Arizona must demand federal judges show where they get authority to nullify state laws

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

It's not in the constitution which means the feds have no such power.
The states are soverign and AZ should tell the federal judges we will
enforce our immigration laws whether you like it or not.

[Ramon F Herrera]

On Mar 1, 1:18 pm, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway
criminals <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The states are sovereign

We all missed the news about each state joining the United Nations and
showing other indications of sovereignty such as having embassies,
armies, etc.

Even if you were correct, the instant the case below was filed, the
State acknowledges its subordination and obedience to the US Supreme
Court.

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/11-182.html

Otherwise, they would have filed "under protest".

-Ramon

[Ramon F Herrera]

On Mar 1, 1:33 pm, Ramon F Herrera <gopos...@jonjay.com> wrote:

> On Mar 1, 1:18 pm, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highwaycriminals <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>  > The states are sovereign
>
> We all missed the news about each state joining the United Nations and
> showing other indications of sovereignty such as having embassies,
> armies, etc.
>
> Even if you were correct, the instant the case below was filed, the
> State acknowledges its subordination and obedience to the US Supreme
> Court.
>
> http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/11-182.html
>
> Otherwise, they would have filed "under protest".
>
> -Ramon

"The Supreme Court was created by the Constitution of the United
States of America. Article III, created the Supreme Court, specifying
that:

"the judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one
supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts [...]"

"The judicial Power shall extend to:

"all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the
Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under their Authority;"

http://answers.yourdictionary.com/law/what-are-the-duties-of-the-supreme-court.html

-Ramon

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

On Mar 1, 12:33 pm, Ramon F Herrera <gopos...@jonjay.com> wrote:

> On Mar 1, 1:18 pm, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highwaycriminals <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>  > The states are sovereign
>
> We all missed the news about each state joining the United Nations and
> showing other indications of sovereignty such as having embassies,
> armies, etc.
>

Embassies?? That has nothing to do with sovereignty, you ignoramus.
As for armies, AZ has it's own national guard. Now show us where the
constitution gives federal judges the power to nullify state laws.

[Ramon F Herrera]

On Mar 1, 1:54 pm, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway

criminals <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 12:33 pm, Ramon F Herrera <gopos...@jonjay.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 1, 1:18 pm, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highwaycriminals <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >  > The states are sovereign
>
> > We all missed the news about each state joining the United Nations and
> > showing other indications of sovereignty such as having embassies,
> > armies, etc.
>

> Embassies??  That has nothing to do with sovereignty

"Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority
over a geographic area, such as a territory.[1] It can be found in a
power to rule and make law that rests on a political fact for which no
purely legal explanation can be provided."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty

-Ramon

[Ramon F Herrera]

On Mar 1, 1:33 pm, Ramon F Herrera <gopos...@jonjay.com> wrote:

> Even if you were correct, the instant the case below was filed,
> the State acknowledges its subordination and obedience to the
> US Supreme Court.

A few years ago, I had a dispute with a large company, involving the
ownership of some software that I had written. At first attempt, I
requested them to pay several thousand dollars for the continued use
of what I claimed was MY software. When they refused, my offer was
this: "Fine, you can use it, just pay me $1".

The reason I licensed it so cheaply is that the instant the pay me $1,
they are acknowledging that I own the Intellectual Property.

That is a general principle of law. If the states were not
subordinated to the US Supreme Cort, THEY ARE NOW.

-Ramon

[@bass.gov Michael Davis]

JUDY WRITES ON DRUGS AGAIN!

"Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals" wrote in message
news:9c2559dd-ccfd-463c...@n12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

It's not in the constitution which means the feds have no such power.
The states are soverign and AZ should tell the federal judges we will
enforce our immigration laws whether you like it or not.

^^^^WOW!^^^^


Judy (while HIGHLY intoxicated) says now that certain United States STATES
are "soverign" !

[RD Sandman]

Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals

<bet...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:9c2559dd-ccfd-463c-9869-
85d83b...@n12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:

> It's not in the constitution which means the feds have no such power.
> The states are soverign and AZ should tell the federal judges we will
> enforce our immigration laws whether you like it or not.
>

It doesn't work that way. Immigration law is a federal responsibility.
They aren't doing it. That is what needs to be addressed, not fucking
around thinking state laws supercede federal ones.

--


If you woke up this morning, don't complain.....


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[plainolamerican]

On Mar 1, 1:18 pm, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway

---
The feds make all the rules and will sue and/or attack those who
refuse to obey.

States' rights were not settled in 1865. It's time for another civil
war. Choose sides carefully.

[RD Sandman]

Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals

<bet...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:c436bb27-4131-436a-b83e-
12c2c4...@f2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 1, 12:33 pm, Ramon F Herrera <gopos...@jonjay.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 1:18 pm, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves
highwaycrimina
> ls <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>  > The states are sovereign
>>
>> We all missed the news about each state joining the United Nations and
>> showing other indications of sovereignty such as having embassies,
>> armies, etc.
>>
>
> Embassies?? That has nothing to do with sovereignty, you ignoramus.
> As for armies, AZ has it's own national guard.

Which is also part of the federal national guard. It depends on who
calls them to service.

> Now show us where the
> constitution gives federal judges the power to nullify state laws.

Did you bother to read what Judge Bolton's concern was on that part of
the law? The state cannot make it illegal for someone to enter a car
stopped in traffic in order to go to work somewhere. Since that cannot
be illegal then the state cannot criminalize drivers who stop to pick
those people up. When the state responded that it had a legitimate
interest in the free flow of traffic, she stated that since it only
addressed people soliciting for work the real purpose behind the
provision was to attack the practice where day laborers would gather
around home inprovement stores and await offers of work. Being a day
laborer is not a crime and soliciting work is a constitutionally
protected activity.

She also stated that the state has other ways to ensure that traffic flow
and that the true reason for the law becomes apparent when the full
measure is examined. She cited that SB1070 spells out that its purpose
"is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state
and local governments in Arizona." It also states the provisions, "are
intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and
presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in
the United States." Nowhere does the it state that the purpose of the
statutes and statutory revisions is to enhance traffic safety per Judge
Bolton.



The timing of this decision makes it so it will not be considered as part
of SB1070 when that law goes before the Supreme Court in a few weeks.

[Ramon F Herrera]

On Mar 1, 2:32 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
wrote:

> Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals

> <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:9c2559dd-ccfd-463c-9869-
> 85d83b89e...@n12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:

>
> > It's not in the constitution which means the feds have no such power.
> > The states are soverign and AZ should  tell the federal judges we will
> > enforce our immigration laws whether you like it or not.
>

> It doesn't work that way. Immigration law is a federal
responsibility.

Actually, Arizona et amici curiae claim that the only extent of the
Federal branch is to give visas, manage customs and that's it. Once
the individual has crossed the border, the State can defend itself,
punish undocumented, etc. What they propose is a very narrow
interpretation of the Supremacy Clause.

