So, what if US wins US vs. AZ? What about other laws?

[ArmedBear]

Please don't get this thread locked. I don't want to start a discussion of illegal immigration, or anything directly related to it. It's easy enough to turn on the AM radio.

This is a long question, but I want it to be complete. Please correct my assumptions, too.

As I understand it, Arizona passed a law that was deliberately written to mirror Federal law insofar as possible. The Federal Government ('US') is suing to block enforcement of the law based on three basic arguments:

1. The Federal law can only be enforced by Federal law enforcement personnel, even if the law is mirrored in the laws of the State. The Federal government's jurisdiction makes it illegal for the State government to enforce a similar State law.

2. Suspects cannot be turned over to Federal authorities by the state, because the Federal LE agency or agencies involved lack the resources to deal with the supects.

3. The Federal government is vested with the sole power to decide when or if to enforce a Federal law, even if the State has passed a similar law itself. If the Federal government decides not to enforce a law, the State cannot enforce its similar law, and if the Federal government decides to enforce a law, the State cannot assist in enforcement.

Now to me, this argument is the stupidest thing I've ever seen, and not just because it seems silly to many people. It seems stupid because there is no good outcome for US in the case. If this is the best argument they can come up with, I'd think they'd just keep quiet about it. If US loses, it loses the case, obviously. If it wins the case, the outcome could be much more unfavorable to the Federal government than losing would be.

What if the local cops were forbidden from enforcing the NFA, or from enforcing anything similar to the NFA in State law, or from turning over suspected violators to the Federal authorities? What about local Game Wardens enforcing the Endangered Species Act or Migratory Bird Act?

Can anyone shed more light on this?

Could a 'win' by the US become a huge rubric of enforced Federalism?

What other laws might be impacted? Can anyone name more State laws or State enforcement that substitutes for or assists Federal law enforcement?

Any other thoughts?

 

[Lucky Derby]

Bank robbery is is federal crime. So when a gunman goes in and siezes a bank and takes hostages, the local police/sheriff etc. are forbidden from responding. Only FBI, Marshals etc can enforce bank robbery laws.
Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[mboylan]

Immigration law is very different. The law was very poorly crafted. The AZ law does not truly mirror Federal law. Three or four sections are getting struck down, not the whole law.

 

[CoRoMo]

↑↑This isn't about immigration law per se, but rather the argument that the fed is making regarding the enforcement of federal laws by the fed and enforcement by the states.

The fed is certainly asking for a double standard to be accepted. With regard to immigration, we're talking about a law that the fed doesn't want to enforce and doesn't want any states to enforce. I'm not aware of any other criminal activity that the federal government wishes to ignore. What's more, is that they want to prevent any and all states from enforcing any similar law within this issue. With regard to most everything else, the fed will want the law enforced and they will want the states to facilitate and participate in that enforcement. Double standard. One issue is "special", all others get the same ole treatment.

 

[Dude123]

The power to control immigration/naturalization is specifically granted to the federal government under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of our Constitution. Az should have sued the fed to get them to enforce. I use the terms immigration/naturalization together because that is how Clause 4 had been used since 1798.

I don't see this issue having an impact on the rkba either way it turns out, apples and oranges.

 

[Manco]

↑↑This isn't about immigration law per se, but rather the argument that the fed is making regarding the enforcement of federal laws by the fed and enforcement by the states.

The fed is certainly asking for a double standard to be accepted. With regard to immigration, we're talking about a law that the fed doesn't want to enforce and doesn't want any states to enforce. I'm not aware of any other criminal activity that the federal government wishes to ignore. What's more, is that they want to prevent any and all states from enforcing any similar law within this issue. With regard to most everything else, the fed will want the law enforced and they will want the states to facilitate and participate in that enforcement. Double standard. One issue is "special", all others get the same ole treatment.

I haven't read the actual arguments of the case, but the current regime has stated publicly that foreign policy and diplomacy are the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, with the deliberate implication that the choice of whether or not to enforce federal immigration laws is a crucial part of foreign policy. So basically what they're saying is if Obama thinks that he can appease certain foreign countries by compromising a state's (such as Arizona's) security, then the state has no right to interfere with this act of foreign policy--states' rights, federal law, and the security of certain American citizens be damned! The question is which is more important, the right of the states to defend their own borders and citizens, as well as federal law as voted on by the Congress, or the power of a presidential regime to ignore both at will in the name of foreign policy.

 

[jsimmons]

Please don't get this thread locked. I don't want to start a discussion of illegal immigration, or anything directly related to it. It's easy enough to turn on the AM radio.

