Category Archives: Law

Under HIS Direction

Barack Obama, Federalism, IMMIGRATION, Law, The Courts

“The Obama administration’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona offers a revealing window into the Holder Justice Department. And the picture isn’t pretty, ” writes Kris W. Kobach.

Consider what we learned when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first let the cat out of the bag and told us about it during an interview in Ecuador. Clinton showed who was sitting in the driver’s seat when it came to the Justice Department’s decision: “President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy. And the Justice Department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act.”
The key words here are “under his direction.” In other words, the White House is calling the shots. The same political calculations that drove Obama to criticize the Arizona law in April also drove the filing of the suit. While that is fine for policy decisions in other executive departments, the litigation decisions of the Justice Department are different. Past administrations — both Republican and Democratic — have taken care to insulate these decisions from political forces.
The reasons for doing so are obvious.
The decision to file civil charges or to file a civil lawsuit should be based purely on the strength of the legal case against the defendant, not on politics. And when it comes to the Arizona law, the federal government’s case is a weak one.

“When one considers the Arizona lawsuit in contrast to last year’s Justice Department decision to drop the voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party, the conclusion becomes inescapable. In the Black Panther case, the defendants had failed to answer the charges against them, and all the Department had to do was ask the judge for a default judgment. But the political appointees of the Holder Justice Department came in and ordered the career department attorneys to drop the case.

So the department dropped a slam-dunk case and yet files a suit that is half-court shot. Neither decision makes sense if the law is guiding the department’s litigation decisions. But both decisions make perfect sense if political calculations are foremost.”

[SNIP]

I’m appalled that other states have not stood up loudly for Jan Brewer who, while not the sharpest knife in the draw, is at least sharp enough to understand the importance of defending Arizonans against trespass, from within (the feds) and without (alien scofflaws and welfare consumers).

Has anyone heard what the Republican beauty queen Sarah Palin has to say about the Federal government’s frontal attack on Arizona? Where is Bachmann on the matter? Are republicans covering up for the terrible two’s relative silence on the topic?

UPDATE II: The Law Of Rule Doubles Down

Affirmative Action, Barack Obama, Energy, Free Speech, Justice, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Political Correctness, Race, Racism

A member of the South African opposition (as I have already mentioned) characterized the effects of the ANC’s deployment of law as living under the law of rule rather than the rule of law. This characterization applies equally to Big Man Obama and his posse.

According to Fox News’ Megan Kelly, who does some fine reporting, the decree to dismiss the New-Black-Panther voter intimidation case originated with 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Recall: the thugs who received a reprieve flanked the voting location in formation shouting variations on “kill crackers and their kids.”

A note to libertarians celebrating free speech and the beauty of an exhortation to kill in a “free society”: I’m sympathetic even to the last, believe it or not. But this is not about free speech. this is about a legal apparatus under which some are better than others. Don’t get me wrong: we’ve always lived under such an apparatus; my new book, Into The Cannibal’s Pot, (completed now and being prepared for publication), records this very reality. However, it has become manifestly obvious that things have gotten way worse (albeit on the same continuum) under the racial rule of Brother Barack.

To those interested in the law’s position on speech, here it is stated in one of my columns:

American jurisprudence allows the regulation of speech only under very limited circumstances. .. the jury would have had to find that … [the] speech posed a “Clear and Present Danger.” While the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment doesn’t protect words that are likely to cause violence, the required threshold is extremely high. And so it should be.

However, speech that falls under the rubric of civil and voter rights law seems to get different treatment—when uttered against the pigmentally privileged.

UPDATE I: To prove this post’s point, the White House is threatening another lawsuit against Arizona. I believe it will try, this time, to make the racial profiling fiction stick. Is this an attempt to prosecute an infraction that has yet to occur? You see what I mean by the law of rule. As I write, coverage of this is hard to come by on the Net, so please do some digging.

UPDATE II: BHO will not abide by a “no you can’t!” The Law had ruled against the Rule in the matter of a moratorium on deep-water offshore drilling.

