Arizona

[BigBrother]

Pretty interesting stuff going on over there right now.

The citizens support the police questioning folks who look questionable and the governor signs it into law.

• Obama decries it and finds it "disturbing".

• Messican presidente' says it is racist.

• Some imaginative college students went and smeared refried bean swastikas all over the state house. (I actually thought that was pretty funny).

• ACLU is gonna sue.

• The feds are considering lawsuits.

• I recall seeing two senators talking about which points of the constitution this law violated.

Seems to me...that this is a state minding it's own, after our nanny state decides it wont enforce immigration laws. I wonder which subparagraph of this one:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Gets trumped by this one:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And...if indeed it gets "trumped", who is willing to stand up to ensure it stands?

[WNM]

Interesting situation for sure..

[Mergie Master]

The Dems are hating this. Those illegals are their future voters. If they can get a 20 million man voting block set in stone they're in control forever. So look for them to fight Arizona on this tooth and claw.

Arizona needs to persuade all the border states, or heck...all the states, to pass the same kind of law. That way the feds won't be able to put all their legal machinery on just one state, they'll get spread too thin to be effective.

One good thing about Obama getting elected, his exuberant over-reaching with the federal government is turning a lot of states against their excessive power. That's the way it should have always been, the way it was intended by the founders, as evidence by the Constitution they penned.

[tradorion]

I truly do NOT understand where ANY other country gets off thinking they have a say in how we allow or do not allow "their" people into "our" country...

[NannySlayer]

I truly do NOT understand where ANY other country gets off thinking they have a say in how we allow or do not allow "their" people into "our" country...

this! fawk them. i say good for az. i was watching fox news and they had someone fro az on there. they have been under siege and pleading for the fed to intervene for some time now. looks like they said f' it and took care of business.

[300WINMAG]

Works for me just fine. Tired of seeing our tax dollars support illegals.

[badfaulkner]

The president of the US and the cabinets under his administration are upset at a state over its constitutional right to enact laws and are threatening action against that state.

Gee. Is this 1861 or 2010?

Yes, I realize this is a bit of a stretch, but what's at stake now in 2010 imo is even more imperative: the right of a state to enforce it's own borders against a flood of illegal aliens.

Black, white, and brown Americans across the political spectrum should all be screaming "STATES RIGHTS" imo. .