TexasCHLforum.com

Kythas wrote:If the Federal government complains about this, then that opens a whole can of worms.

The Federal government relies on local law enforcement to enforce Federal law and statutes. When someone robs a bank, it's local law enforcement who captures the robbers. When someone shoots co-workers in a Post Office, it's local law enforcement who is first to respond. When someone flies a plane into the IRS building, it's local law enforcement who responds to 911.

Very good points.

Kythas wrote:If the Feds are now arguing that it is unconstitutional for local law enforcement to enforce Federal law, then would that mean there would need to be created a new Federal police force, who patrol in every city and state as local cops do, but are charged with enforcing Federal law since local law enforcement then would be unable to legally do so? Maybe this would be the first step on creating a Federal police force and is what's intended.

Excuse me while I get my new tin foil hat sized.

I wouldn't put it past some of the folks in this administration to try to start the ball rolling in such a direction. Not saying we'll have Fed Police in every city any time soon, but it sure would seem like something they would like to do. Funny how they seem to like to enforce laws against Americans but not against non-Americans.

reserve a tin foil hat for me too

doesn't seem like the fed case will hold water

I've been thinking the same thing Kythas said about Arizona not enacting any immigration laws. I'm not a lawyer either, but I just don't see how Arizona can lose. However, stranger things have happened. Some else asked what would it mean if they did lose. What about drug laws and gun laws? Would it mean that the states' laws are all null and void? That would mean that there would be no restrictions on the carrying of weapons, but I thought the Supreme Court already said that the states had the right to regulate guns.

I actually welcome this suit. I think that it will go a long way towards settling/restricting the power of the federal government within the states. The country is leaning to the right and everyone sees it and it's driving many liberals crazy. They thought they just got an advantage and it's being ripped away from right before their very eyes. Aww!!!!

C-dub, I agree. Much like the McDonald case set precednt for 2A rights this suit may set precedent for 9A and 10A rights. Of course it will most definetly be appealed no matter what decision is made. Then it will end up at the SCOTUS eventually. Allthough I would think whomever is awarded a victory in this first case will have an advantage. We can hope right?!

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... aecbe.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The terrorists behind this lawsuit against Arizona should be sent to Gitmo.

This morning, Fox News carried an interview of the head of the State Police in Rhode Island. Some time ago (over a year, if I'm remembering it correctly), he implemented through a policy approximately the same process as is contained in the Arizona law. Further, he presented his policy to a group of police chiefs in his State and they, too, adapted it.

He was specifically asked why there wasn't the same "blowback" from his policy implementation as for the Arizona law. His answer was fairly non-committal.

This was sent to me this morning. I think it's been around awhile, but the results are surprising. http://world-news.newsvine.com/_question ... illegal-immigration

I don't know how Gallup is politically, but they have some polls on this. Still, no surprises: http://www.gallup.com/poll/141209/Ameri ... n-Law.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cobra Medic wrote:The terrorists behind this lawsuit against Arizona should be sent to Gitmo.

The terrorists to which you refer want the Hispanic vote; it's as simple as that. No amount of self-aggrandizing teleprompted rhetoric will convince me otherwise.

http://www.cafepress.com/LindaEddy/7160508" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;