Obama taps new immigration chief

[BillyVance 34]

Why am I not surprised at his choice?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/24/obama-administration-picks-critic-immigration-enforcement-key-role-ice/

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[JohnRich 4]

This is just another reason for the states to take their own initiative on illegal aliens.
If the Feds won't do the job they're supposed to do, then it's up to the states to do it themselves.
And screw Harold Hurtt if he doesn't approve.

[futuredivot 0]

Another fucking joke that I can't laugh at

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

This is just another reason for the states to take their own initiative on illegal aliens.
If the Feds won't do the job they're supposed to do, then it's up to the states to do it themselves.
And screw Harold Hurtt if he doesn't approve.

It's unconstitutional for states to have their own immigration laws.

[Glitch 0]

Really? ...mind providing a source, so I don't just assume that your spouting more liberal BS.

Randomly f'n thingies up since before I was born...

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Really? ...mind providing a source, so I don't just assume that your spouting more liberal BS.

Here's one for ya Sorry, I forgot that conservvatives have a very hard time finding objective sources on their own through the internets.

[Andy9o8 0]

It has to do with the concept known as Federal preemption. Here's a quick thumbnail sketch of it.

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

Basically - and this is an oversimplification - the idea is that if the US Constitution, and/or a federal law, and/or a federal regulation, already covers a given subject matter, a state or local government may not pass a law that deals with the same subject matter in a manner inconsistent with the federal statute (or, sometimes, at all).

Preemption is the jurisprudential corollary to the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which says that any powers not specifically reserved to the Federal government belong (i.e., by default) to the states.

There are lots of grey areas to the concept of preemption. An example of that might be the fact that there are lots of federal drug laws that exist alongside state drug laws. Are the state drug laws preempted by the federal drug laws? Well, you'd have to analyze each one on a case by case basis to discern that - and even then, judges have disagreed with each other on preemption cases.

So by and large, due to the existence of federal immigration laws, state laws that deal directly with the subject of immigration run the risk of being deemed invalid on the grounds of preemption. But one of the grey areas is whether the state law covers an aspect of a subject that is completely un-covered by federal law - in other words: is there a "hole" in the federal immigration law that states are permitted to "fill" by enacting state laws? That's one of the several issues at play in the current litigation over the validity of the new Arizona law. Stay tuned.


*ETA: The article linked by Chango in post #6 - ie, law professors thinking the AZ law is unconstitutional - is really a discussion of the effect of federal preemption, even though the word "preemption" is not used in the article.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

It's unconstitutional for states to have their own immigration laws.

So then, since the Constitution gives the Federal government no authority to regulate guns, I take it that you also disapprove of all Federal gun laws?

If the Feds don't like the states passing their own immigration laws, then they should get off their ass and enforce their own laws, as they have a duty to do.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

It's unconstitutional for states to have their own immigration laws.

So then, since the Constitution gives the Federal government no authority to regulate guns, I take it that you also disapprove of all Federal gun laws?

Your premise is wrong.

Quote

If the Feds don't like the states passing their own immigration laws, then they should get off their ass and enforce their own laws, as they have a duty to do.

Agreed.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

So then, since the Constitution gives the Federal government no authority to regulate guns, I take it that you also disapprove of all Federal gun laws?

Your premise is wrong.

Have you been taking lessons from kallend? Or perhaps this IS kallend, with a new personae? Your tactics and game-playing are certainly very similar.

Okay, so tell me where the constitutional authority exists for the Feds to regulate guns.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

It's unconstitutional for states to have their own immigration laws.

So then, since the Constitution gives the Federal government no authority to regulate guns, I take it that you also disapprove of all Federal gun laws?

If the Feds don't like the states passing their own immigration laws, then they should get off their ass and enforce their own laws, as they have a duty to do.

State-versus-Federal gun laws are a good example of the natural tension that exists between the Supremacy Clause and the doctrine of Federal Preemption.

The Feds will say that the Commerce Clause gives them the right to regulate armaments that have the slightest connection in any way to interstate commerce - and that therefore federal gun laws preempt any state gun laws that are inconsistent with the federal laws.

The states, on the other hand, will say that the Constitution gives the federal government no power to regulate armaments aside from its power to provide for the military; and that therefore, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause, the right to pass laws regulating guns exists by default to the states.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The Feds will say that the Commerce Clause gives them the right to regulate armaments that have the slightest connection in any way to interstate commerce - and that therefore federal gun laws preempt any state gun laws that are inconsistent with the federal laws.

Right, that's what they claim, but it's as weak as an argument can get. In today's economy, just about some component of anything comes from somewhere else. The steel to make the gun might be machined in one state, but the blanks were smelted in another state, and the raw ore used to make the steel came from yet a third state. And somehow this gives the Feds the right to regulate guns? I don't think so. Using that same reasoning, the Feds could regulate virtually EVERYTHING, and there would be no need for state laws on anything. In fact, there wouldn't even be a reason to have states - all we need is just one big giant country all under central federal control. Yeah, that sounds like fun.

The Feds were shot down on this before, for example, on their law to restrict carrying guns within 1,000 feet of schools. Since the schools and the property in question belong entirely to the states, the Feds had no authority to make such a law, and it was overturned.

Numerous states are now passing laws to exempt gun sales from federal controls, when the guns are manufactured and sold entirely within the state. The Feds will hate that, and I expect court challenges - they can't stand to lose power.

News story: "Utah lawmakers pass gun regulation exemption bill"
http://helenair.com/news/article_29aaad72-16ce-11df-92c1-001cc4c002e0.html

Should the feds have the authority to regulate marijuana, for example in California, where the pot is grown and sold entirely within the state with no interstate commerce?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Should the feds have the authority to regulate marijuana, for example in California, where the pot is grown and sold entirely within the state with no interstate commerce?

