In response to:

Restraining Arizona, Unleashing the President

Richard31 Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 2:17 AM
OK, I got suckered - I thought idiot Napolitano had finally given up the "rhetoric question" format and might actually have something to say this time. One point at a time. A) Bad interpretation of the "freedom to associate" clause. This freedom is subject to reasonable limits - I cannot associate with a person in solitary confinement (unless I am an officer of a Court with jursidiction, or their lawyer). I am free to associate with anyone otherwise, but with potential consequences - if they commit a crime while I am associated, and I am aware that they are, I can be charged with the same crime, whether it is first-degree homicide or illegal presence in the country.
Richard31 Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 2:22 AM
B) SB 1070 did _not_ override Federal _law_. It did not change the definition of illegal presence, did not change the penalties for same. It gave AZ police enforcement officers the ability to enforce the Federal law. No preemption of Federal law whatsoever. The law is _not_ the enforcement of same, as noted in the separation of powers.

C) Preemption is a moot point in any case, if you actually _read_ the damned Constitution. Congress is given absolute authority over _naturalization_ of persons. Not over whether they can be present in the country. Unfortunately, this does make "sanctuary cities" perfectly Constitutional, assuming no State laws to the contrary, but such is the reality.
Richard31 Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 2:34 AM
D) There is _no_ provision in the Constitutions for the Executive to arbitrarily not enforce a law passed by Congress, and not overturned by a Federal Court. There are reasonable exceptions (so obvious they are not explicitly in the Constitution), such as lack of appropriation, reasonable doubts about the law's constitutionality, statutory contradictions, etc.
Richard31 Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 2:35 AM
Final note - is it something about the name Napolitano that is associated with idiocy? Just asking, I don't think he's related to Janet.
Dancing Bear Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 2:58 AM
Richard31 is clearly a legal punk. Versed in the brilliance of constitutional law. My guess is that he hates is work like most, and is frustrated that the rest of the world does not understand his love for arcane, destructive and absurd legal mumbo jumbo.
Dancing Bear Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 2:58 AM
Richard31 is clearly a legal punk. Versed in the brilliance of constitutional law. My guess is that he hates is work like most, and is frustrated that the rest of the world does not understand his love for arcane, destructive and absurd legal mumbo jumbo.
Richard31 Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 3:30 AM
Just do it in all CAPS, DB instead of saying it twice.

Commenting on a piece that is legal mumbo-jumbo is hard without resorting to mumbo-jumbo. Sorry.

Short version. Napolitano has written an idiotic piece. Wrong on the facts, wrong on the Constitution. With absurd conclusions that ignore "little" things like the 10th, separation of powers, and rationality.
Dancing Bear Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 5:59 AM
I see that I was overly personal in my criticism and apologize. Still, none of it means anything anymore - it is all subject to the legal gamesmanship that today passes as "law practice."
Richard31 Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 7:10 AM
Accepted, certainly. And, also certainly, I agree with you. When anyone is allowed to parse the meaning of "is" in a court of law, without being slapped with a contempt citation for wasting time, the "justice" system is more than broken, it has become a public danger.

The legislation created two conflicts that rose to the national stage. The first is whether any government may morally and legally interfere with freedom of association based on the birthplace of the person with whom one chooses to associate. The second is whether the states can enforce federal law in a manner different from that of the feds.

Regrettably, in addressing all of this earlier in the week, the Supreme Court overlooked the natural and fundamental freedom to associate. It is a natural right because it stems from the better nature of our humanity, and it is a fundamental...