“[J]udge, Martin L. C. Feldman of United States District Court, issued a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of a late May order halting all offshore exploratory drilling in more than 500 feet of water. A ‘blanket, generic, indeed punitive, moratorium … with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger,'” is how the judge justified smacking BHO. (Here is District Judge Feldman’s decision.)

But the law of rule wants an outcome of its own. And so, th “Obama Administration Issues New Moratorium on Offshore Oil Drilling.”

UPDATE IV: Open-Borders Obama Vs. America (The ‘Eff-You-America’ President)

Federalism, IMMIGRATION, Labor, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, States' Rights

The United States of America (Plaintiff) V. The State of Arizona and Janice K. Brewer (Defendants): From the president’s vividly described fears of being asked by Sheriff Joe Arpaio for his birth certificate while out and about in Arizona buying fat-free ice cream for the first daughters—I got the impression that the purpose of bringing the might of the federal government down on the state of Arizona was to forestall foreseeable racial profiling. Yet not a words does the filed Complaint say of that stated objective. Clearly the fear was without legal foundation.

And if the preservation of the long-since sundered constitutional scheme is the goal of the suit, as stated, why have the federales not pursued sanctuary cities which have taken it upon themselves to defy federal immigration authority, and are thus “preempt[ing] federal law and therefore [in] violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution”?

An undeterred Michelle Malkin (read the hate mail) has dug up the explanatory DOJ dirt.

UPDATE I (July 9): “The DOJ suit is obviously designed to frighten other budget strapped states into not proceeding with similar legislation,” writes VDARE’s Donald A. Collins, a Democrat.

The “‘preemption’ argument” is being used “to quash rational consideration of [the federal government’s] own errant conduct. Folks, we are in a desperate place when the monopoly of government power can turn us into serfs on the Federal estate! [That’s been accomplished already.]

Some 50 million immigrants since the ill fated 1965 immigration legislation have come here with the powerful encouragement of the cheap labor, ethnic, and religious lobbies. They can now, with the recent Citizens United decision, overwhelm our elective process with unlimited campaign spending.

Peter Brimelow, as always, cuts to the chase:

“An American state is forced to defend itself against a federal government that will not honor its constitutional obligation to defend the states against invasion—which must ultimately raise the secessionist question: what good is the American Union at all?

And a elemental political question is being punted to the judiciary—which must ultimately draw the judiciary into politics and waken the sleeping dragon of the constitutional check/balance, the impeachment of judges.

I’ve said before that all this is beginning to remind me of the last years before the outbreak of the Civil War.

What William H. Seward called an ‘irrepressible conflict’ is shaping up—between the historic American nation and the radicals who must overwhelm it if they are to maintain power.”

UPDATE II (July 10): AID TO ARIZONA. We can all help the freedom fighters of Arizona in their secessionist fight against the federales. Donation options are at the KeepAZSafe website. I will be opting for the cheque option. In this way, the data one needs to attach to the payment will appear on a sheet of paper. This is less likely to be committed to a database than data you enter online. Just a personal preference.

I would like to see the law defended by Kris W. Kobach, a University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law professor, and an author of the Arizona law. Kobach has a first-rate mind to match his patriotism:

Kobach has determined that “state police, exercising state law authority only” may make arrests for violations of federal law”—a right Kobach anchors in a state’s status as a sovereign entity.
States are sovereign governments possessing all residual powers not abridged or superseded by the U.S. Constitution. The source of the state governments’ power is entirely independent of the U.S. Constitution. … the states possess what are known as ‘police powers,’ which need not be specifically enumerated. Police powers are ‘an exercise of the sovereign right of the government to protect the lives, health, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the people.
Arizona’s is not an exercise of “delegated federal power.” “Rather, such arrest authority inheres in the States’ status as sovereign entities.”