Check out all the amicus briefs:

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/11-182.html

The bottom line is this: Will the Supremes give up their Supremacy? We
will find out in a couple months.

-Ramon

[Ramon F Herrera]

On Mar 1, 2:32 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
wrote:

> Immigration law is a federal responsibility.
> They aren't doing it.

Is that opinion or fact? How can you possibly make such statement, as
if it were a binary quality?

Many sources say that at no time the border has been more secure, and
no president in US history has deported so many undocumented folks
(including the unconstitutional Operation Wetback).

-Ramon

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/18/us/immigrant-deportations/

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/05/politics/napolitano-immigration/

http://americasvoiceonline.org/pages/deportations_by_fiscal_year

Faux:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4360693/number-of-deportations-on-the-rise
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4360667/obama-administrations-best-kept-secret

[Bill Graham]

A better question is: Where doew it say that the states can't enforce
federal law?

[Bill Graham]

Whichever side the Socialist Democrats are on..... I am on the other side.

[Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year]

On Mar 1, 12:48 pm, Ramon F Herrera <gopos...@jonjay.com> wrote:
> >
> "The judicial Power shall extend to:
>
> "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the
> Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made,
> under their Authority;"
>

Nothing there about nullifying STATE laws. The FF accepted that the
states were sovereign.

[Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year]

On Mar 1, 1:32 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
wrote:
>>

> It doesn't work that way.  Immigration law is a federal responsibility.

All the constitution says on immigration is that congress shall have
the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. So by the
tenth amendment everything else re immigration is a state issue.

[Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year]

HAHAHA. That is the worst argument in history.

[Kent Wills]

Arizona anyway, under this suit.

--
'Life is pain. Anybody that says different is selling something.'
-- Fezzik's mother

[Kent Wills]

On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:32:15 -0600, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals
><bet...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:9c2559dd-ccfd-463c-9869-
>85d83b...@n12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> It's not in the constitution which means the feds have no such power.
>> The states are soverign and AZ should tell the federal judges we will
>> enforce our immigration laws whether you like it or not.
>>
>
>It doesn't work that way. Immigration law is a federal responsibility.
>They aren't doing it.

I must disagree with you.
There have been more deportation of illegal aliens in the last
three years than any other three year period in the history of the
U.S.

>That is what needs to be addressed, not fucking
>around thinking state laws supercede federal ones.

--

[Kent Wills]

Please point out exactly where Ramon's argument is wrong.

--
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?

[Ramon F Herrera]

...and every single State that has sued the Fed in history. That would
be all of them.

-Ramon

[Ramon F Herrera]

On Mar 1, 7:29 pm, "Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year"

Unlike yours, it matches reality.

The principle involved is JURISPRUDENCE. The same one that can be used
when EVERY single anchor baby ever born since 1868 has been a US
citizen.

-Ramon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[Ramon F Herrera]

On Mar 2, 3:29 am, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:32:15 -0600, RD Sandman
>
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
> >Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals

> ><beta...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:9c2559dd-ccfd-463c-9869-
> >85d83b89e...@n12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>

> >> It's not in the constitution which means the feds have no such power.
> >> The states are soverign and AZ should  tell the federal judges we will
> >> enforce our immigration laws whether you like it or not.
>
> >It doesn't work that way.  Immigration law is a federal responsibility.
> >They aren't doing it.
>

> I must disagree with you.
> There have been more deportation of illegal aliens in the last
> three years than any other three year period in the history of the
> U.S.

That is what I thought too, BUT I recently read some figures. During
his administration, Barack Obama has deported more undocumented folks
than ANY president in US history. I am including FDR who was president
for 12 years and 1 month, and the unconstitutional "Operation Wetback"
during the Ike presidency.

The reason this huge achievement has been kept low profile, is to
avoid offending Hispanic folks, since many of them are not as patient
and understanding as yours truly.

-Ramon

http://www.pbs.org/kpbs/theborder/history/timeline/20.html
http://tinyurl.com/4or9e5p

[Ramon F Herrera]

> A better question is: Where does it say that the states

> can't enforce federal law?

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

-Ramon

[SaPeIsMa]

"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6o41l75uhcai4o6lk...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:32:15 -0600, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals
>><bet...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:9c2559dd-ccfd-463c-9869-
>>85d83b...@n12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> It's not in the constitution which means the feds have no such power.
>>> The states are soverign and AZ should tell the federal judges we will
>>> enforce our immigration laws whether you like it or not.
>>>
>>
>>It doesn't work that way. Immigration law is a federal responsibility.
>>They aren't doing it.
>
> I must disagree with you.
> There have been more deportation of illegal aliens in the last
> three years than any other three year period in the history of the
> U.S.
>

How does that compare to the number of illegals ENTERING the country ??

[RD Sandman]

Ramon F Herrera <gopo...@jonjay.com> wrote in news:8da75f4c-3b00-4b65-
a293-3d0...@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 1, 2:32 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals
>> <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:9c2559dd-ccfd-463c-9869-
>> 85d83b89e...@n12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > It's not in the constitution which means the feds have no such
power.
>> > The states are soverign and AZ should  tell the federal judges we
wil
> l
>> > enforce our immigration laws whether you like it or not.
>>
>
> > It doesn't work that way. Immigration law is a federal
> responsibility.
>
> Actually, Arizona et amici curiae claim that the only extent of the
> Federal branch is to give visas, manage customs and that's it. Once
> the individual has crossed the border, the State can defend itself,
> punish undocumented, etc. What they propose is a very narrow
> interpretation of the Supremacy Clause.
>
> Check out all the amicus briefs:
>
> http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/11-182.html

I have read them. I live here near the border.

> The bottom line is this: Will the Supremes give up their Supremacy? We
> will find out in a couple months.

As my point says, we should be getting after the feds for not enforcing
their laws rather than pissing around with the states.

[RD Sandman]

Ramon F Herrera <gopo...@jonjay.com> wrote in news:c2830cb4-e730-4bdd-
9faa-10a...@t15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

I live here.

[plainolamerican]

ditto

[RD Sandman]

"Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year" <xeto...@yahoo.com>
wrote in news:d7976b8a-08c4-42fc-9040-
b0e60d...@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:

Since immigration is people coming into a country, that makes it federal.
Arizona, for example, has no say for California, New Jersey, etc..

[RD Sandman]

Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:6o41l75uhcai4o6lk...@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:32:15 -0600, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals
>><bet...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:9c2559dd-ccfd-463c-9869-
>>85d83b...@n12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> It's not in the constitution which means the feds have no such power.
>>> The states are soverign and AZ should tell the federal judges we
will
>>> enforce our immigration laws whether you like it or not.
>>>
>>
>>It doesn't work that way. Immigration law is a federal responsibility.
>>They aren't doing it.
>
> I must disagree with you.
> There have been more deportation of illegal aliens in the last
> three years than any other three year period in the history of the
> U.S.

