unaware that in any other area states are prohibited
>>from enforcing federal law.
>>
>
> Aside from all of them, you're right.
>
>>I suggest that Arizona should simply inform the federal government
>>that they will no longer enforce federal drug laws,
>>anti-counterfeiting laws, EPA regulations, etc...
>>
>
> Since they can't do that anyway, no biggie.

They do enforce EPA regs on motor vehicles.

[Scout]

"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ihsqu7d6b6ipeaouf...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:32:07 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:XnsA08099E46...@216.196.121.131...
>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS"
>>> <josego...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:a9ae8adc-95f8-4b17-871c-
>>> 227e7a...@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 28, 4:09 am, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>>>>> "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., an iconic figure to many
>>>>> conservatives, sided with the court's liberals to reject several key
>>>>> provisions in the law and even declare that as a "general rule, it is
>>>>> not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United
>>>>> States."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is when a state makes it a crime.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sorry to inform you that someone in the country illegally is NOT a
>>> state crime.
>>
>>No, but when that person is in the state illegally is certainly is.
>>
>
> If that state has a law against it, yes. I'm not aware of any
> state that has such a law.

Arizona.

[deadrat]

Maybe this is just semantics, but there's no law against being in
Arizona illegally apart from being in the United States illegally.
People who haven't done anything illegal get arrested all the time, so
AZ's arrest policy doesn't make being in Arizona a state crime. It's a
federal problem all the way down.

>
>>> Besides....I'm unaware that in any other area states are prohibited
> from
>>> enforcing federal law.
>>
>> In every other area of federal law, states are not allowed to and
> cannot
>> be coerced into enforcing federal law.
>
> Hmmmm, not even bank robberies or murder of a federal agent?

18USC1114 makes it illegal to kill an officer or employee of the federal
government
when that person is performing his duties. No state will be allowed to
bring a criminal action against anyone for breaking 18USC1114, and if
the USA in the locale of such a murder doesn't wish to try someone for
the crime, the USA cannot force the state to have a trial.

Of course, murder of anyone, federal employee or not, is against the law
in every state in the union, and a state can choose to try someone for
the murder of a federal employee under state statute. Whether the feds
try him or not.

> The feds may give states
>> permission to enforce federal law under federal supervision. And some
>> areas of the law are a shared responsibility.
>
> Ahhhh.......

Feel better now? Two sovereigns may criminalize the same actions, and
each may try a violator, disregarding even the rule against double
jeopardy, but that doesn't mean that a state may try anyone for a
federal crime.

>>> I suggest that Arizona should simply inform the federal government
> that
>>> they will no longer enforce federal drug laws, anti-counterfeiting
> laws,
>>> EPA regulations, etc...
>>
>> There are programs whereby state officials participate with agencies
>> like the DEA to enforce drug laws. Arizona does not enforce
>> anti-counterfeiting laws and it does not enforce EPA regulations.
>
> True. Other than to run the EPA facilities for automobile pollution and
> require smog testing per federal law in order to have your vehicle
> licensed in the state.

No state runs EPA facilities. States run state facilities. They've
been bribed to test cars to EPA standards, and if they don't want to
test cars, they don't have to. They'll just have to forgo some federal
money.

>>> I mean, if the states can't enforce federal law, then they can't
> enforce
>>> it, and should stop attempting to do so across the board.
>>
>> There's very little "across the board." The feds generally don't want
>> the local bozos involved.
>
> Many of the local law enforcement think the bozos are those in the
> federal alphabet soup entities.

They're both probably right.
<snip/>

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Jun 29, 3:38 pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> 18USC1114 makes it illegal to kill an officer or employee of
> the federal government when that person is performing his duties.
> No state will be allowed to bring a criminal action against
> anyone for breaking 18USC1114, and if the USA in the locale
> of such a murder doesn't wish to try someone for the crime,
> the USA cannot force the state to have a trial.

How about traffic violations? Federal vs. State?

Do you know that in addition to State Drivers Licenses there are
Federal Drivers licenses?

-Ramon

[RD Sandman]

deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
news:KMudnQJNduHFj3PS...@giganews.com:

Correct. There is no state law in Arizona defining illegal residing in
the state.

> People who haven't done anything illegal get arrested all the time, so
> AZ's arrest policy doesn't make being in Arizona a state crime. It's
> a federal problem all the way down.

If you were trying to say that it is not a state crime to be there
illegally, you would have been correct. That isn't the way I took your
sentence to read.

>>>> Besides....I'm unaware that in any other area states are prohibited
>> from
>>>> enforcing federal law.
>>>
>>> In every other area of federal law, states are not allowed to and
>> cannot
>>> be coerced into enforcing federal law.
>>
>> Hmmmm, not even bank robberies or murder of a federal agent?
>
> 18USC1114 makes it illegal to kill an officer or employee of the
> federal government
> when that person is performing his duties.

Yes, I know.

No state will be allowed
> to bring a criminal action against anyone for breaking 18USC1114,

I didn't say that they could. I said that could enforce federal law on
that killer. They can pursue him, arrest him and hold him.......then try
him for murder if he was not in performance of federal duties or turn him
over to the feds if he was.

and
> if the USA in the locale of such a murder doesn't wish to try someone
> for the crime, the USA cannot force the state to have a trial.

Again, not a claim that was made.

> Of course, murder of anyone, federal employee or not, is against the
> law in every state in the union, and a state can choose to try someone
> for the murder of a federal employee under state statute. Whether the
> feds try him or not.

Yep.