UPDATE III: “No Concern For U.S. Unemployed In President’s Big Amnesty Speech.” An excellent analysis of the elites’ “eff-you” attitude from NumbersUSA:

“His renewed call for massive numbers of work permits for foreign workers is an incredible slap in the face to the 25 million Americans who want a full-time job but cannot find one. …

“PRES. OBAMA DOESN’T KNOW THAT AMERICAN COLLEGE GRADS ARE HAVING ONE OF WORST YEARS EVER FOR FINDING A JOB.”

“Everywhere I turn this summer I talk to college students, recent college grads and their parents who lament the difficulty — sometimes the impossibility — of finding a job in their professions. …

“JOBLESS AMERICANS ARE A SPECIAL INTEREST WHO MUST BE OPPOSED, ACCORDING TO SPEECH”

“Folks, just who are the ‘special interests’ who are blocking ‘comprehensive immigration reform?'”

“It looked like nearly every special interest in the nation was in that university auditorium applauding the President’s appeal for more work permits for foreign workers. You had Big Business, Big Labor, Big Academe, Big Religion, Big Ethnic Grievance Groups, Big City Mayors, Big City Police Chiefs.” …

“PROF. OBAMA DOES NOT UNDERSTAND IMMIGRATION HISTORY”

Obama conveniently left out that in the past, America greatly reduced immigration during times of “economic upheaval.” Instead during this time of massive unemployment, he stood there and made a speech for increases in foreign workers.
He further unscored [sic] his lack of historical knowledge by using the Statue of Liberty as if it were dedicated to immigration. In fact, “Liberty Enlightening the World” was intended to celebrate the U.S. as a model for the rule of law and individual freedom for other nations to emulate so their own citizens wouldn’t need to think about moving somewhere else.

Read this simply superb, patriotic analysis.

UPDATE IV: Here kOBACH points out that pending are five lawsuits against Arizona based on the supremacy clause. There is no need for the government to launch its own suit. The pile-on makes plain that the government’s is a politically motivated law-suit; the aim is to send a message to the errant state.

Moreover, Arizona-style immigration laws are extant in Missouri and Rhode Island, yet no action has been taken against these states. This treacherous government (Bush’s was no different) is targeting the state through which half of all the illegal aliens entering the US pass because they want to make sure these stellar trespassers keep coming.

TREASON.

UPDATE IV: Open-Borders Obama Vs. America (The 'Eff-You-America' President)

Federalism, IMMIGRATION, Labor, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, States' Rights

The United States of America (Plaintiff) V. The State of Arizona and Janice K. Brewer (Defendants): From the president’s vividly described fears of being asked by Sheriff Joe Arpaio for his birth certificate while out and about in Arizona buying fat-free ice cream for the first daughters—I got the impression that the purpose of bringing the might of the federal government down on the state of Arizona was to forestall foreseeable racial profiling. Yet not a words does the filed Complaint say of that stated objective. Clearly the fear was without legal foundation.

And if the preservation of the long-since sundered constitutional scheme is the goal of the suit, as stated, why have the federales not pursued sanctuary cities which have taken it upon themselves to defy federal immigration authority, and are thus “preempt[ing] federal law and therefore [in] violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution”?

An undeterred Michelle Malkin (read the hate mail) has dug up the explanatory DOJ dirt.

UPDATE I (July 9): “The DOJ suit is obviously designed to frighten other budget strapped states into not proceeding with similar legislation,” writes VDARE’s Donald A. Collins, a Democrat.

The “‘preemption’ argument” is being used “to quash rational consideration of [the federal government’s] own errant conduct. Folks, we are in a desperate place when the monopoly of government power can turn us into serfs on the Federal estate! [That’s been accomplished already.]

Some 50 million immigrants since the ill fated 1965 immigration legislation have come here with the powerful encouragement of the cheap labor, ethnic, and religious lobbies. They can now, with the recent Citizens United decision, overwhelm our elective process with unlimited campaign spending.