You can disagree all you want. I live here, you don't. Besides,
enforcing immigration laws also does away with sanctuary cities and
states.

>>That is what needs to be addressed, not fucking
>>around thinking state laws supercede federal ones.
>



--

[RD Sandman]

Ramon F Herrera <gopo...@jonjay.com> wrote in news:c8138586-794d-4960-
bfef-c05...@pg2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:

And Obama needs their vote if he is to return to the White House.

> http://www.pbs.org/kpbs/theborder/history/timeline/20.html
> http://tinyurl.com/4or9e5p

[RD Sandman]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:caKdnfZE2bjFvc3S...@giganews.com:

States do enforce many federal laws. The problem is when the states try
to supplant those federal laws with laws of their own. Then the
Supremacy Clause kicks in.

[RD Sandman]

Ramon F Herrera <gopo...@jonjay.com> wrote in news:28101112-dad7-4a6a-
9916-bb9...@to5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:

Wrong. That prevents states from precluding federal laws with laws of
their own. States enforce federal laws all the time. Murder of a
federal officer or agent is a federal crime but states investigate it.
Bank robberies are federal crimes, the Mann Act is a federal crime.

[RD Sandman]

"Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year" <xeto...@yahoo.com>

wrote in news:377a5362-f11f-4eb0-b862-5229d5dc21e2@
1g2000yqv.googlegroups.com:

Not completely.

[Ramon F Herrera]

On Mar 2, 9:30 am, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@HotMail.com> wrote:

> How does that compare to the number of illegals ENTERING
> the country ??

They are actually leaving, and coming in smaller numbers.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/06/world/americas/immigration.html

The exception are the ones under your bed. They keep on reproducing
and we cannot do anything about them since only you have the power to
kick them out.

Be a man!! Dare to deport them from your closet!!

-Ramon

[deadrat]

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote:

>
> "Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6o41l75uhcai4o6lk...@4ax.com...

>> On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:32:15 -0600, RD Sandman

>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals

>>><bet...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:9c2559dd-ccfd-463c-9869-
>>>85d83b...@n12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>>>

>>>> It's not in the constitution which means the feds have no such power.
>>>> The states are soverign and AZ should tell the federal judges we will
>>>> enforce our immigration laws whether you like it or not.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It doesn't work that way. Immigration law is a federal responsibility.
>>>They aren't doing it.
>>
>> I must disagree with you.
>> There have been more deportation of illegal aliens in the last
>> three years than any other three year period in the history of the
>> U.S.
>>
>

> How does that compare to the number of illegals ENTERING the country ??

Down significantly, perhaps a fifth of what is was ten years ago. Lots of
speculation on why, but the last couple of years' depression probably
explains that period. Fewer jobs; fewer people needed to fill them.

[deadrat]

plainolamerican <plainol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 1, 7:25 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> plainolamerican wrote:
>> > On Mar 1, 1:18 pm, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway

>> > criminals <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> It's not in the constitution which means the feds have no such power.
>> >> The states are soverign and AZ should tell the federal judges we will
>> >> enforce our immigration laws whether you like it or not.
>>
>> > AZ should  tell the federal judges we will
>> > enforce our immigration laws

>> > ---
>> > The feds make all the rules and will sue and/or attack those who
>> > refuse to obey.
>>
>> > States' rights were not settled in 1865. It's time for another civil
>> > war. Choose sides carefully.
>>
>> Whichever side the Socialist Democrats are on..... I am on the other side
.
>
> ditto

Wow! You let someone who doesn't even do his own thinking do yours for you?

[deadrat]

RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

> Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in

> news:6o41l75uhcai4o6lk...@4ax.com:

>
>> On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:32:15 -0600, RD Sandman
>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>

>>>Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals

>>><bet...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:9c2559dd-ccfd-463c-9869-
>>>85d83b...@n12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>>>

>>>> It's not in the constitution which means the feds have no such power.
>>>> The states are soverign and AZ should tell the federal judges we
> will
>>>> enforce our immigration laws whether you like it or not.
>>>>
>>>

>>>It doesn't work that way. Immigration law is a federal responsibility.
>>>They aren't doing it.
>>
>> I must disagree with you.
>> There have been more deportation of illegal aliens in the last
>> three years than any other three year period in the history of the
>> U.S.
>

> You can disagree all you want. I live here, you don't. Besides,
> enforcing immigration laws also does away with sanctuary cities and
> states.

What "sanctuary" states? So-called sanctuary cities are those whose police
are directed not to help with immigration enforcement. That won't change no
matter what the feds do.
<snip/>

[Bill Graham]

It doesn't say that at all. What it says is:

This constitution,and the laws of the United States which shall be made in
persuance 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.

I don't know about you, but the way I read this is that no state can make
any laws which are unconstitutional, and the judges in every state are bound
to uphold constitutional law.

This means to me that the state of Arizona can not only enforce immigration
laws, but are duty bound to do so. IOW, federal laws supercede state laws,
and all states are duty bound to uphold them. The states can only make laws
that are not addressed by the feds or the constitution, and any such laws
cannot break constitutional law. So, for example, the New Your City laws
against the ownership of firearms are unconstitutional and therefore
illegal. All good citizens should disobey them as a matter of duty.

[Ramon F Herrera]

> supersede state laws, and all states are duty bound to uphold them.

Let's see how many of you folks noticed the glaring fault in Bill's
reasoning above?

I am referring to the 2nd. sentence.

-Ramon

[Bill Graham]

I believe the constitution applies to all citizens, and all enforcement
agiencies should enforce all constitutional laws as a matter of routine. Any
laws made by the states (or counties) which are unconstitutional, or break
constitutional law are null and void, and shouldn't be obeyed by any good
citizen. It is not the right, but the responsibility of good men to break
bad laws. All good citizens of New York City (for example) should buy and
carry with them at all times, a loaded pistol. Unfortunately, that city is
populated by sheep, and not men. They deserve to lose all their
constitutional rights.