>> The feds may give states
>>> permission to enforce federal law under federal supervision. And
>>> some areas of the law are a shared responsibility.
>>
>> Ahhhh.......
>
> Feel better now? Two sovereigns may criminalize the same actions, and
> each may try a violator, disregarding even the rule against double
> jeopardy, but that doesn't mean that a state may try anyone for a
> federal crime.

Depends on the crime.....see above.

>>>> I suggest that Arizona should simply inform the federal government
>> that
>>>> they will no longer enforce federal drug laws, anti-counterfeiting
>> laws,
>>>> EPA regulations, etc...
>>>
>>> There are programs whereby state officials participate with agencies
>>> like the DEA to enforce drug laws. Arizona does not enforce
>>> anti-counterfeiting laws and it does not enforce EPA regulations.
>>
>> True. Other than to run the EPA facilities for automobile pollution
>> and require smog testing per federal law in order to have your
>> vehicle licensed in the state.
>
> No state runs EPA facilities. States run state facilities.

Nit, but you are correct. They run state facilities to ensure complaince
with federal laws, specifically, emissions requirements.

They've
> been bribed to test cars to EPA standards, and if they don't want to
> test cars, they don't have to. They'll just have to forgo some
> federal money.

The constant federal threat. The feds do the same with education.

>>>> I mean, if the states can't enforce federal law, then they can't
>> enforce
>>>> it, and should stop attempting to do so across the board.
>>>
>>> There's very little "across the board." The feds generally don't
>>> want the local bozos involved.
>>
>> Many of the local law enforcement think the bozos are those in the
>> federal alphabet soup entities.
>
> They're both probably right.
> <snip/>

We agree.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:jsl1ia$2tv$1...@dont-email.me:

Not anymore. That was one of the items that was shut down. Being in the
US illegally is not a state crime since the Supreme's announced their
decision last week.

[deadrat]

On 6/29/12 4:10 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
>
> On Jun 29, 3:38 pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> > 18USC1114 makes it illegal to kill an officer or employee of
> > the federal government when that person is performing his duties.
> > No state will be allowed to bring a criminal action against
> > anyone for breaking 18USC1114, and if the USA in the locale
> > of such a murder doesn't wish to try someone for the crime,
> > the USA cannot force the state to have a trial.
>
> How about traffic violations? Federal vs. State?

I don't believe there's such a thing as a federal traffic violation, at
least not outside federal property.

>
> Do you know that in addition to State Drivers Licenses there are
> Federal Drivers licenses?

I doubt it. There are federal requirements for state licenses and
federal requirements for commercial drivers licenses, but these are
issued by the states.
>
> -Ramon
>

[RD Sandman]

"Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in news:13dd8535-b359-4dc3-
9218-094...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:

>
> On Jun 29, 3:38 pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> > 18USC1114 makes it illegal to kill an officer or employee of
> > the federal government when that person is performing his duties.
> > No state will be allowed to bring a criminal action against
> > anyone for breaking 18USC1114, and if the USA in the locale
> > of such a murder doesn't wish to try someone for the crime,
> > the USA cannot force the state to have a trial.
>
> How about traffic violations? Federal vs. State?

Not sure where you are trying to go with this but traffic laws are mostly
state or local.

> Do you know that in addition to State Drivers Licenses there are
> Federal Drivers licenses?

Yes, I had one for six years. Authorized me to drive 18 wheelers with
flat beds for carrying missiles and explosives and to operate fork lifts
up to 15 tons. I did not drive the latter on the highways, however. ;)

[deadrat]

None of that constitutes enforcing federal law.

> and
>> if the USA in the locale of such a murder doesn't wish to try someone
>> for the crime, the USA cannot force the state to have a trial.
>
> Again, not a claim that was made.
>
>> Of course, murder of anyone, federal employee or not, is against the
>> law in every state in the union, and a state can choose to try someone
>> for the murder of a federal employee under state statute. Whether the
>> feds try him or not.
>
> Yep.
>
>>> The feds may give states
>>>> permission to enforce federal law under federal supervision. And
>>>> some areas of the law are a shared responsibility.
>>>
>>> Ahhhh.......
>>
>> Feel better now? Two sovereigns may criminalize the same actions, and
>> each may try a violator, disregarding even the rule against double
>> jeopardy, but that doesn't mean that a state may try anyone for a
>> federal crime.
>
> Depends on the crime.....see above.

Read "it is possible in some cases" for "may."

>>>>> I suggest that Arizona should simply inform the federal government
>>> that
>>>>> they will no longer enforce federal drug laws, anti-counterfeiting
>>> laws,
>>>>> EPA regulations, etc...
>>>>
>>>> There are programs whereby state officials participate with agencies
>>>> like the DEA to enforce drug laws. Arizona does not enforce
>>>> anti-counterfeiting laws and it does not enforce EPA regulations.
>>>
>>> True. Other than to run the EPA facilities for automobile pollution
>>> and require smog testing per federal law in order to have your
>>> vehicle licensed in the state.
>>
>> No state runs EPA facilities. States run state facilities.
>
> Nit, but you are correct. They run state facilities to ensure complaince
> with federal laws, specifically, emissions requirements.

This isn't a nit, but an illustration of an underlying principle. If
the feds want a state to carry out federal law, they must bribe or
blackmail the state into doing it "voluntarily." And as of yesterday,
the blackmail can't be too egregious.

<snip/>

[Bill Graham]

And apparently, since there are over 15 million illegals, it isn't a federal
crime either.

They are giving my country away faster than I can accumulate it. And, there
is no place for me to hide, or I would cash in what chips I have left, and
go there. So, the liberals are winning the game, and I will go to my grave
defeated. What a blow to logic and common sense!