This is a long question, but I want it to be complete. Please correct my assumptions, too.

As I understand it, Arizona passed a law that was deliberately written to mirror Federal law insofar as possible. The Federal Government ('US') is suing to block enforcement of the law based on three basic arguments:

1. The Federal law can only be enforced by Federal law enforcement personnel, even if the law is mirrored in the laws of the State. The Federal government's jurisdiction makes it illegal for the State government to enforce a similar State law.

2. Suspects cannot be turned over to Federal authorities by the state, because the Federal LE agency or agencies involved lack the resources to deal with the supects.

3. The Federal government is vested with the sole power to decide when or if to enforce a Federal law, even if the State has passed a similar law itself. If the Federal government decides not to enforce a law, the State cannot enforce its similar law, and if the Federal government decides to enforce a law, the State cannot assist in enforcement.

Now to me, this argument is the stupidest thing I've ever seen, and not just because it seems silly to many people. It seems stupid because there is no good outcome for US in the case. If this is the best argument they can come up with, I'd think they'd just keep quiet about it. If US loses, it loses the case, obviously. If it wins the case, the outcome could be much more unfavorable to the Federal government than losing would be.

What if the local cops were forbidden from enforcing the NFA, or from enforcing anything similar to the NFA in State law, or from turning over suspected violators to the Federal authorities? What about local Game Wardens enforcing the Endangered Species Act or Migratory Bird Act?

Can anyone shed more light on this?

Could a 'win' by the US become a huge rubric of enforced Federalism?

What other laws might be impacted? Can anyone name more State laws or State enforcement that substitutes for or assists Federal law enforcement?

Any other thoughts?

Your point #1 raises a question. If they're suing AZ because the satet can't make a law that overrides/coincides with federal law, and since the constituion is the law of the law, how is it that the feds aren't suing every state in the union over 2nd amendment restrictions?

 

[gun guy]

I believe Simmons has it right, and, as i understand it, the current administration, does not want the state (az) to enforce their (federal law). Currently with border enforcement, controlled at the federal level, that amount of control is becoming a "bargining chip" for other issues. Should Az tighten border control, the bargining power would be lost at the federal level. That is why the lawsuit, to insure the power to control, the amount of enforcement of the border, stays at the federal level. It's all very political and can cause headaches if taken in large amounts.

 

[rbernie]

The question is interesting and (if the premise has any merit) superficially appears to have RKBA implications.

Does anyone actually have the legal background to address the premise of the thread? If so - let's post it here. If not - I'm gonna close this one down to keep the idle speculation and political commentary to a minimum.

 

[Rail Driver]

First let me state that I am not a lawyer, I am a law student.

That said, I've researched what I think is the root of this question (Is the federal government required to enforce federal laws).

I have been unable to find any statutory requirement, however there may be case law supporting either side, I haven't had much luck in that avenue because case law is so very difficult to research without expensive subscriptions to services such as LexisNexis and other repositories of records. My university prohibits students from using the school's subscription for un-related personal research or I would do so.

 

[belercous]

I am also not a lawyer, but I have an undergrad degree in political science with an emphasis on American government. I also have a J.D. from SLU School of Law.

Rail Driver; when you are a 2L you should get access to Lexis or Westlaw, maybe both. Until then you have the law library. You'll learn all you need in Legal Writing & Research to research the law. If you have time. Good luck with that.

As to the post at hand; The US Gov. will win. They have the exclusive right to dictate immigration policy, not the states. My sympathies lie with AZ, but my sympathies mean nothing.
AZ will be enjoined (prevented) from acting as states are not enforcers of federal law. The Administration could, however, ignore AZ in this issue. They ignore federal law in re medical marijuana. They decline to prosecute, which is kind of a stretch of prosecutorial discretion. Such judgements should be made by the individual prosecutor, on a case-by-case basis. Not as a wholesale policy of the current administration, as that is abdicating their responsibility to "faithfully execute the laws of congress."
That being said, it is a fact that every administration chooses what laws to enforce/pursue. The G.W.B. Administration ignored many laws it disagreed with. Same with Clinton, G.H.W.B., Reagan, etc.
In theory, a writ of mandamus could be issued by the courts to enforce a law, but those are rare. (Rail Driver; See Marbury as an early example of mandamus writs, I know you have read it by, well, your first day) Writs of mandamus preceeded our codified laws/Constitution, it is a part of the common law inherited from G.B., so look to case law concerning these.
What it will mean for other states with laws similar to AZ's is that they are on notice to either remove such laws from their books, or spend their taxpayer's money defending them in court. Which they will likely lose.
And ArmedBear; yes, it is stupid that the feds won't take help from the states. They should be glad to get the help. I don't get it. The law is the law, either enforce it or rescind it.
This is enforced federalism, certainly. But the problem is, the 10th Amen. means very little (unfunded mandates is mostly it), and I'm not even sure if the 9th means anything at all. Please note that these are not simply my ideas, I'm just reporting the state of the law/Constitution as it stands today.
And there is a whole lot more perversion of the Constitution's original intent going on than just this. The Commerce Clause first comes to mind...