[deadrat]

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

> Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 7:20 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals wrote:
>>>

>>>> On Mar 1, 12:33 pm, Ramon F Herrera <gopos...@jonjay.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 1, 1:18 pm, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves

>>>>> highwaycriminals <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> The states are sovereign
>>>
>>>>> We all missed the news about each state joining the United Nations
>>>>> and
>>>>> showing other indications of sovereignty such as having embassies,
>>>>> armies, etc.
>>>
>>>> Embassies?? That has nothing to do with sovereignty, you ignoramus.
>>>> As for armies, AZ has it's own national guard. Now show us where the
>>>> constitution gives federal judges the power to nullify state laws.
>>>
>>
>> > A better question is: Where does it say that the states
>> > can't enforce federal law?
>>
>> Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
>>
>> -Ramon
> It doesn't say that at all. What it says is:
>
> This constitution,and the laws of the United States which shall be made in
> persuance 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.
>
> I don't know about you, but the way I read this is that no state can make
> any laws which are unconstitutional, and the judges in every state are bound
> to uphold constitutional law.
>
> This means to me that the state of Arizona can not only enforce immigration

> laws, but are duty bound to do so. IOW, federal laws supercede state laws,
> and all states are duty bound to uphold them. The states can only make laws
> that are not addressed by the feds or the constitution, and any such laws
> cannot break constitutional law. So, for example, the New Your City laws
> against the ownership of firearms are unconstitutional and therefore
> illegal. All good citizens should disobey them as a matter of duty.

You are a very confused person. The state of Arizona is bound by federal law,
and the state of Arizona may not enter the United States illegally. And I
believe that the state of Arizona follows the letter and spirit of the
immigration laws every time it crosses the border from Mexico.

But enforcing laws is different. Arizona may not enforce federal law without
federal permission, and indeed, doesn't have to if it doesn't want to.

[Bill Graham]

RD Sandman wrote:


If you woke up this morning, don't complain.

But if I didn't wake up this morning, I can't complain. So who then, will be
left to complain?

[Ramon F Herrera]

On Mar 2, 4:11 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> plainolamerican wrote:
> > On Mar 1, 7:25 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> plainolamerican wrote:
> >>> On Mar 1, 1:18 pm, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway
> >>> criminals <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>> It's not in the constitution which means the feds have no such
> >>>> power. The states are soverign and AZ should tell the federal
> >>>> judges we will enforce our immigration laws whether you like it or
> >>>> not.
>
> >>> AZ should tell the federal judges we will
> >>> enforce our immigration laws
> >>> ---
> >>> The feds make all the rules and will sue and/or attack those who
> >>> refuse to obey.
>
> >>> States' rights were not settled in 1865. It's time for another civil
> >>> war. Choose sides carefully.
>
> >> Whichever side the Socialist Democrats are on..... I am on the other
> >> side.
>
> > ditto
>

> I believe the constitution applies to all citizens,

> and all enforcement agencies should enforce all constitutional

> laws as a matter of routine.

That would be interesting: I can envision the Secret Service chasing
Amish for selling raw milk and dairy products across state lines. How
about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reading your e-mail to see
whether it contains child porn? Hye, is that an EPA agent reviewing
your state tax returns?

-Ramon

[Bill Graham]

RD Sandman wrote:
> "Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year"
> <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:d7976b8a-08c4-42fc-9040-
> b0e60d...@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Mar 1, 1:32 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>> It doesn't work that way. Immigration law is a federal
> responsibility.
>>
>>
>> All the constitution says on immigration is that congress shall have
>> the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. So by the
>> tenth amendment everything else re immigration is a state issue.
>>
>
> Since immigration is people coming into a country, that makes it
> federal. Arizona, for example, has no say for California, New Jersey,
> etc..

But if all the illegal aliens go to one particular state, and overtax, or
overburden that states welfare services, then how can that state protect
itself from bankrupsy? I claqim that protecting our borders is a law or set
of laws made under the constitution, and is, therefore the responsibility of
all the states, and all local enforcement services, so it should be
perfectly legal for Arizona to enforce the national immigration laws. They,
as well as all police departments, are duty bound to do so. The assumption
that local police will do this enforcement with racial prejudice is
ridiculous and unwarrented. What makes federal police any more or less
immune from racial prejudice than is any other police? To assume that all
local police will be prejudiced out of hand is prejudiced in and of itself.

[Bill Graham]

Perhaps, but the laws against illegals are valid laws, and the states cannot
prevent illegals from coming across their borders from other states, so I
claim that every state has the right to police the federal immigration laws.
Otherwise, one state could be bankrupted by hundreds of thousands of
illegals pouring in from other states and overwhelming its welfare services.
Suppose, for example, that many Mexicans came through
California to
arizona and overwhelmed
arizona's welfare programs. California wouldn't care, because they onloy
crossed through that state for a day or less and didn't stay. And Arizona
couldn't stop them, because once here, crossing state borders without a
passport is perfectly legal and constitutional. So, Arizona has no other
recourse but to do their own federal police work and deport those illegals
it finds within its borders. Isn't this true?

[Ramon F Herrera]

On Mar 2, 4:25 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> What makes federal police any more or less immune from
> racial prejudice than is any other police?

The higher the authority the less racist.

See the Civil War as an excellent example.

A Representative only has to concern him/herself with the issues that
affects an electorate in a limited geographical area. Let's say that
his area contains mostly blue folks (or orange, or pink, or Amish).

The State Senators, OTOH, should make sure that the rights of all
colors in the rainbow are properly protected, in HIS state.

Let's say that a State is filled with young people and they don't
worry much about the old farts (or viceversa). Or a state is filled
with football fans who despise baseball. Or yuppies who dislike
agriculture.

The Federal Government is the next step above. They take care of high
level things such as foreign relations.

The next one above the hierarchy is God: he cares for all of us.

Q.E.D.

De nada,

-Ramon

[Ramon F Herrera]

On Mar 2, 4:25 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:

> What makes federal police any more or less immune
> from racial prejudice than is any other police?

First of all, it is not the police (who belong to different races in
Arizona). The racist ones are the lawmakers, and that is why Russell
Pearce was fired by We The People.

In any event, allow me to answer with another question:

Can you honestly envision the AZ SB-1070 law (or ANY similar
legislation in which Human Rights are potentially violated) being
passed in Capitol Hill?

Allow me to remind you that the State Department denounced the State
of Arizona before the UN Human Rights Commission. It is easy to guess
the reasoning by Hillary: "Better do it ourselves than wait for that
basterd Hugo Chavez to denounce us!!".

-Ramon

[Ramon F Herrera]

On Mar 2, 4:36 pm, Ramon F Herrera <gopos...@jonjay.com> wrote:

> The next one above the hierarchy is God: he cares for all of us.

I forgot one level: The United Nations is between the Federal
Government and God.

-RFH

[Not Sure]

On Mar 2, 1:29 am, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:32:15 -0600, RD Sandman

>
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
> >Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals

> ><beta...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:9c2559dd-ccfd-463c-9869-
> >85d83b89e...@n12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>

> >> It's not in the constitution which means the feds have no such power.
> >> The states are soverign and AZ should  tell the federal judges we will
> >> enforce our immigration laws whether you like it or not.
>

> >It doesn't work that way.  Immigration law is a federal responsibility.

> >They aren't doing it.
>
>      I must disagree with you.
>      There have been more deportation of illegal aliens in the last
> three years than any other three year period in the history of the
> U.S.

