Arizona Gets a Lesson in Constitutional Law

especially since it will detract from the fact she actually hasn't done anything that has benefited the state since she took the office.

She has bankrupted the state, along with state Republicans....

The legislature slashed the budget for the Department of Revenue, which required the agency to fire hundreds of state auditors and tax collectors; lawmakers boasted that these measures saved $25 million, but a top official in the department estimated that the state would miss out on $174 million in tax collections as a result.........

All totaled, the cuts amounted to roughly $1 billion, which came on top of a similar amount that had been slashed the previous year. These cuts, in combination with the sale of state assets (which raised more than $700 million) and the securitization of the lottery, plugged a massive hole in next year's budget. But the deficit for 2011 is already projected to be at least $1 billion and possibly double that, on a total budget of only $9 billion. The situation will only worsen from there, as federal stimulus money dries up and the state runs out of short-term sources of cash. "Could we cut our way out of it mathematically?" Dennis Hoffman, an economist who has forecast revenue for Arizona governors since 1983, mused when I asked him about the crisis. "Anything is possible on paper, but for practical purposes it can't be done, unless you want to start releasing prisoners, shutting down universities, and eliminating extracurricular activities in the schools. We've already had a $2 billion haircut over the past two years. Try another $2 billion and see what the state looks like."

This is what Tea Party rule looks like and it ain't a pretty picture.

If you allow every state to write its own immigration law, you would have fifty different laws, all fighting for their personal believes, fair or unfair, for the law or against the law. One federal law, is the way policy should go down, and be THE law of the land. States rights or laws, can never exceed the federal governments, rights or laws.

I saw them on CNN. Barbed wire, tents and bunks. That's the trouble with this whole hate Mexicans crap. The last country who deported millions was?

It's not Arizona's business to know who is naturalized and who is not.

Hi Carloz

Ooops, my bad, here is a link. The story has been out since May, only one local AZ TV station picked it up and has been beating the drum.

Hotel Owners: AZ Politicians Scare Tourists
Private Prisons Might Gain From New Immigration Law
http://www.kpho.com/news/24362212/detail.html

This article also provides info on CCA.

The Constitution is a good place to start.

That's what Judge Bolton used.

JAVE -

With regard to your first question - listen to jmorris - I think he's onto something there.

With regard to your second question - it strikes me as an odd one. If a state cannot legislate a law with regard to a particular matter, there isn't a law to enforce. So, your question becomes somewhat metaphysical - like the 'tree falling in the forest' or the 'sound of one hand clapping' questions.

Another issue is, can the States enforce laws on matters they are unable to legislate?

Of course they do it all the time. In the specific case of Federal immigration law the Federal government has had a program for quite some time where local agencies can be recognized by the Federal Government to enforce Federal Immigration Laws, "Sheriff Joe" has been participating for long time in this program, that's how he can arrest illegals, he is doing it *with* the permission of the Federal Government and in junction with ICE. Any law enforcement agency can apply to participate in this program.

What Arizona wants to do is cut the Feds out entirely and create and enforce immigration laws on their own. And it really doesn't matter how "close" the Arizona law is to the Federal Law, per the Constitution, immigration law is reserved for the Federal, *not* the States.

jmorris -

Of course, you're right again about the ability of states to enforce laws that the feds enact.

I do still have a conceptual problem with the apparent conflict that people point out between what Arizona is trying to do and federal immigration law. I'm having trouble interpreting Arizona's law as 'immigration' law. It seems to me that they are not proposing to allow immigration under circumstances that the feds have prohibited; and they're not prohibiting immigration under conditions that the feds have said are allowable. They are not creating a new 'Naturalization' process; nor are they keeping foreign nationals from following the federal Naturalization process that is currently in place. It seems to me that the basis of the Arizona law is closer to what I'd consider to be a 'tresspassing' law.

Now - having said that, I still agree with Judge Bolton's ruling - because of the rationale she used to come to her conclusion. While I think that Arizona has a legitimate right (and responsibility) to find and remove persons who are in the U.S. illegally - I disagree with how they propose to do it.

Bolton was nominated to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on the recommendation of U.S. Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), currently the Senate Minority Whip. She was confirmed to the Court by the U.S. Senate on October 3, 2000 by unanimous consent. In 2000 the Republicans controlled the Senate 55 to 45.

That doesn't seem to me to be something that I'd expect to find in the resume of a 'liberal activist'.