Lawsuit against Arizona is now unconstitutional.

@xfahctor (14118)
Lancaster, New Hampshire
July 8, 2010 12:20pm CST
That's right, unconstitutional. I had this pointed out to me by someone and I'm embarrassed I missed it. The moment Mexico signed it's name as a party to the suit, the suit became a violation of the 11th amendment to the constitution which states: "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” I'm sure this means little to the DOJ and even less to Mexico...but there it is folks.
4 people like this
11 responses
• United States
9 Jul 10
So it pretty much means that the Arizona Law can stay, right? Well, okay, let the Arizona Law stay, doesn't mean that it is going to be effective. Arizona can deport people as much as they want, and they will still keep coming back.
1 person likes this
• United States
9 Jul 10
Yeah, but if they don't go to Arizona, then they will come to California, New Mexico, Texas, or any of the other state in the south. So, they can't come to Arizona, they can still go to the other states.
• United States
9 Jul 10
Basically, they will figure out a way to get here, they always figure out a way to get here.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
9 Jul 10
Not if the law is effective in preventing businesses from hiring them. It's not simply a deportation policy, but rather a bill that sets out penalties for businesses that hire illegal aliens. The penalties aren't as harsh as they should be, but it's a start.
2 people like this
• United States
8 Jul 10
I wonder if anyone has reminded the people at the DOJ that is this unconstitutional? Not that WE should have to remind them of the law or our constitution...but they seem to need reminding sence they don't have a clue. Thanks so much for getting this info out there for us. I knew it HAD to be illegal to let Mexico become part of the lawsuit.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
8 Jul 10
Yeah, but they're afraid to answer them. That's why they're hiding from investigations on Eric Holder's racist policy of not prosecuting black people for voter intimidation. Besides, he hasn't even read this short Arizona law, what makes you think he's read the constitution?
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
8 Jul 10
"I wonder if anyone has reminded the people at the DOJ that is this unconstitutional?" Because it wouldn't matter anyways? They don't follow it unless it is convenient and this would be anything but convenient for them in this case.
2 people like this
• United States
8 Jul 10
I am still thinking of calling and telling them about it and see what their reaction to it is. See waht their justification is. LOL...you know me...I am not afraid to ask the big questions.
1 person likes this
• United States
8 Jul 10
Thanks for posting this discussion. Although I am pretty sure you are correct that it will mean nothing to Attorney General Eric Holder. Maybe he should immigrate to Mexico as he seems to like the way they handle justice!!!!
1 person likes this
@adinkle (45)
• La Verne, California
8 Jul 10
Thanks for the info xfactor. I have been trying to follow this, but I had not heard this yet. It appears it is a good thing.
1 person likes this
• United States
8 Jul 10
......"It appears it is a good thing.".... what is a good thing??
1 person likes this
• United States
9 Jul 10
It'd be a beautiful theory except that Mexico hasn't sued Arizona, it's filed a "friend of the court" brief in a perfectly Constitutional lawsuit.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
9 Jul 10
Great post. I must say that you're probably the person I most enjoy disagreeing with as you do an excellent job of arguing your points intelligently with facts. I think you're probably right on this one as it was the federal government that filed the suit initially. I honestly don't think anyone from Mexico should be involved in the court proceedings in the slightest way as this is an internal matter.
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
9 Jul 10
Well, I have to admit, you raised a pretty valid point on this. It made me go and do a little research on the matter. I am still looking at it but in doing so, I am still seeing this as an 11th amendment issue, since the basis is they are a foreign entity filing a legal protest against a soviergn state in a U.S. court. If my continued research shows otherwise...I will gladly come back and concede.
• United States
9 Jul 10
The 11th amendment refers to "prosecution," not "legal protest." The court is free to ignore an amicus curae.
• United States
8 Jul 10
Wow.... makes sense though and cannot be argued with. It's the law!!
1 person likes this
• United States
9 Jul 10
Hi xfahctor, thanks for posting this. Never be embarrassed! You do so MUCH work to help us all protect our rights and our country. My life has gone FAR beyond its usual extremely complicated and stressful level with the increased needs of my special needs child. It has become harder and harder for me to even keep up with the news much less contribute or help people to understand. I am so grateful for people like you that can keep us all informed and stand in the gap. keep up the good work. Too bad the powers that be do not care about the Constitution, but as you said, there it is for all to see. AJ
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
8 Jul 10
This can actually be a very good thing! In allowing this unconstitutional act, our government has set itself up to challenge from the citizens. This can be a stepping stone to educate people as to how the last two administrations have trampled on the constitution however they like, get the people to be enthusiastic about the constitution and lead to their demanding it be adhered to whenever the government does anything--especially passes laws. I confess I am new to all this and haven't paid much attention until the last election. So I did not know that the gov't violated our constitution until you pointed it out. But I'm learning and so are lots of other people who are fed up with things. Thanks for bringing this up!
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
8 Jul 10
I agree with you completely. I think that there is some merit to the people who say Obama being elected was great since his extremist and unconstitutional ways are forcing Americans to look at the constitution and see how bad we've let things get.
1 person likes this
• United States
8 Jul 10
I don't really know why they are even suing them. It isn't doing anything anyways, and it is similar to the federal law. If I was in the white house I would be pointing out how the businesses make out like bandits in this law. I would point out that the state of Arizona bent over backwards to make sure that you can still hire illegals without worrying about spending one second in jail. But, if you turn someone in for hiring illegals, and they get rid of them before the police show up YOU could be charged with a crime. At NO point can a business owner be charged with a crime under this bill, but if you try to turn someone in for violating this law you can. PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS TO ME LIKE A FOUR YEAR OLD, BECAUSE THE LOGIC HERE IS WAY OVER MY HEAD!!!!!!!
• United States
9 Jul 10
X, until both parties are willing to come together, and put corporation money aside, NOTHING will be done about the boarder. Corporate, and Business money is way to powerful, and they all have to raise millions to win elections, and need their money to win. I am not a big fan of the state of Arizona due to their lack of respect for Dr. King, and their heavy concern business above EVERYTHING else. I feel the people of Arizona needs to stand up to the business lobby in Arizona, and put them in their place. Businesses have run that state for decades, and it is time the people stand up to the businesses, and the politicians who are bought and paid for by them.
• United States
15 Jul 10
Thank Your for pointing that out. I thought it was uncostitional but I hadn't looked up any of the ammendments.
• United States
8 Jul 10
I knew that it was ! on the other hand, if the Federal Government would do what they are suppose to do like protect our boarders, AR would not off had to do what they did. Have a wonderful day Snow