No there haven't. Better luck lying next time :)

>
> >That is what needs to be addressed, not fucking
> >around thinking state laws supercede federal ones.
>
> --

> 'Life is pain. Anybody that says different is selling something.'
>      -- Fezzik's mother

[Bill Graham]

Yes, yes. Me too..... I want to know where the fault is in my reasoning. The
constitution doesn't say "we the members of certain states." It says, "we
the people..." Constitutional law applies to everyone, or, at least, to all
citizens. States can't make unconstitutional laws.

[Bill Graham]

Your examples have federal policemen enforceing local laws. The other way
around is much less ridiculous. How about local police uncovering a plot to
kill the president, and acting on it immediately, instead of trying to
contact the secret service first? Or the local police being cognizant of the
Amish farmers constitutional rights when they consider arresting him for his
milk practices? This is much more relevant.

[Bill Graham]

Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> On Mar 2, 4:25 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > What makes federal police any more or less immune from
> > racial prejudice than is any other police?
>
> The higher the authority the less racist.

Nonsense! Anyone can be rqcist in his/her enforcement of the law. The
federal government's racism is the worst of all, since it affects the most
people. Look at the Native American programs that have been with us for
hundreds of years. And the affirmative action program that trashed my son in
the name of, "making up for things done by his great grandfather." And
assuming that racism will take place before the fact is perhaps the most
racist of all. If I were Arizona, I would arrest illegal aliens and ship
them to Washington D.C.

[Bill Graham]

I read the Arizona law. It was totally innocuous. All it said was that
illegal aliens are illegal and should be arrestedf and deported back to
their country of origin. To assume that it would be prejudicially enforced
is ridiculous, and has nothing to do with the law itself. Arizona needs to
get rid of their illegals.
The federal government isn't doing it, so the local police have to do it.
And it is, (or, at least should be) perfectly legal for them to do so.

[Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year]

On Mar 2, 8:54 am, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
wrote:
> ">

> States do enforce many federal laws.  The problem is when the states try
> to supplant those federal laws with laws of their own.  Then the
> Supremacy Clause kicks in.
>

Supremacy clause says federal laws must comply with the constitution.
That means all a state has to do is say the federal law is
unconstitutional and replace it with a law of their own. States don't
do that anymore but they can and should.

[Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year]

On Mar 2, 8:51 am, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
wrote:
>

> > All the constitution says on immigration is that congress shall have
> > the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. So by the
> > tenth amendment everything else re immigration is a state issue.
>
> Since immigration is people coming into a country, that makes it federal.
> Arizona, for example, has no say for California, New Jersey, etc..
>

Another stupid argument from the board laughingstock. Immigration is
also people coming into a state so that makes it a state matter.
Nobody said AZ can regulate immigration into CA, but they can and
should regulate immigration into their own state.

[Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year]

On Mar 2, 2:29 am, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>      I must disagree with you.
>      There have been more deportation of illegal aliens in the last
> three years than any other three year period in the history of the
> U.S.

Like hell you idiot. That's just what super-liar obozo says. He also
announced last summer his no-deportation policy.!!! So one of those
statements or maybe both are false.

Obozo is the most brazen liar in the country and he knows the racist
press will let him get away with it cause he's black.

[Scout]

"Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year" <xeto...@yahoo.com>

wrote in message
news:ee17599b-4403-47de...@b1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

> On Mar 2, 8:51 am, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> > All the constitution says on immigration is that congress shall have
>> > the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. So by the
>> > tenth amendment everything else re immigration is a state issue.
>>
>> Since immigration is people coming into a country, that makes it federal.
>> Arizona, for example, has no say for California, New Jersey, etc..
>>
>
> Another stupid argument from the board laughingstock.

Have you looked in the mirror there Mr Board Laughingstock?

[deadrat]

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

> RD Sandman wrote:
>> "Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year"

>> <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:d7976b8a-08c4-42fc-9040-
>> b0e60d...@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>

>>> On Mar 1, 1:32 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>

>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> It doesn't work that way. Immigration law is a federal
>> responsibility.
>>>
>>>

>>> All the constitution says on immigration is that congress shall have
>>> the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. So by the
>>> tenth amendment everything else re immigration is a state issue.
>>>
>>
>> Since immigration is people coming into a country, that makes it
>> federal. Arizona, for example, has no say for California, New Jersey,
>> etc..
>

> But if all the illegal aliens go to one particular state,

They don't.

> and overtax, or overburden that states welfare services,

Generally, they don't do that either. Illegal aliens aren't allowed to get
welfare, and they want to avoid the authorities, not invite scrutiny.

> then how can that state protect itself from bankrupsy?

By learning to spell it correctly?

> I claqim that protecting our borders is a law or set
> of laws made under the constitution, and is, therefore the responsibility of
> all the states, and all local enforcement services, so it should be
> perfectly legal for Arizona to enforce the national immigration laws.

But you're an ignoramus.

> They, as well as all police departments, are duty bound to do so.

They're not. And even if the feds wanted them to, the feds can't force them.

> The assumption
> that local police will do this enforcement with racial prejudice is
> ridiculous and unwarrented.

One word: Arpaio.

> What makes federal police

There are no federal police.

> any more or less

> immune from racial prejudice than is any other police? To assume that all
> local police will be prejudiced out of hand is prejudiced in and of itself.

When you're done constructing your strawman, please clean up the chaff.

[Kent Wills]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 19:20:33 -0800 (PST), "Criminal Drivers Murder
35,000 Americans a Year" <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Mar 2, 2:29 am, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>      I must disagree with you.
>>      There have been more deportation of illegal aliens in the last
>> three years than any other three year period in the history of the
>> U.S.
>
>Like hell you idiot. That's just what super-liar obozo says.

That's what the evidence states, stupid.
I'm no fan of the Obama administration, but I can't LIE, like
you, and claim the truth is not the truth.

>He also
>announced last summer his no-deportation policy.!!! So one of those
>statements or maybe both are false.

When and where did he make this statement?

>
>Obozo is the most brazen liar in the country and he knows the racist
>press will let him get away with it cause he's black.

I don't see how his racial demographic factors into his
administration having done more deportation of illegals than any
previous one, ever.

[Ramon F Herrera]

On Mar 2, 9:20 pm, "Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year"

You still have not explained what prevents real patriots like yourself
from creating patriotic news media and telling us the truth.

The only possible conclusion is that the all-powerful people on the
other side have some sort of Mexican satellite-based laser beam that
paralyzes good folks (like you, an overt racist) and dumbs them so
they cannot act.

You are calling those on your side a bunch of incompetent inepts and/
or traitors. Small wonder you find yourself in such a tiny minority.

-Ramon

[RD Sandman]

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

news:maidnX9vCZs328zS...@giganews.com:

You are catching on. I can't slip anything by you, can I. ;)

--


If you woke up this morning, don't complain.....


