[ale] Off topic - And now, Arizona

[Greg Freemyer]

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Larry Johnson
<larryfeltonjohnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Jim Kinney <jim.kinney at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> You should have seen the person presented as a victim/witness of this. I
>> have _NO_ intent to be cruel or insult people with mental health issues but
>> the congress critter who brought this poor woman up to testify did not do
>> much screening of her as a valuable aid to his cause. She presented herself
>> as a serious "voices in the head" person.
>>
>> Thus the "laughing-stock" status of Georgia was once again strengthened.
>
> As much as I hate to wander into this terribly off topic (but fun
> nonetheless) territory, I'm happy to say that Arizona passed us as crackpot
> state quite some time ago.  They've passed a Birther bill, and are poised to
> unilaterally exempt themselves from the 14th Amendment.
>

I thought the Fed. lawsuit alleged violation of the Supremacy Clause,
not the 14th amendment, or are you talking about something different.

As to the controversial Arizona immigration law

===> The Supremacy Clause as understood in the just filed lawsuit:

No state shall pass a law that eliminates the Fed. executive branch'es
ability to NOT enforce Federal laws

===> Per wikipedia, The Supremacy Clause as interpreted by the Supreme Court:

The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted to come in effect only when
the Federal Government has acted in a given field. In the case of
Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court
ruled that "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually
conflicts with a valid Federal statute." In effect, this means that a
State law will be found to violate the supremacy clause when either of
the following two conditions (or both) exist:[1]

   1. Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible, or
   2. "...state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and
execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress..."

===>

We'll see if the Supreme Court extends the Supremacy Clause to cover
conflicts with the "Executive branches lack of action" as opposed to
Congressional laws, etc.  Somehow I doubt it, and thus the Arizona law
will likely pass muster, but we'll know in the next few months I
assume.

Greg