Peter Brimelow, as always, cuts to the chase:

“An American state is forced to defend itself against a federal government that will not honor its constitutional obligation to defend the states against invasion—which must ultimately raise the secessionist question: what good is the American Union at all?

And a elemental political question is being punted to the judiciary—which must ultimately draw the judiciary into politics and waken the sleeping dragon of the constitutional check/balance, the impeachment of judges.

I’ve said before that all this is beginning to remind me of the last years before the outbreak of the Civil War.

What William H. Seward called an ‘irrepressible conflict’ is shaping up—between the historic American nation and the radicals who must overwhelm it if they are to maintain power.”

UPDATE II (July 10): AID TO ARIZONA. We can all help the freedom fighters of Arizona in their secessionist fight against the federales. Donation options are at the KeepAZSafe website. I will be opting for the cheque option. In this way, the data one needs to attach to the payment will appear on a sheet of paper. This is less likely to be committed to a database than data you enter online. Just a personal preference.

I would like to see the law defended by Kris W. Kobach, a University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law professor, and an author of the Arizona law. Kobach has a first-rate mind to match his patriotism:

Kobach has determined that “state police, exercising state law authority only” may make arrests for violations of federal law”—a right Kobach anchors in a state’s status as a sovereign entity.
States are sovereign governments possessing all residual powers not abridged or superseded by the U.S. Constitution. The source of the state governments’ power is entirely independent of the U.S. Constitution. … the states possess what are known as ‘police powers,’ which need not be specifically enumerated. Police powers are ‘an exercise of the sovereign right of the government to protect the lives, health, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the people.
Arizona’s is not an exercise of “delegated federal power.” “Rather, such arrest authority inheres in the States’ status as sovereign entities.”

UPDATE III: “No Concern For U.S. Unemployed In President’s Big Amnesty Speech.” An excellent analysis of the elites’ “eff-you” attitude from NumbersUSA:

“His renewed call for massive numbers of work permits for foreign workers is an incredible slap in the face to the 25 million Americans who want a full-time job but cannot find one. …

“PRES. OBAMA DOESN’T KNOW THAT AMERICAN COLLEGE GRADS ARE HAVING ONE OF WORST YEARS EVER FOR FINDING A JOB.”

“Everywhere I turn this summer I talk to college students, recent college grads and their parents who lament the difficulty — sometimes the impossibility — of finding a job in their professions. …

“JOBLESS AMERICANS ARE A SPECIAL INTEREST WHO MUST BE OPPOSED, ACCORDING TO SPEECH”

“Folks, just who are the ‘special interests’ who are blocking ‘comprehensive immigration reform?'”

“It looked like nearly every special interest in the nation was in that university auditorium applauding the President’s appeal for more work permits for foreign workers. You had Big Business, Big Labor, Big Academe, Big Religion, Big Ethnic Grievance Groups, Big City Mayors, Big City Police Chiefs.” …

“PROF. OBAMA DOES NOT UNDERSTAND IMMIGRATION HISTORY”

Obama conveniently left out that in the past, America greatly reduced immigration during times of “economic upheaval.” Instead during this time of massive unemployment, he stood there and made a speech for increases in foreign workers.
He further unscored [sic] his lack of historical knowledge by using the Statue of Liberty as if it were dedicated to immigration. In fact, “Liberty Enlightening the World” was intended to celebrate the U.S. as a model for the rule of law and individual freedom for other nations to emulate so their own citizens wouldn’t need to think about moving somewhere else.

Read this simply superb, patriotic analysis.

UPDATE IV: Here kOBACH points out that pending are five lawsuits against Arizona based on the supremacy clause. There is no need for the government to launch its own suit. The pile-on makes plain that the government’s is a politically motivated law-suit; the aim is to send a message to the errant state.

Moreover, Arizona-style immigration laws are extant in Missouri and Rhode Island, yet no action has been taken against these states. This treacherous government (Bush’s was no different) is targeting the state through which half of all the illegal aliens entering the US pass because they want to make sure these stellar trespassers keep coming.

TREASON.