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[RD Sandman]

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

news:abOdnSrDLdxo1czS...@giganews.com:

> RD Sandman wrote:
>> "Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year"
>> <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:d7976b8a-08c4-42fc-9040-
>> b0e60d...@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Mar 1, 1:32 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> It doesn't work that way. Immigration law is a federal
>> responsibility.
>>>
>>>
>>> All the constitution says on immigration is that congress shall have
>>> the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. So by the
>>> tenth amendment everything else re immigration is a state issue.
>>>
>>
>> Since immigration is people coming into a country, that makes it
>> federal. Arizona, for example, has no say for California, New Jersey,
>> etc..
>
> But if all the illegal aliens go to one particular state,

But, they don't. I would guess that most of the illegals that come
through Arizona (and Tucson is the busiest sector on the border) end up
in other states after passing through. Does that mean that none of them
stop here? Absolutely not, once in the country, there are 49 other
states and the District in which to find jobs and employers.

and overtax,
> or overburden that states welfare services, then how can that state
> protect itself from bankrupsy?

By passing laws that to get those things you must be able to prove
citizenry of the United States. Some states do that with voting
registration, some do it on drivers licenses, etc..

The bottom line really is that the entire immigration systems needs to be
redone. Incentives to come here illegally need to be reduced and one way
to do that is to revamp the legal process.

I claqim that protecting our borders is
> a law or set of laws made under the constitution, and is, therefore
> the responsibility of all the states, and all local enforcement
> services,

You just said "under the constitution". That is the organic document for
the United States or the country. It addresses the federal government,
not the states, except to ban some things from the states (like coining
money) and passing unenumerated powers down to them.

so it should be perfectly legal for Arizona to enforce the
> national immigration laws. They, as well as all police departments,
> are duty bound to do so.

Yes, but that wasn't the problem with SB1070. SB1070 made additional
laws that reflected federal law but in fact were state crimes not federal
ones. Additionally, they duplicated some already existing laws at the
state level. The portions of SB1070 that Bolton stopped in the last
couple weeks was one of those situations.

The assumption that local police will do this
> enforcement with racial prejudice is ridiculous and unwarrented.

Don't know much about Joe Arpaio do you. ;)

What
> makes federal police any more or less immune from racial prejudice
> than is any other police? To assume that all local police will be
> prejudiced out of hand is prejudiced in and of itself.

Yep, but the fear is what it could lead to. I agree that local
authorities have no more tendency to become racial than the feds do. You
and I are in more of an agreement than you might thing from this post.

[RD Sandman]

Ramon F Herrera <gopo...@jonjay.com> wrote in news:2eee6f84-5296-43a9-
9507-edc...@1g2000yqv.googlegroups.com:

>
> On Mar 2, 4:25 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > What makes federal police any more or less immune from
> > racial prejudice than is any other police?
>
> The higher the authority the less racist.

Bullshit. People are people. You might say that the higher the
authority, the more experienced those folks are at hiding it.

> See the Civil War as an excellent example.
>
> A Representative only has to concern him/herself with the issues that
> affects an electorate in a limited geographical area. Let's say that
> his area contains mostly blue folks (or orange, or pink, or Amish).
>
> The State Senators, OTOH, should make sure that the rights of all
> colors in the rainbow are properly protected, in HIS state.
>
> Let's say that a State is filled with young people and they don't
> worry much about the old farts (or viceversa). Or a state is filled
> with football fans who despise baseball. Or yuppies who dislike
> agriculture.
>
> The Federal Government is the next step above. They take care of high
> level things such as foreign relations.

You don't think that they also do domestic items like bank robbery,
kidnapping, etc..?

> The next one above the hierarchy is God: he cares for all of us.

Is he white, black or brown, Ramon?

[RD Sandman]

Ramon F Herrera <gopo...@jonjay.com> wrote in news:8ba6366e-ee0a-4f41-
9d66-18d...@p7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:

The United Nations is about as useless as tits on a boar.

[RD Sandman]

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

news:x72dnZNZHuqzxczS...@giganews.com:

They do turn them over to ICE when they are arrested and detained.

[RD Sandman]

Ramon F Herrera <gopo...@jonjay.com> wrote in news:fab2ad5b-dc8a-44b6-
af75-877...@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 2, 4:25 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > What makes federal police any more or less immune
> > from racial prejudice than is any other police?
>
> First of all, it is not the police (who belong to different races in
> Arizona). The racist ones are the lawmakers, and that is why Russell
> Pearce was fired by We The People.

Do you make a habit out of continually stepping in it? There are racist
police, racist legislators, racist grocers, racist homeless folks and
lots of others. One's job does not dictate whether one is racist or not.

> In any event, allow me to answer with another question:
>
> Can you honestly envision the AZ SB-1070 law (or ANY similar
> legislation in which Human Rights are potentially violated) being
> passed in Capitol Hill?

Not really, but I can't honestly envision the federal government doing
its job in certain areas by enforcing its own laws either.

> Allow me to remind you that the State Department denounced the State
> of Arizona before the UN Human Rights Commission. It is easy to guess
> the reasoning by Hillary: "Better do it ourselves than wait for that
> basterd Hugo Chavez to denounce us!!".

Do you take the state department's (or any other department in this or
any other administration) statements to be gospel?

[RD Sandman]

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

news:qr2dnbLLWJt0xMzS...@giganews.com:

It is. The problem is when Arizona passes a law that makes a federal
crime a state crime and it directed at a specific group of people. In
the case of the latest shutdown, Arizona claimed it was for better and
smoother traffic flow, yet it was not aimed at the driver of the vehicle
(Arizona already has laws on that) but was aimed specifically at day
laborers (a legal activity) around home improvement centers like Lowes or
Home Depot.

[RD Sandman]

"Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year" <xeto...@yahoo.com>
wrote in

news:ee17599b-4403-47de...@b1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 2, 8:51 am, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> > All the constitution says on immigration is that congress shall
>> > have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. So by
>> > the tenth amendment everything else re immigration is a state
>> > issue.
>>
>> Since immigration is people coming into a country, that makes it
>> federal. Arizona, for example, has no say for California, New Jersey,
>> etc..
>>
>
> Another stupid argument from the board laughingstock.

I'm sorry....I didn't know that you were arguing anything. You have my
condolences about how people look at you, but then you brought most of
that on yourself.

Immigration is
> also people coming into a state so that makes it a state matter.

Yes.....do you think that law was aimed at those coming from California
or Oklahoma?

> Nobody said AZ can regulate immigration into CA, but they can and
> should regulate immigration into their own state.

Apparently, they can't or SB1070 wouldn't be mostly on hold.