[RD Sandman]

deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
news:XY2dnbm7_KvFv3PS...@giganews.com:

The arrest and holding part does. Otherwise they would be holding
someone against their will for no reason at all. ;)

What they don't do is attach a punishment to it.

[RD Sandman]

deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
news:Io6dnV8PV_qjvHPS...@giganews.com:

> On 6/29/12 4:10 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 29, 3:38 pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> > 18USC1114 makes it illegal to kill an officer or employee of
>> > the federal government when that person is performing his duties.
>> > No state will be allowed to bring a criminal action against
>> > anyone for breaking 18USC1114, and if the USA in the locale
>> > of such a murder doesn't wish to try someone for the crime,
>> > the USA cannot force the state to have a trial.
>>
>> How about traffic violations? Federal vs. State?
>
> I don't believe there's such a thing as a federal traffic violation, at
> least not outside federal property.
>>
>> Do you know that in addition to State Drivers Licenses there are
>> Federal Drivers licenses?
>
> I doubt it.

Au contraire. I had one. It allowed me to drive a military vehicle for
military purposes on state and federal roads. Again, to cite you, the
feds probably had to "bribe" the state to get them to allow that. ;)

There are federal requirements for state licenses and
> federal requirements for commercial drivers licenses, but these are
> issued by the states.

Hmmmm, do you think that when you see a military convoy on our
interstates or other highways that they all have state issued commercial
drivers licenses?

[Bill Graham]

But this was not a case of Arizona wanting to police federal law. First they
saw a problem with their state law. They corrected that problem by making a
state law that they could enforce that would correct, or help correct it.
Then the feds stepped in and said, "you can't do that." So what is Arizonaq
to do? They have a problem, the feds won;t do their job and correct the
problem, and the feds won;t even let Arizonas make a law the enforcement of
which will help fixd the problem. If I were running things, I would
establish an indefinite holidy for all Arizona state employees. They would
all just walk away from their jobs and leave the state to its own devices.
If Obama wanted to help, he would have to send in federal employees to take
over the runnjing of the state. As it is, they are in between a rock and a
hard place. Obama and his policies are forcing them out of busoness..... For
those of you who think Arizona was wrong, what is your solution to the
problem? Just what do you think Arizona should do?

[deadrat]

On any highways built with federal funds, I would expect that a state
would have some agreement with the feds that recognized whatever the
military does to certify drivers of its vehicles.

On state highways and local streets, I would expect that any member of
the military would have a license issued by a state.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Jun 29, 4:42 pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> On 6/29/12 4:10 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 29, 3:38 pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >   > 18USC1114 makes it illegal to kill an officer or employee of
> >   > the federal government when that person is performing his duties.
> >   > No state will be allowed to bring a criminal action against
> >   > anyone for breaking 18USC1114, and if the USA in the locale
> >   > of such a murder doesn't wish to try someone for the crime,
> >   > the USA cannot force the state to have a trial.
>

>> How about traffic violations? Federal vs. State?
>
> I don't believe there's such a thing as a federal traffic
violation,
> at least not outside federal property.

You've got that one right - I have a Federal traffic violation (a
wrong turn) it was inside a military base in the 90s. Hanscom AFB,
near Boston. Never paid it, have no idea how to pay it.

>> Do you know that in addition to State Drivers Licenses there are
>> Federal Drivers licenses?
>
> I doubt it.  There are federal requirements for state licenses and
> federal requirements for commercial drivers licenses, but these are
> issued by the states.

The State Department also issues a limited number of licenses.

To whom?

-Ramon

[Scout]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HsednfhMWYDapXPS...@giganews.com...

Oh, they don't have to walk off the job....I suggest that Arizona simply
notify the federal government that given the recent ruling it has been
determined by SCOTUS that Arizona not only doesn't have an option to enforce
federal law, but that they are in fact prohibited from doing so. Therefore
as of <insert Date> the State of Arizona will cease enforcement of any and
all federal laws including but not limited to:

1) Federal Immigration laws
2) Federal Employment laws
3) Federal EPA regulations
4) Federal Illicit and Illegal drug laws
5) Evasion of federal taxes
6) Counterfeiting of federal currency


And so on.

Bet the DOJ will be in court the next day trying to get an injunction to
force Arizona to do what SCOTUS has just stated they couldn't do...enforce
federal law.

Oh, and let's not forget....informing local sheriffs that agents of the
federal government are not to attempt to enforce any laws in their
jurisdiction.

[Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals]

On Jun 28, 3:45 pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> On 6/28/12 4:20 PM, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS wrote:
>
> > On Jun 28, 4:09 am, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
> >> "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., an iconic figure to many
> >> conservatives, sided with the court’s liberals to reject several key
> >> provisions in the law and even declare that as a “general rule, it is
> >> not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United
> >> States.”
>
> > It is when a state makes it a crime.
>
> Except that SCOTUS just ruled that a state cannot make it a crime.
>

Where does the constitution give the federal SC the power to nullify
state laws? Answer is nowhere. The constitution says states can
nullify federal laws but not the other way.

[Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals]

On Jun 29, 3:33 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
wrote:

.
>
> Not anymore.  That was one of the items that was shut down.  Being in the
> US illegally is not a state crime since the Supreme's announced their
> decision last week.

Cite constitutional authority for the feds to nullify state laws.

[Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals]

On Jun 29, 12:34 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
wrote:

>.
>
> > Besides....I'm unaware that in any other area states are prohibited
> > from enforcing federal law.
>
> Well, they can't deport.  ;)
>

Sure they can. They don't do it and obozo would explode if they did,
but certainly the states can deport illegals.

