#1 SCOTUS decision clears way to sue sanctuary cites, states ...06-26-2012, 11:54 PM
Levin: SCOTUS immigration decision clears way to sue sanctuary cites, states with in-state tuition
On his Monday show, conservative radio host Mark Levin explained why yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling on SB 1070, the controversial Arizona immigration law, could pave the way for legal action against “sanctuary” areas that welcome undocumented immigrants.
Levin, the author of “Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America,” first expressed his disappointment in Chief Justice John Roberts for signing on with the decision, which dismantled much of the Arizona law while upholding a section that allows law enforcement to force suspected immigrants to show documentation that proves their legal residency.
“I must tell you that the decision is bizarre,” he said. “It’s not incomprehensible, but it is largely incoherent. I’m extremely disappointed in the chief justice for signing on with this. There is no deal, no reason for him to jump on that side. It was 8-0 on the issue of stopping and checking for documentation in the course of an investigation for possible criminal activity.”
However, Levin said, if states can no longer set policies dealing with someone’s immigration status, then sanctuary cities or states may find themselves in hot water.
“If this case stands for the point that only the federal government has power in the area of immigration, then let me suggest that sanctuary cities and sanctuary states are unconstitutional because they exist to defy federal immigration law,” Levin said. “That’s number one. So folks out there that have standing, sue your cities, sue your states if they have declared themselves to be sanctuary cities or states because they do not have the constitutional authority to declare butkus. So turn this law against them.”
The same goes for states that offer in-state tuition at colleges for illegal aliens, Levin said.
“In-state tuition clearly is unconstitutional because Congress has not authorized it for illegal aliens,” he said. “Again — if the court’s position is that the federal government has complete preemptive authority over this issue, the federal government has not authorized in-state tuition for illegal aliens of any kind. So sue your state if they’ve instituted in-state tuition for illegals.”
This point has been made by Levin’s Landmark Legal Foundation in a brief published earlier this year >>>
This decision by Chief Justice Roberts makes me wonder if he may have traded his vote on this issue in exchange for Justice Kennedy's vote against Obamacare? It just doesnt make sense.
Liberalism is just communism sold by the drink.
06-27-2012, 10:03 AM
Did Justice Roberts Trade Votes with Justice Kennedy?
Did Justice Roberts trade votes with Justice Kennedy in the Arizona decision handed down Monday? I certainly hope so, for he would have struck a blow for constitutional conservatism. I will explain:
Many Court observers have expressed surprise at Chief Justice Roberts joining the majority opinion of Justice Anthony Kennedy, which struck down three of four provisions at issue with Arizona's S.B. 1070 and left the fourth on life support in terms of jurisprudence, and all but dead in terms of practice.
As Justice Scalia noted in a dissent that was animated even by Scalia standards, the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona et al. v. United States unquestionably dealt a serious blow to state sovereignty. This has many conservatives asking how a purportedly conservative justice could have sided, particularly in such an important case, not just with Justice Kennedy, but with the Court's left wing.
Ben Shapiro at Breitbart speculates:
... it is entirely possible that Roberts joined with the liberal wing on this ruling in order to provide cover for the Obamacare decision to be handed down later this week. That decision will likely be 5-4, with Kennedy as the deciding vote -- and it has not been unheard-of at the Supreme Court level for a certain amount of vote-swapping to occur.
Im a little surprised to see this article.
Liberalism is just communism sold by the drink.
06-27-2012, 12:08 PM
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
Somehow, it had escaped my attention that Albuquerque and Santa Fe were sanctuary cities.
I had been planning a group tour there next year. Not any more.Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
06-27-2012, 01:46 PM
You could change it to Colorado. I think they will be needing tourist dollars next year, because the fires are going to affect their tourism industry this year.
Or you could come to Detroit-we're not a sanctuary city, but our Mexican neighborhood is one of the nicer neighborhoods within the city limits! Seriously.
06-27-2012, 03:05 PM
Something interesting about Albuquerque, if I can slip off topic. It's a city of about a half a million, with another quarter million in the metro area. They estimate there are approximately 40K to 60K illegals in the city. Based on major crime arrest statistics, those 40-60,000 illegals are committing fully half the felony crimes in the city, and over half the drunk driving arrests are of illegals. I'd venture a guess that the same applies to Santa Fe.
In Rio Arriba County, the illegals congregate in the southern part of the county, in and around Espanola. You don't see them in the northern 2/3 of the county primarily because the people here won't hire them and simply don't like them. Espanola is NOT a nice town, not that it ever was but it's worse now.The poster formerly known as chuck58 on the old board.
06-27-2012, 03:16 PMGood men sleep peaceably in their beds at night because
rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Real superheroes don't wear capes. They wear dog tags.
06-28-2012, 02:05 PM
I live in a sanctuary city. And not only are the illegals here, well, illegally, they are using bogus registrations and license plates on their vehicles. The city's response? Make an ordinance that if your trash can lid is open on garbage day, you, the tax payer, will be fined.Deplorably Proud To Be An American
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|