In response to:
The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.
Preemption can be either express or implied. When Congress chooses to expressly preempt state law, the only question for courts becomes determining whether the challenged state law is one that the federal law is intended to preempt. Implied preemption presents more difficult issues. The Court has to look beyond the express language of federal...
Yesterday's federal court decision to enjoin enforcement of the Arizona immigration law is the latest example of a virtually unchecked renegade federal government waging war against the states and against the liberties of its citizens.
We've seen that Obama will exercise any power he can get away with, from strong-arming secured creditors and favoring unions as he gobbled up automakers to making a mockery of due process with his Oval Office shakedown of BP. But he might have reached a new low with his assaults on the sovereignty of the people of Arizona.
Indeed, Judge Susan Bolton's disgraceful decision to grant an injunction...
Do you even read what you copy and paste before posting?
The key is CONFLICTING STATE LAW. The Supreme Court has already held on numerous occasions that states can have CONCURRENT jurisdiction in immigration matters. The only way the Arizona law would be unconstitutional because of preemption is if it CONFLICTS or SURPASSES Federal law. Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F2d 468 (1983), “where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized" AND "[T]he general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes. . . . Federal...