[Bill Graham]

Even if those laws are exactly the same as the federal laws..... (Be sure to
add that whenever you speak of the SCOTUS decision.)

Its not like the states are going off on their own, making up their own
immigration laws. They are making laws that are exactly the same as the
federal laws, so they can help the feds enforce their own laws! And SCOTUS
is against that?

[Bill Graham]

Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals wrote:

In any reasoinable, logical world, the states should be ble to apprehend and
hold anyone caught breaking any federal law, and turn them over to federal
marshals ASAP. Like they surely can do with kidnappers and bank robbers. Why
is the Obama world so unreasonable and illogical?

[deadrat]

On 6/29/12 10:45 PM, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway

[Sound of buzzer] I'm sorry. The answer is "the supremacy clause."
But thanks for playing.

> The constitution says states can
> nullify federal laws but not the other way.

Which section of which article says that?

[deadrat]

On 6/29/12 10:48 PM, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway

The Supremacy clause. As John Marshall wrote in McCulloch v Maryland
17US316 (1819), "Nothing can be plainer than that, if the law of
congress ... be a constitutional act, it must have its full and complete
effects. Its operation cannot be either defeated or impeded by acts of
state legislation. To hold otherwise, would be to declare, that congress
can only exercise its constitutional powers, subject to the controlling
discretion, and under the sufferance, of the state governments."

[deadrat]

On 6/29/12 10:56 PM, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway

Sorry, Speedy, but the Supreme Court just ruled they couldn't because
that would be an enforcement of immigration law, an act forbidden to a
state.

[deadrat]

It isn't SCOTUS that's against that. It's the Constitution. The feds
are supreme in their sphere, and if they don't want help, they can
prevent its delivery.

[deadrat]

Why are you such an ignoramus? In this world, as enforced by the
Supreme Court, the states may detain and turn over to ICE anyone they
find here illegally.

[chicagonut]

> find here illegally.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

However, Obama said if Arizona calls the feds they won't pick any
illegal aliens they have detained unless they have a felony on their
record. So essentially, Obama has nullified the SC's decision to
allow Arizona to exercise the enforcement part of sb1070.

[deadrat]

OK, let's got through it more slowly. Here are the steps the system
usually takes:

1. Detention (e.g., traffic stop)
2. Interrogation
3. Arrest
4. Accusation (e.g., indictment)
5. Notification (e.g, arraignment)
6. Adjudication (trial or hearing)
7. Determination (of guilt)
8. Punishment (or release)

There may be other steps, hearings for bail or pre-trial motions for
example, but I've left these out for immigration proceedings.

In the Supreme Court case just decided, the DoJ claimed that enforcement
of federal law started at step 2, i.e, as soon as an Arizona LEO asked
about the immigration status of anyone he had stopped, he was
encroaching on the province of federal law enforcement. The Supreme
Court said no, that enforcement of federal law didn't begin until step
4. That means that an Arizona cop may ask those he stops about their
immigration status and may detain them if he believes they're here
illegally, but to continue the process., his only option is to deliver
them to ICE

The Supreme Court decision defined what "enforcement" means. Nothing
the Executive can do can "nullify" that.

[Kent Wills]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 22:15:19 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>Oh, they don't have to walk off the job....I suggest that Arizona simply
>notify the federal government that given the recent ruling it has been
>determined by SCOTUS that Arizona not only doesn't have an option to enforce
>federal law, but that they are in fact prohibited from doing so. Therefore
>as of <insert Date> the State of Arizona will cease enforcement of any and
>all federal laws including but not limited to:
>
>1) Federal Immigration laws

They can't do that anyway.

>2) Federal Employment laws

They can't do that anyway.

>3) Federal EPA regulations

They can't do that anyway.

>4) Federal Illicit and Illegal drug laws

They can't do that anyway.

>5) Evasion of federal taxes

They can't do that anyway.

>6) Counterfeiting of federal currency

They can't do that anyway.

>
>
>And so on.
>

So you propose they not enforce federal laws they had no
authority to enforce in the first place.
I can agree with that.

>Bet the DOJ will be in court the next day trying to get an injunction to
>force Arizona to do what SCOTUS has just stated they couldn't do...enforce
>federal law.
>

They can't enforce federal law.

>Oh, and let's not forget....informing local sheriffs that agents of the
>federal government are not to attempt to enforce any laws in their
>jurisdiction.

Federal law enforcement is supposed to enforce federal laws. It's
what they are paid to do.

--
A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

[Kent Wills]

Please cite where this can be found.

--
"I'm a ten gov a day guy. It's all I know, and it's all
you need to know, gov!"
- Shouting George

[Kent Wills]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 20:56:47 -0700 (PDT), Car Crashes Mean Car Sales -

GM loves highway criminals <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Cite, please.

--
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

[RD Sandman]

Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals

<bet...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:001d552b-7ea7-4884-a2a4-
14eb79...@g5g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:

Nope, and you are a fucking moron.

[RD Sandman]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

news:_PqdnWdm6sPeCnPS...@giganews.com:

> Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals wrote:
>> On Jun 29, 12:34 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> .
>>>
>>>> Besides....I'm unaware that in any other area states are prohibited
>>>> from enforcing federal law.
>>>
>>> Well, they can't deport. ;)
>>>
>> Sure they can. They don't do it and obozo would explode if they did,
>> but certainly the states can deport illegals.
>
> In any reasoinable, logical world, the states should be ble to
> apprehend and hold anyone caught breaking any federal law, and turn
> them over to federal marshals ASAP.

