Thursday, July 22, 2010

Then And Now

President Obama, Memorandum on Preemption for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, May 20, 2009:
From our Nation's founding, the American constitutional order has been a Federal system, ensuring a strong role for both the national Government and the States. The Federal Government's role in promoting the general welfare and guarding individual liberties is critical, but State law and national law often operate concurrently to provide independent safeguards for the public. Throughout our history, State and local governments have frequently protected health, safety, and the environment more aggressively than has the national Government.

An understanding of the important role of State governments in our Federal system is reflected in longstanding practices by executive departments and agencies, which have shown respect for the traditional prerogatives of the States. In recent years, however, notwithstanding Executive Order 13132 of August 4, 1999 (Federalism), executive departments and agencies have sometimes announced that their regulations preempt State law, including State common law, without explicit preemption by the Congress or an otherwise sufficient basis under applicable legal principles.

The purpose of this memorandum is to state the general policy of my Administration that preemption of State law by executive departments and agencies should be undertaken only with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the States and with a sufficient legal basis for preemption. Executive departments and agencies should be mindful that in our Federal system, the citizens of the several States have distinctive circumstances and values, and that in many instances it is appropriate for them to apply to themselves rules and principles that reflect these circumstances and values.
President Obama, Justice Department's Brief in suit against Arizona's immigration law, July 6, 2010:
In our constitutional system, the power to regulate immigration is exclusively vested in the federal government. The immigration framework set forth by Congress and administered by federal agencies reflects a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian concerns -- concerns that belong to the nation as a whole, not a single state. The Constitution and federal law do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country. Although a state may adopt regulations that have an indirect or incidental effect on aliens, a state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with federal immigration law.

The State of Arizona has crossed this constitutional line.
(via Washington Examiner)


OBloodyHell said...


Pay NO attention to that government worker behind the curtain!!


Geoffrey Britain said...

"a state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with federal immigration law."

Arizona's carefully crafted law faithfully mirrors Federal law, therefore Arizona's law is clearly NOT seeking to establish its own immigration policy.

Enforcing state laws which seek to aid the Federal gov't. entirely consistent with federal law, a principle upheld previously by SCOTUS, in no way interferes with federal immigration law. Arresting illegal immigrants and turning them over to ICE assists the Feds.

This is BS designed to prevent illegal immigrants from being apprehended because much Hispanic support for the Democrats is contingent upon that non-enforcement.

A_Nonny_Mouse said...

The only one that I've seen "crossing the constitutional line" has been Mr. Take-Over-the-Auto-Companies-and-Gift-Them-to-UAW; also known as Mr. "I want the General Manager of GM to resign NOW"; alternatively described as Mr. "I've got unvetted czars for every purpose and you don't need to know anything about them"; a/k/a Mr. "I've just extorted $20 billion in damages from BP without benefit of due process". He's also been referred to as Mr. "Yes I CAN TOO force citizens to buy health insurance", as well as Mr. "If the states won't obey me I'll sue them for interference with the federal mandate".

The laughable thing is: this same person, President Barack Obama, is alleged to have been something of a Constitutional scholar. I guess in his case, familiarity DID breed contempt. (Or else he learned it at his commie-mommy's knee.)

Texan99 said...

Geoffrey -- That's exactly it, isn't it? When the Obama administration talks about federal pre-emption, what they mean is that the feds have the exclusive right to pretend that the federal law is the Immigration Law We Would Have in a Just World. And all you state bozos are prohibited from reading the actual law and acting like it's binding or something.

That's why Sanctuary Cities are A-OK: they comport with the Law As We Wish It. Arizona is evil, because they comport with the law on the fusty old books.

They don't even have the guts to repeal the immigration law, but we're supposed to act like they've already pulled that off.