[RD Sandman]

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

news:I9OdnbCRWq7K1szS...@giganews.com:

> RD Sandman wrote:
>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:caKdnfZE2bjFvc3S...@giganews.com:
>>
>>> Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals wrote:
>>>> On Mar 1, 12:33 pm, Ramon F Herrera <gopos...@jonjay.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 1, 1:18 pm, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves
>>>>> highwaycriminals <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The states are sovereign
>>>>>
>>>>> We all missed the news about each state joining the United Nations
>>>>> and
>>>>> showing other indications of sovereignty such as having embassies,
>>>>> armies, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Embassies?? That has nothing to do with sovereignty, you
>>>> ignoramus. As for armies, AZ has it's own national guard. Now
>>>> show us where the constitution gives federal judges the power to
>>>> nullify state laws.
>>>
>>> A better question is: Where doew it say that the states can't
>>> enforce federal law?
>>
>> States do enforce many federal laws. The problem is when the states
>> try to supplant those federal laws with laws of their own. Then the
>> Supremacy Clause kicks in.
>
> Perhaps, but the laws against illegals are valid laws,

Yes....from a federal viewpoint. The states already have ways of
handling those things. For example, the drivers license (or state ID
card for those who do not drive) and have it based on a citizenship or
residency requirement. Voter registration is another way. That, BTW, is
why I am not in favor of Motor-Voter laws unless that is charged to
citizenship rather than just residency.

and the states
> cannot prevent illegals from coming across their borders from other
> states, so I claim that every state has the right to police the
> federal immigration laws.

And they do.

Otherwise, one state could be bankrupted by
> hundreds of thousands of illegals pouring in from other states and
> overwhelming its welfare services.

Why do you think that non-citizens should be eligible for welfare other
than trauma services in an ER?

Suppose, for example, that many
> Mexicans came through California to
> arizona and overwhelmed
> arizona's welfare programs. California wouldn't care, because they
> onloy crossed through that state for a day or less and didn't stay.
> And Arizona couldn't stop them, because once here, crossing state
> borders without a passport is perfectly legal and constitutional. So,
> Arizona has no other recourse but to do their own federal police work
> and deport those illegals it finds within its borders. Isn't this
> true?

Nope. The state has every right to follow federal law and when they find
suspected illegals turn them over to ICE and let the feds sort it out.
After all, that is the fed's job to do.

I am aware of two problems with that but they should be able to be
addressed. One is that ICE in Arizona started last year to refuse to
accept some of those being turned over, and, two, was even when notified,
the feds did not pick up illegals in the ERs until the treatment was
complete. What does that do? It stiffs the state with the bill rather
than the feds. At the time Napolitano was our governor, she went after
the feds for over $40 million. She didn't get it and now that she is a
fed, she tends to turn a deaf ear to Brewer.

[RD Sandman]

"Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year" <xeto...@yahoo.com>

wrote in news:88a60688-b259-437e-9caa-
7abac7...@k4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:

Scuse me, but the state is NOT the arbiter of constitutionality anywhere
but its own state's constitution. And under no conditions is the state
the final arbiter on the constitutionality of federal law.

You seem to wander further and further into the weeds with each of your
posts lately. Have you seen a neurologist?

[RD Sandman]

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

news:KqednXWPxKbW38zS...@giganews.com:

> Ramon F Herrera wrote:

>> On Mar 1, 7:20 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 1, 12:33 pm, Ramon F Herrera <gopos...@jonjay.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 1, 1:18 pm, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves
>>>>> highwaycriminals <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> The states are sovereign
>>>
>>>>> We all missed the news about each state joining the United Nations
>>>>> and
>>>>> showing other indications of sovereignty such as having embassies,
>>>>> armies, etc.
>>>
>>>> Embassies?? That has nothing to do with sovereignty, you ignoramus.
>>>> As for armies, AZ has it's own national guard. Now show us where
>>>> the constitution gives federal judges the power to nullify state
>>>> laws.
>>>
>>

>> > A better question is: Where does it say that the states

>> > can't enforce federal law?
>>

>> Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
>>
>> -Ramon
> It doesn't say that at all. What it says is:
>
> This constitution,and the laws of the United States which shall be
> made in persuance 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.
>
> I don't know about you, but the way I read this is that no state can
> make any laws which are unconstitutional, and the judges in every
> state are bound to uphold constitutional law.
>
> This means to me that the state of Arizona can not only enforce

> immigration laws, but are duty bound to do so. IOW, federal laws
> supercede state laws, and all states are duty bound to uphold them.

Yep.....and they do.

> The states can only make laws that are not addressed by the feds or
> the constitution, and any such laws cannot break constitutional law.

True.

> So, for example, the New Your City laws against the ownership of
> firearms are unconstitutional and therefore illegal. All good citizens
> should disobey them as a matter of duty.

What gun laws are those? You can have long guns and pistols in NYC. You
just have to register them. What part of that do you think violates the
constitution? Or is there something else I am not aware of off the top
of my head?

[RD Sandman]

Ramon F Herrera <gopo...@jonjay.com> wrote in

news:d4b61c85-f343-4440...@s13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

> > supersede state laws, and all states are duty bound to uphold them.
>
> Let's see how many of you folks noticed the glaring fault in Bill's
> reasoning above?
>
> I am referring to the 2nd. sentence.

No, please point it out.

[RD Sandman]

Not Sure <fred1...@gmail.com> wrote in news:0b10db2d-a3aa-473d-acb1-
f5cb3e...@f2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 2, 1:29 am, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:32:15 -0600, RD Sandman
>>
>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals
>> ><beta...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:9c2559dd-ccfd-463c-9869-
>> >85d83b89e...@n12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> It's not in the constitution which means the feds have no such
power.
>> >> The states are soverign and AZ should  tell the federal judges we
wi
> ll
>> >> enforce our immigration laws whether you like it or not.
>>
>> >It doesn't work that way.  Immigration law is a federal
responsibility
> .
>> >They aren't doing it.
>>
>>      I must disagree with you.
>>      There have been more deportation of illegal aliens in the last
>> three years than any other three year period in the history of the
>> U.S.
>
> No there haven't. Better luck lying next time :)

He is correct.

[RD Sandman]

"Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year" <xeto...@yahoo.com>

wrote in news:ba18802a-cdf5-419c-9a7d-674c7a684562
@p12g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

He may be, but that is also what the Immigration & Nationalization
Service claims.

[Gray Guest]

Ramon F Herrera <gopo...@jonjay.com> wrote in news:a78b3b62-609a-4c49-
8935-6f6...@pz10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:

Oh Ramone. You will rue the day.

You reckon they will have you back in Chavezland?

--
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to
be sure.