And they do. That is fine.

Like they surely can do with
> kidnappers and bank robbers. Why is the Obama world so unreasonable
> and illogical?

The court didn't say that couldn't be done. The Court said that Arizona
cannot make being in the country illegally a state crime. It remains a
federal one.

[RD Sandman]

deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
news:e_adneV3BZFWPnPS...@giganews.com:

Absolutely......now, just because ICE won't do anything unless they are a
known criminal, have been deported before or are fresh meat......

[RD Sandman]

chicagonut <skm...@msn.com> wrote in
news:58c6625f-38ad-4f01...@mi5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:

....or have been previously deported....or just came over.

So essentially, Obama has nullified the SC's decision to
> allow Arizona to exercise the enforcement part of sb1070.

Essentially, nothing has changed since before SB1070.

[RD Sandman]

Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals

<bet...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:773ce88c-8667-4f27-aaac-
6d09b9...@l4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:

Your claim. You need to cite constitutional authority for the state
being able to deport illegals. Go for it.

[RD Sandman]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

news:F7udnXYdZPLzC3PS...@giganews.com:

No, Arizona wasn't. It was trying to make being in the US illegally a
state crime. They already assist the feds in enforcing federal law.
They did that before SB1070 and will continue to do it after. The
problem was that ICE didn't do anything with those illegals unless they
had a criminal record, had been previously deported or were fresh
catches.

> And SCOTUS is against that?

SCOTUS was against Arizona trying to make being in the state (country)
illegally a state crime. It cannot do that since that is a federal
responsibility.

[RD Sandman]

deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
news:lYCdnTSbV8bMP3PS...@giganews.com:

Thanks for posting that. I referred him (her) to that case earlier. I
didn't cite from it, however.

[RD Sandman]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

news:HsednfhMWYDapXPS...@giganews.com:

> RD Sandman wrote:
>> deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in

>> news:XY2dnbm7_KvFv3PS...@giganews.com:
>>
>>> On 6/29/12 4:31 PM, RD Sandman wrote:

>>>> deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in

>>>> news:KMudnQJNduHFj3PS...@giganews.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/29/12 1:43 PM, RD Sandman wrote:

>>>>>> deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in

>>>>>> news:2sCdnQVTL8CUbHHS...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/28/12 5:32 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>> message news:XnsA08099E46...@216.196.121.131...

>>>>>>>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS"

>>>>>>>>> <josego...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:a9ae8adc-95f8-4b17-871c-
>>>>>>>>> 227e7a...@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 28, 4:09 am, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., an iconic figure to many
>>>>>>>>>>> conservatives, sided with the court's liberals to reject
>>>>>>>>>>> several
>>>>>> key
>>>>>>>>>>> provisions in the law and even declare that as a "general
>>>>>>>>>>> rule, it
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the
>>>>>>>>>>> United States."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is when a state makes it a crime.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry to inform you that someone in the country illegally
>>>>>>>>> is NOT
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> state crime.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, but when that person is in the state illegally is certainly
>>>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is pretty much the point. You can't be in a state
>>>>>>> illegally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You most certainly can and some of those will be handled by the
>>>>>> feds. Many will not. The state can arrest them and turn them
>>>>>> over to the feds.
>>>>>> From there it is a federal problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe this is just semantics, but there's no law against being in
>>>>> Arizona illegally apart from being in the United States illegally.
>>>>
>>>> Correct. There is no state law in Arizona defining illegal
>>>> residing in the state.
>>>>
>>>>> People who haven't done anything illegal get arrested all the
>>>>> time, so AZ's arrest policy doesn't make being in Arizona a state
>>>>> crime. It's a federal problem all the way down.
>>>>
>>>> If you were trying to say that it is not a state crime to be there
>>>> illegally, you would have been correct. That isn't the way I took
>>>> your sentence to read.
>>>>

>>>>>>>> Besides....I'm unaware that in any other area states are
>>>>>>>> prohibited
>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> enforcing federal law.
>>>>>>>

This was purely a case of Arizona not being satisfied with the federal
handling of illegals.

> First they saw a problem with their state law.

Oh, which law was that?

They corrected that
> problem by making a state law that they could enforce that would
> correct, or help correct it.

When they wrote SB1070, they knew it would get federal attention so they
patterned the state law to parallel the federal law with most of the same
words in it. The Supremes just told Arizona that they couldn't do that.
Immigration was a federal problem, not a state one so the state could not
make it a state crime.

Then the feds stepped in and said, "you
> can't do that." So what is Arizonaq to do? They have a problem, the
> feds won;t do their job and correct the problem, and the feds won;t
> even let Arizonas make a law the enforcement of which will help fixd
> the problem.

Perhaps, but as Justice Marshall said in McCulloch v Maryland - 4 Wheat
(17 US) 316 (1819) said there could be no doubt "that the government of
the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of
action." One of those spheres is immigration.

If I were running things, I would establish an indefinite
> holidy for all Arizona state employees. They would all just walk away
> from their jobs and leave the state to its own devices.

In some cases, it seems that the state is already doing that. ;O

If Obama
> wanted to help, he would have to send in federal employees to take
> over the runnjing of the state. As it is, they are in between a rock
> and a hard place. Obama and his policies are forcing them out of
> busoness..... For those of you who think Arizona was wrong, what is
> your solution to the problem? Just what do you think Arizona should
> do?

Nothing. I don't think Arizona is the problem, the federal government is
by doing nothing about illegal immigration or sanctuary cities.