I actually think the feds would have less authority regulating home-grown marijuana produced for solely recreation use than for medical use, because medical use would probably fall within the FDA's jurisdiction.

The surest way to keep the feds out is to assure that everything is produced and originates in-state - not just the plants, but the even the seeds. It should be smoked where it's grown. Neither it nor the seeds it comes from should be transported on any US or Interstate highways. Can't transport anything by air or rail, since aviation and the railways are federally regulated. Oh, and everyone who smokes it should live in-state, and should only travel to and from the point-of-consumption via roads under solely state or local jurisdiction. Oh, and better not use any truck, bus or taxi companies that operate across state lines. Come to think of it, if there are any local roads, they better not have any improvements that were paid, even in part, for by federal funds.

So basically everyone who wants to smoke pot has to grow it and smoke it in his own bedroom. Oh, but not on Federal holidays.

Another way the federal government (regardless of party) can regulate things is indirectly, when the Supremacy Clause gives it no right to regulate it directly is by the threat of withholding of federal funds if the state does not comply with a specified federal policy. There are lots of examples of that. Withholding of federal funds can really strangle a state, so it's not a toothless threat by any means.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

This is just another reason for the states to take their own initiative on illegal aliens.
If the Feds won't do the job they're supposed to do, then it's up to the states to do it themselves.
And screw Harold Hurtt if he doesn't approve.

It's unconstitutional for states to have their own immigration laws.

from the article in the OP
"He's always been a strong proponent of every law enforcement agency making those decision on their own." (apparently referring to more proactive local enforcement being discussed above)

So you're saying Hurtt believes that local law enforcement agencies should go against the constitution? (if Kelly Nantel, a spokeswoman for ICE has her facts on Hurtt straight)

--
Rob

[rhaig 0]

Quote

[
The surest way to keep the feds out is to assure that everything is produced and originates in-state

still waiting to see how the Montana Firearms Freedom act plays out. TX has a similar bill written, but hasn't made it out of committee yet.

http://firearmsfreedomact.com/montana-lawsuit-updates/

--
Rob

[Andy9o8 0]

There used to be a cabinet secretary named Earl Butz. If the two of them had formed a consulting firm, it would have been Butz Hurtt.

Yeah, I'm 12.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

There used to be a cabinet secretary named Earl Butz. If the two of them had formed a consulting firm, it would have been Butz Hurtt.

Yeah, I'm 12.

. . . and the title of this thread should send it to Billy's thread in Bonfire.

I'll be 12 too.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rhaig 0]

so after Obama tapped him, his Butz Hurtt??

--
Rob

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

so after Obama tapped him, his Butz Hurtt??

He should have visited the AZ border . . .

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[pirana 0]

Quote

Why am I not surprised at his choice?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/24/obama-administration-picks-critic-immigration-enforcement-key-role-ice/

This administration is one really bad joke after another.

Did you catch the job title? Anybody with a title that long is at best window dressing, at worst smoke and mirrors.

Wonder what his salary is? Whatever it is, it is way too much for the work that is not going to get done.

Can you believe a position like this exists within our federal government, a job to "coordinate" (read thwart) non-federal level attempts to stem the tide of illegal aliens?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Did you catch the job title? Anybody with a title that long is at best window dressing, at worst smoke and mirrors.

(deep breath) "Director U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Office of State and Local Coordination" (phew!) For short, he's the DUSICEOSLC..

Quote

Wonder what his salary is?

$180,000 a year. Heck, he'll be hard-pressed to feed his family on that paltry sum.
I'm sure he'll have an expense account which will at least double that.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

There used to be a cabinet secretary named Earl Butz. If the two of them had formed a consulting firm, it would have been Butz Hurtt.

Yeah, I'm 12.

Here at the University of Georgia, the athletic association offices and sports museum are in a building named after two great UGA coaches: the Butts-Mehre building. Pronounced Butt-smear. When I first came here and was on a campus tour, I commented that butt-smear was hardly preferable to Mere Butts, and didn't they have any other coaches worthy of naming a building after? The subsequent discussion included "Yankee", "feathers", and "tar", so I made so excuse about needing to get back to the lab and skedaddled.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Did you catch the job title? Anybody with a title that long is at best window dressing, at worst smoke and mirrors.

(deep breath) "Director U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Office of State and Local Coordination" (phew!) For short, he's the DUSICEOSLC..

Quote

Wonder what his salary is?

$180,000 a year. Heck, he'll be hard-pressed to feed his family on that paltry sum.
I'm sure he'll have an expense account which will at least double that.

LMAO - So . . . Du - Slice - o - Slice

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 1,654]

Quote

Quote

Did you catch the job title? Anybody with a title that long is at best window dressing, at worst smoke and mirrors.

(deep breath) "Director U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Office of State and Local Coordination" (phew!) For short, he's the DUSICEOSLC..

Quote

Wonder what his salary is?

$180,000 a year. Heck, he'll be hard-pressed to feed his family on that paltry sum.
I'm sure he'll have an expense account which will at least double that.

PEANUTS compared to what VPs in private companies who have far less responsibility make. My local dry cleaner takes home more than that. How do you feel about the bank CEOs who gave us a nice recession through their incompetence taking home $multi-million bonuses?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

This is just another reason for the states to take their own initiative on illegal aliens.
If the Feds won't do the job they're supposed to do, then it's up to the states to do it themselves.
And screw Harold Hurtt if he doesn't approve.

It's unconstitutional for states to have their own immigration laws.

really? where is that written?