What I like about this attitude is it works equally well for Iran and the
Democrat National Covention.

http://nukeitfromorbit.com/

[Bill Graham]

Well, in general, I am a libertarian, and as such, there are many laws that
I wouldn't enforce anyway, and, in fact, many that I have spent my wholke
life breaking as a matter of personal philosophy. Most of these are federal
laws. Whether or not I obey any law has nothing to do with it being federal
or local. It has to do with it being a good law or a bad one, according to
my personal beliefs. If I saw someone taking an ariplane off the ground in
an obviously unsafe condition, I would report him immediately, whether that
law is federal or not. But If I saw someone smoking a joint, I could care
less, and wouldn't report him to anyone, federal or not. Certainly, whether
or not I obey any law has nothing to do with its place of authority. Obeying
laws because they are of federal origion is what got the German people in
such trouble in the 30's. I like to think that it couldn't happen here, but
what do I know? I see a hell of a lot of jerk-knee liberals wandering our
streets.....:^)

[Bill Graham]

> Ramon F Herrera <gopo...@jonjay.com> wrote in

>> The next one above the hierarchy is God: he cares for all of us.

He sure doesn't do a very good job of it....As Joseph Heller said in, "Catch
22", Any juke box manufacturer could do a better job....

[Bill Graham]

RD Sandman wrote:
> Ramon F Herrera <gopo...@jonjay.com> wrote in
> news:8ba6366e-ee0a-4f41-
> 9d66-18d...@p7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Mar 2, 4:36 pm, Ramon F Herrera <gopos...@jonjay.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The next one above the hierarchy is God: he cares for all of us.
>>
>> I forgot one level: The United Nations is between the Federal
>> Government and God.
>
> The United Nations is about as useless as tits on a boar.

I would put them about equal to God, in their effect on human
affairs.....Zero is zero, in anyone's language.

[deadrat]

Yeah, 'cause it was the liberals who put Hitler in power.

Clueless.

[Bill Graham]

I fail to see how any law can be, "aimed" at any one or any specific group.
That is one of the problems with laws, they usually contain no exceptions,
and so there are always someone or some group that is unfairly hurt by them.
It is one of the reasons why us libertarians distrust most/many laws. They
tend to operate on everyone, and not just the dishonest. They also give the
local enforcement agencies the opportunity to be prejudicial in their daily
routines.

[Bill Graham]

Yes. It is unconstitutional for any state to regulate anyone passing into
their state from another state. The constitution guarantees interstate
travel without license or passport. this has been used to claim that drivers
licenses are unconstitutional in the past.

[Bill Graham]

Well, my natural instinct would be to not provide any welfare services to
illegals, but it seems that I am outvoted when it comes to emergency medical
services. So, I have come to accept medical services as a socialist
exception to my libertarianism. It seems that people are perfectly willing
to let aliens starve on the streets, but not do without medical services,
whether life threatening or not....:^)

[Bill Graham]

RD Sandman wrote:
> "Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year"
> <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:88a60688-b259-437e-9caa-
> 7abac7...@k4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Mar 2, 8:54 am, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> ">
>>> States do enforce many federal laws. The problem is when the states
>>> tr y to supplant those federal laws with laws of their own. Then the
>>> Supremacy Clause kicks in.

But what if the states law is worded exactly like the federal law? IOW, the
states law just says, "Ditto. And we will enforce it too."

[Bill Graham]

"Registration" is an infringement on one's right to, "keep and bear" arms,
in my humble opinion. But I think you are wrong. Even keeping a pistol in
your own home3 for your own protection is illegal in New York City. I doubt
if you can get a license to do so unless you are a policeman, and your job
is personal protection of some client or other. For sure, you can't get a
license to carry one concealed unless you are directly related to God and/or
the Governor. Bernie Goetz did like 6 months just because he was carrying
without a permit. Anyone who reads the second amendment to the Constitution
and then gives someone 6 months in prison for carrying a pistol in his
pocket should have to do 6 months himself for illiteracy. To be allowed to
continue as a superior court judge is a travesty of justice!

[RD Sandman]

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

news:uOCdnTViupJnv87S...@giganews.com:

Interesting post......

[RD Sandman]

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

news:TfWdnUHRrYT_u87S...@giganews.com:

Simply by mentioning the term day laborers and hanging around home
improvement centers. Voila!!

That is one of the problems with laws, they usually contain no
> exceptions, and so there are always someone or some group that is
> unfairly hurt by them. It is one of the reasons why us libertarians
> distrust most/many laws. They tend to operate on everyone, and not
> just the dishonest. They also give the local enforcement agencies the
> opportunity to be prejudicial in their daily routines.
>
>

[RD Sandman]

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

news:7JSdnRhCGPWGtM7S...@giganews.com:

Yep, you got undone in that regard by Reagan when he signed EMTALA into
law.

So, I have come to accept medical services
> as a socialist exception to my libertarianism. It seems that people
> are perfectly willing to let aliens starve on the streets, but not do
> without medical services, whether life threatening or not....:^)
>
>

[RD Sandman]

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

news:atadnT6GKMADtM7S...@giganews.com:

That's unecessary since the state have understandings with the federal
government that will already enforce federal law....just turn the
suspects over to the feds for further processing.

[RD Sandman]

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

news:MLCdnXLvs4qBsc7S...@giganews.com:

Hmmm, let me go check.......OK, I'm back. Check this URL:

http://tinyurl.com/6s3xdqm

I doubt if you can get a license to do so unless you are a
> policeman, and your job is personal protection of some client or
> other. For sure, you can't get a license to carry one concealed unless
> you are directly related to God and/or the Governor. Bernie Goetz did
> like 6 months just because he was carrying without a permit. Anyone
> who reads the second amendment to the Constitution and then gives
> someone 6 months in prison for carrying a pistol in his pocket should
> have to do 6 months himself for illiteracy. To be allowed to continue
> as a superior court judge is a travesty of justice!

You are addressing carry of a gun outside of home here. How does that
tie back to your comment up above where you said, "Even keeping a
pistol in your own home for your own protection is illegal in New
York City."?

[Bill Graham]

As I remember, it was. I lived in NYC from birth to the age of 17. But I
left there in 1952, so they may have changed the law since then. but knowing
the liberal mind set of the New Yorkers, I doubt if they would soften their
position on guns any. If you can legally keep one in your house there, I am
surprised.

[deadrat]

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

> RD Sandman wrote:
>> "Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year"
>> <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:88a60688-b259-437e-9caa-
>> 7abac7...@k4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Mar 2, 8:54 am, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> ">
>>>> States do enforce many federal laws. The problem is when the states
>>>> tr y to supplant those federal laws with laws of their own. Then the
>>>> Supremacy Clause kicks in.
>
> But what if the states law is worded exactly like the federal law? IOW, the
> states law just says, "Ditto. And we will enforce it too."

It's not the wording; it's the domain. Some things are reserved to the feds;
some to the states; some they share.

[RD Sandman]

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

news:49OdnTvcvupwZM7S...@giganews.com:

May I assume that you will read the URL I gave you? ;)

Their attitude toward guns has not changed that much.