I do, however, think the DREAM Act is the right thing to do as a first
step. I agree with Obama's EO, but not why or how it was done.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:jslnfo$olu$2...@dont-email.me:

If our governor or legislature did that, it would be a sweep for their
opponents in November. Arizona, except for the area right around Tucson
is a right wing state. Some of those things they would like, but the big
ones like drug laws, etc.. they wouldn't. They also would not like the
federal infusion of money to go away.

> Bet the DOJ will be in court the next day trying to get an injunction
> to force Arizona to do what SCOTUS has just stated they couldn't
> do...enforce federal law.

Just not the ones on immigration.

> Oh, and let's not forget....informing local sheriffs that agents of
> the federal government are not to attempt to enforce any laws in their
> jurisdiction.

Even Arpaio would rebel against that as soon as he learned he would be
building many more tent cities and having to hire more deputies with no
money.

[RD Sandman]

deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in news:mLSdnWd2e-
lW2nPSnZ2dn...@giganews.com:

> On 6/29/12 5:38 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in

>> news:Io6dnV8PV_qjvHPS...@giganews.com:
>>
>>> On 6/29/12 4:10 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:

>>>>
>>>> On Jun 29, 3:38 pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>>> > 18USC1114 makes it illegal to kill an officer or employee of
>>>> > the federal government when that person is performing his
duties.

>>>> > No state will be allowed to bring a criminal action against

>>>> > anyone for breaking 18USC1114, and if the USA in the locale

>>>> > of such a murder doesn't wish to try someone for the crime,
>>>> > the USA cannot force the state to have a trial.
>>>>

>>>> How about traffic violations? Federal vs. State?
>>>
>>> I don't believe there's such a thing as a federal traffic violation,
at
>>> least not outside federal property.
>>>>
>>>> Do you know that in addition to State Drivers Licenses there are
>>>> Federal Drivers licenses?
>>>
>>> I doubt it.
>>
>> Au contraire. I had one. It allowed me to drive a military vehicle
for
>> military purposes on state and federal roads. Again, to cite you, the
>> feds probably had to "bribe" the state to get them to allow that. ;)
>>
>> There are federal requirements for state licenses and
>>> federal requirements for commercial drivers licenses, but these are
>>> issued by the states.
>>
>> Hmmmm, do you think that when you see a military convoy on our
>> interstates or other highways that they all have state issued
commercial
>> drivers licenses?
>
> On any highways built with federal funds, I would expect that a state
> would have some agreement with the feds that recognized whatever the
> military does to certify drivers of its vehicles.
>
> On state highways and local streets, I would expect that any member of
> the military would have a license issued by a state.

I didn't need one and neither would a driver even in California as long
as he/she was driving a military vehicle.

[Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS]

On Jun 30, 12:54 am, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
.
>
> Sorry, Speedy, but the Supreme Court just ruled they couldn't because
> that would be an enforcement of immigration law, an act forbidden to a
> state.

Where does the constitution say states cannot enact and enforce
immigration laws? All the constitution says on the subject of
immigrations is that congress has the power " to establish a uniform
rule of naturalization".

[Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS]

On Jun 30, 11:52 am, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 20:56:47 -0700 (PDT), Car Crashes Mean Car Sales -

> >> Well, they can't deport.  ;)
>
> >Sure they can. They don't do it and obozo would explode if they did,
> >but certainly the states can deport illegals.
>
>      Cite, please.

Cite what, you idiot. The states are sovereign so naturally they can
deport invaders. Furthermore, the constitution does not explicity
give either states or the feds the power to deport, so by the tenth
amendment the power is with the states.

[RD Sandman]

deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
news:XNKdnQ_U6bijqHLS...@giganews.com:

That is correct. They will be turned over to ICE who will let them go
unless any one of three conditions are met:

1. They are a criminals with felony convictions
2. They have been deported before
3. They are new, fresh illegals caught for the first time.

> The Supreme Court decision defined what "enforcement" means. Nothing
> the Executive can do can "nullify" that.

--

Remember that when the enemy is in range.....
So are you!!

[deadrat]

Read the SCOTUS decision. Various things, including naturalization and
foreign policy
bring immigration into the sphere of federal power.

Whether you like it or not.

[deadrat]

Sorry, Speedy. You lose again. SCOTUS says the power does not lie with
the states.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Jun 30, 3:42 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS"

<josegoldb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 30, 11:52 am, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 20:56:47 -0700 (PDT), Car Crashes Mean Car Sales -
> > >> Well, they can't deport.  ;)
>
> > >Sure they can. They don't do it and obozo would explode if they did,
> > >but certainly the states can deport illegals.
>
> >      Cite, please.
>

> Cite what, you idiot.  The states are sovereign so naturally
> they can deport invaders.

Sure, states can deport people from that state.

I know a Colombian guy (Andrés Zúñiga) who had the GENIAL IDEA to have
cocaine sent by US Postal Service from Medellin to Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
He received a note telling him to go pick up his package personally at
the Post Office. The FBI was waiting for him. The postal employees
claimed that the package "fell" and "accidentally" opened (wink,
wink). Good move USPS!!

Punishment: Andrés was deported from Iowa. I am sure he is
heartbroken, his lifetime dreams shattered...

-Ramon

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Jun 30, 3:39 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS"

Isn't it funny that the more Judy the Drunkie reads and "learns" the
Constitution and laws, the more decisions against her desires and
"expertise" are taken?? The more she is ridiculed in these forums?

That is the invariable result when your main (only?) motivation is
hatred plus a heavy dose of paranoia.