 

[Colonel]

I've researched what I think is the root of this question (Is the federal government required to enforce federal laws).

Not to tread too close to the legal-political DMZ, but this is where laws become political weapons (and thus merit legitimate discussion in a Legal forum):

The idea is to pass as many laws as possible – prohibitions ("You can't WHATEVER...") and mandates ("You must WHATEVER...") – to give yourself as many legal/prosecutory tools as possible. You want as many options in your tool box as you can get.

Then, you use selective enforcement of those laws, and selective protection of various segments of the population, to punish political enemies and reward political friends.

It's nothing new. The English were doing it 350 years ago. Charles II tried to deprive Commoners of firearms to preserve game for the elite and prevent serfs from gaining a degree of independence by providing food for themselves by hunting. King James II tried to disarm Protestants. It's the same old BS over and over.

Anyone want to venture a guess why the current political class in Washington refuses to enforce the laws on immigration ... or would that cross the DMZ?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Yes that would be over the DMZ. You are correct that sometimes laws are based on political agendas but that is not a topic for discussion here. Please keep this thread on the specific topic the OP intended or it will not stay open.

Thanks

 

[azyogi]

Wasn't selective enforcement dealt with by the 14th amendment? Jim Crow laws struck down on that basis? The limb looks skinny to me when the feds say, oh well, we're not worried about that law this week.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

Article 1 section 8 of the United States Constitution, specifically gives congress the power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” and to “Regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations.” Link here.

The Supremacy clause, link here, specifies that federal law preempts, or is superior to, state law, easy enough in concept, but extremely hard to apply. The main reason that it is so tricky is because of what is known as “field preemption,” which basically means that the U.S. government has so thoroughly regulated the field of whatever that there is no room for state law.

Given the comprehensiveness of the Federal Immigration regulatory scheme and the Federal government’s exclusive mandate regarding foreign relations, the Supreme Court has consistently held that there is no room for state laws regarding foreign relations or immigration. Which makes sense, imagine the problems we would have if Arizona could declare war on Mexico: could Mexicans travel to California without being held as POW’s, would Texas be obligated to join in the war effort? That is the main reason that states cannot regulate immigration or foreign relations, their actions could embroil all states in a war or other unpleasantness.

The other reason that Immigration cannot be regulated by states is that only the Federal Government can determine who is in this country illegally, and until the person is actually removed they could be allowed to stay. For example there are thousands of people who have been ordered deported but are still here working and will never be removed because the convention against torture prohibits their removal. The Honorable Carlos Bea on the 9th Circuit, was actually ordered deported at one point but has been here ever since. Think of it like the death penalty, even though the person has been convicted and sentenced to death, it cannot actually be executed until it happens. Accordingly, there is no way a State, let alone a beat cop can know whether a person is in this country illegally. The only way a state could even try to enforce the law is to make up an alternate designation of who is an "illegal alien," or arrest a person, without probable cause, and hold him until the feds confirm the person is actually an illegal alien.

That is what we really have to worry about. States arresting people for having a Machine Gun, SBS, SBR, Suppressor etc., and then asking the feds if the item is listed on the NFA registry. Or even worse arresting someone for carrying a glock 17, which the state has designated an MG, and asking the BATFE to confirm that it is a federal MG. If AZ's law stands the door is open to this sort of harassment.

There are some GOOD federal firearms statutes which specifically preempt state firearms laws, and help us. i.e. the statues which allow us, and FEDEX, to transport firearms through restrictive states, and the statutes which shield gun manufacturers from product liability lawsuits. These are what we have to worry about with regards to US v. AZ.

The Second Amendment does not involve any similar separation of powers arguments. Through McDonald the states are now bound to the same 2A limits as the federal government, and there is no separate Article 1 section 8 grant of power to the Federal Government.

That’s my 5 minute stream of conscious, in before the lock. If anyone has further questions, I’m happy to answer them. If the thread stays open, I’ll amend this post with citations once I have time to revise this and add them.