-Ramon

ps: One more time you provide corroborative evidence of the nationwide
famous "Herrera Dictum" (or is it "Maxim"?):

Hatred Fries Neurons.

You are sad basket case, really.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Jun 27, 12:03 pm, Judy La Loca Borracha <beta...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> Anyone known to be in america illegally should be deported - no
> exceptions. Why won't obama enforce the law?

What law are you referring to? What law says:

"Anyone known to be in America illegally MUST be deported - No
exceptions."

I will give you a little help:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text

Chapter, Page and Paragraph, por favor.

-Ramon

[Bill Graham]

So who's illogical now? It sure as hell ain't the Republicans.......

[Ramon F. Herrera]

The fact that you can't/won't understand the logic does not illogical
make.

The part where Mrs. Myers (not the sharpest of posters, as I am sure
you have noticed) claims "So essentially, Obama has nullified the SC's
decision" is simply false. Not sure whether her ignorance is genuine
or pretend.

-Ramon

[Bill Graham]

But they can't even make state laws that reflect the federal laws so they
can enforce them. IOW, most states have laws against kidnapping, so when
someone is kidnapped, the loval police can get infolved. But if they didn't,
now, in liew of the recent SCOTUD ruling, they are not allowed to make such
a law, so if the crime is committed in their state, they have no choice but
to stand by and watvch it go down! Is that logical to you? It is not logical
to me. What would happen if Arizona removes the law against bank robbery
from its books? And every time a bank was robbed in AZ, nothing would be
done unless and until the Feds came in? Would SCOTUD force them to put their
anti bank robbery law back on the books? Why can't you see the illogic of
the situation?

[deadrat]

What an ignoramus you are. Crimes against persons may be prosecuted by
both sovereigns. Kidnapping remains against state law.

> Is that logical to you? It is not logical to me.

That's because you're a clueless ignoramus.

> What would happen if Arizona
> removes the law against bank robbery from its books? And every time a
> bank was robbed in AZ, nothing would be done unless and until the Feds
> came in? Would SCOTUD force them to put their anti bank robbery law back
> on the books? Why can't you see the illogic of the situation?

Why would AZ do that? Why would anybody but a sheer ignoramus think
they had to?

[Bill Graham]

RD Sandman wrote:
> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:_PqdnWdm6sPeCnPS...@giganews.com:
>
>> Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals wrote:
>>> On Jun 29, 12:34 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>> Besides....I'm unaware that in any other area states are
>>>>> prohibited from enforcing federal law.
>>>>
>>>> Well, they can't deport. ;)
>>>>
>>> Sure they can. They don't do it and obozo would explode if they did,
>>> but certainly the states can deport illegals.
>>
>> In any reasoinable, logical world, the states should be ble to
>> apprehend and hold anyone caught breaking any federal law, and turn
>> them over to federal marshals ASAP.
>
> And they do. That is fine.
>
> Like they surely can do with
>> kidnappers and bank robbers. Why is the Obama world so unreasonable
>> and illogical?
>
> The court didn't say that couldn't be done. The Court said that
> Arizona cannot make being in the country illegally a state crime. It
> remains a federal one.

But the feds weren't (and aren't) enforcing it. So the stare decided to do
it for them. If the feds didn't enforce the kidnapping laws, wouldn't it be
logical for AZ to make a law against kidnapping and enforce it? And if so,
why can't they make a law against illegal aliens and enforce that?

If there is some new crime. (that didn't exist before) And the criminals who
practice this new crime simply take up residence in any state that doesn't
have a law against this new crimne on the books. Then they can continue to
practice this new crime without fear of prosecution. Then the feds make a
law against the crime. The criminals still don't have to worry, because they
know that 1. The state can't enforce the law. and, 2. The state can't make a
law against the new crime, so they can enforce it. In fact, the state can't
do anything that even annoys the criminals even a little bit. And, the
federal government has to hire enough police to set up shop (police
departments) in every state in the union to enforce their new law. Does this
seem logical to you? To me, it is an obvious effort to take over the whole
country, by establishing a federal police force that is capable of doing
just that.... Taking over the whole country. Does this remind you of Hitlers
brownshirts? - It sure does remind me of them.....

[Bill Graham]

RD Sandman wrote:
> deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
> news:e_adneV3BZFWPnPS...@giganews.com:
>
>> On 6/30/12 1:05 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>> Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals wrote:
>>>> On Jun 29, 12:34 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>>> Besides....I'm unaware that in any other area states are
>>>>>> prohibited from enforcing federal law.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, they can't deport. ;)
>>>>>
>>>> Sure they can. They don't do it and obozo would explode if they
>>>> did, but certainly the states can deport illegals.
>>>
>>> In any reasoinable, logical world, the states should be ble to
>>> apprehend and hold anyone caught breaking any federal law, and turn
>>> them over to federal marshals ASAP. Like they surely can do with
>>> kidnappers and bank robbers. Why is the Obama world so unreasonable
>>> and illogical?
>>
>> Why are you such an ignoramus? In this world, as enforced by the
>> Supreme Court, the states may detain and turn over to ICE anyone they
>> find here illegally.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Absolutely......now, just because ICE won't do anything unless they
> are a known criminal, have been deported before or are fresh
> meat......

In fact, ICE may as well transport them to the states welfare line, so they
can reapply for welfare....:^)

[Bill Graham]

RD Sandman wrote:
> Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals
> <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:773ce88c-8667-4f27-aaac-
> 6d09b9...@l4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Jun 29, 3:33 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>> .
>>>
>>> Not anymore. That was one of the items that was shut down. Being in
>> the
>>> US illegally is not a state crime since the Supreme's announced
>>> their decision last week.
>>
>> Cite constitutional authority for the feds to nullify state laws.
>
>
> Your claim. You need to cite constitutional authority for the state
> being able to deport illegals. Go for it.

States can'd "deport" anybody. They can, however extradite criminaqls to
another state for prosecution in that other state. However, the other state
has to not only give their permission for this, but has to send its deputies
to pick up the criminals and escourt them back to their state. So, I guess
AZ can't do what I suggested earlier.... Bus the illegals to the White House
lawn......

[Bill Graham]

So no state can make a law that reflects a federal law that is already on
the books? If the government makes a law against counterfiting some new
federal document, and a state policeman uncovers a location where they are
printing up these documents by the thousands, the cop casn't bust them, and
the state can't make a law against it, so the state police can bust them.
IOW, the state cop has to close his eyes and stumble out the door... Does

[Bill Graham]

But you can't be deported from one state to another. The feds can deport you
out of the country (if they know where to send you) but no state can deport
you to another state, and, out of the country either, now. So where did they
deport Andrés to?

[deadrat]

On 6/30/12 7:41 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> RD Sandman wrote:
<snip/>

> To me, it is an
> obvious effort to take over the whole country, by establishing a federal
> police force that is capable of doing just that.... Taking over the
> whole country. Does this remind you of Hitlers brownshirts? - It sure
> does remind me of them.....

Sure it does. But you're an ignoramus.

[deadrat]

They can't get welfare since they're not citizens, and since they don't
want the attention of the authorities, they generally don't apply for it.

[deadrat]

Yeah, he stumbles out the door and calls the Secret Service, the agency
that deals with counterfeiting.

[Kent Wills]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 13:42:08 -0700 (PDT), "Speeders & Drunk Drivers
are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS" <josego...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jun 30, 11:52 am, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 20:56:47 -0700 (PDT), Car Crashes Mean Car Sales -
>> >> Well, they can't deport.  ;)
>>
>> >Sure they can. They don't do it and obozo would explode if they did,
>> >but certainly the states can deport illegals.
>>
>>      Cite, please.
>
>
>Cite what, you idiot.

The law that permits sates to deport illegal aliens, dullard. And
I mean within the context of your use of deportation.
It's no secret that a state can kick someone out of the state,
but they can't kick them out of the country.

>The states are sovereign so naturally they can
>deport invaders.

Cite, please.

>Furthermore, the constitution does not explicity
>give either states or the feds the power to deport, so by the tenth
>amendment the power is with the states.

You're lying.

--
I could write about nobel gasses, but there would be no reaction.

[Kent Wills]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 14:49:43 -0700 (PDT), "Ramon F. Herrera"
<ra...@conexus.net> wrote:

>On Jun 30, 3:42 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS"
><josegoldb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 30, 11:52 am, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 20:56:47 -0700 (PDT), Car Crashes Mean Car Sales -
>> > >> Well, they can't deport.  ;)
>>
>> > >Sure they can. They don't do it and obozo would explode if they did,
>> > >but certainly the states can deport illegals.
>>
>> >      Cite, please.
>>
>
> > Cite what, you idiot.  The states are sovereign so naturally
> > they can deport invaders.
>
>Sure, states can deport people from that state.
>
>I know a Colombian guy (Andrés Zúñiga) who had the GENIAL IDEA to have
>cocaine sent by US Postal Service from Medellin to Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
>He received a note telling him to go pick up his package personally at
>the Post Office. The FBI was waiting for him. The postal employees
>claimed that the package "fell" and "accidentally" opened (wink,
>wink). Good move USPS!!
>

It is possible this happened. Possible.
My understanding is that drug sniffing dogs are used to locate
drugs.
I once thought about sending a bunch of milk-bones via the USPS
just to see what would happen. It occurred to me that while I may
have found it funny, along with some others, the USPS, FBI and DEA may
not share the joke. I elected not to do it.
Years later I heard that someone else tried it (no cite was
given, so it could be along the lines of urban legend) and that while
the dog gave a reaction (tore open the package) it wasn't the one
designated for drugs.

>Punishment: Andrés was deported from Iowa. I am sure he is
>heartbroken, his lifetime dreams shattered...
>

I don't think this is what Judy means by deportation.
Yes, any state can kick someone out of that state, but this isn't
deportation as Judy uses the word.

[Kent Wills]

The SCOTUS disagrees with you. And it gets the final say on such
matters.

--
Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin.
I poked a badger with a spoon.

[Kent Wills]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 17:30:12 -0700, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
wrote:

They can, and sometimes do.
In those cases, they are enforcing state laws, not federal.

>IOW, most states have laws against kidnapping, so when
>someone is kidnapped, the loval police can get infolved. But if they didn't,
>now, in liew of the recent SCOTUD ruling, they are not allowed to make such
>a law, so if the crime is committed in their state, they have no choice but
>to stand by and watvch it go down!

That is not what the ruling states.

>Is that logical to you? It is not logical
>to me. What would happen if Arizona removes the law against bank robbery
>from its books?

Then it would no longer be against state law in Arizona.

>And every time a bank was robbed in AZ, nothing would be
>done unless and until the Feds came in? Would SCOTUD force them to put their
>anti bank robbery law back on the books?

I don't think the Supreme Court can force a state to put any laws
on the books.

>Why can't you see the illogic of
>the situation?

You're the one offering illogical scenarios.

--
"I'm a ten gov a day guy. It's all I know, and it's all
you need to know, gov!"
- Shouting George