I just want to see if I got this straight...

Arizona made a law to specifically allow it's local law enforcement agencies to enforce the current federal law?

Big brother is now taking the state to court to prevent Arizona from implementing that law?

Which would say to me that the federal government is clearly, and definitively saying that the laws that they have made should not be enforced and are actively attempting to keep said laws from being enforced?

To me that almost sounds like "Obstruction of Justice" perpetrated by own own government.

Granted, I haven't been following the case against Arizona too closely and do not know a lot about it in detail. Perhaps my analysis is not accurate. But from what I have read, I think I got it.

By submitting this to the Human Rights Commission, Obama is saying (I guess) that there's a human right violation. But S.B. 1070 was not attacked in court nor enjoined on the basis of any "human rights" violation. There's plenty of federal law which could have been used to do so. Instead, the case is all about preemption, so the Justice Department and the court must agree that there's no human rights violation here.

Curiously, the portion of S.B. 1070 requiring that state officials work with federal officials with regards to illegal aliens (among other portions), was not even challenged by the feds in court. Further, the court did not find a problem with regards to the portions of S.B. 1070 which created a separate state crime to transport or harbor an illegal alien or encourage or induce an illegal alien to come to or live in Arizona. This is not consistent with a preemption claim.

What's more, state police can still go on asking for identification and checking status during a lawful stop and reporting to the feds as far as I know. They just aren't required to do so.

As with everything else with this administration, it's all smoke and no fire.

iwog made the very point I was thinking about. If this is a report to the Human Rights Commission, exactly what human rights are being challenged here? This is utter bullshit.

The only consolation is knowing that the only people who hold the Human Rights Commission in high regard already have a thousand nits to pick with us, so it's not like we've lost any standing with them.

If I were Brewer, I'd submit my own report charging the federal goverment with abandonment putting US citizens in peril and by ignoring sanctuary cities who are in direct violation of federal law. If that's not a human rights issue, I don't know what is.

Thanks to Tina, the blatant dishonesty of the Obama administration is clearly on display.

I still think you are making something out of nothing.

In and of itself, Tina, it's nothing. As Oyster says, nobody takes the HCR seriously. (Look at its current membership -- China, Egypt, Cuba, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia are on it!)

It's the symbolism of it. Not only did they not notify Arizona that they were being included, the actual reporting was misleading -- in the same way they've been misrepresenting the nature of the Arizona law from the outset.

It's just more proof of the true nature of the Obama administration -- inept, dishonest, and utterly dishonorable.

J.

Tina,
'I still think you are making something out of nothing."
Didja read #1 & #2 above? Seems to me that Darby and iwo spelled it out pretty well. Are you sayin' that you have no problem with the Osama...eh...Obama administration preventing the enforcement of existing law? Seems to me that that is kinda "something".....jus sayin'

boy oh boy november's agittn' closer,
ol'

Then again, all of this went to the UN Human Rights Commission - A farce and an oxymoron. What can they do - sanction Arizona? Who cares.

Of course all of this is a good display of the CHARACTER of the current administration. Petty, wrong, and just plain stupid.

I look at the report to the HRC as the Obama administrations version of doctor shopping.

They have filed suit against AZ, but for all the reasons J.T. has included in his article the ultimate court ruling is far from a slam dunk for the administration.

On the other hand, the UN HRC is a "court of opinion" where the administration's chances are somewhat better than just slam dunk. Hell, the HRC can write their opinion without even having any discussion.

So, a quick, cheap "victory." That would be totally in keep with this administration.

Your fourth point - refusing to enforce laws and fulfilling your duty, can always be fixed by the voting public. An example of this will be seen in two months.

Jan Brewer has shown great patience, courage and a marked resolve in her battles with the Hussein regime. Unfortunately, she has chosen to ABIDE by the purely political decision of the Clinton appointed judicial activist who, for practical purposes, declared both Arizona AND Federal immigration law "unconstitutional" or at best illegal! Brewer should have enacted the law, directed Arizona authorities to enforce it and as would undoubtedly have been necessary, shipped illegals to the border by bus, forcing them at gunpoint if required to cross back into Mexico. She would have had the overwhelming support of Arizona residents along with the vast majority of the American people.

obama cannot claim a civil rights violation with the AZ law because it never went into law long enough to be enforced in a discriminatory way.

By submitting this issue to the UNHRC he gets around the burden of proof issues found in US law and he goes to the kangaroo court of UN politics where, conveniently, the US is always guilty. obama gets to have his cake and eat it to. He gets to contest it in the US Courts on legal grounds (flimsy though they may be) AND he gets to try it in a UN arena where no proof is necessary and he can demagogue the issue with the assistance of a chorus of murderous and repressive thug regimes.

Many countries practice genocide, ethnic cleansing, slave trade, sex trade, kidnapping, torture and Obama has lumped Arizona in with these groups. It is disgraceful. The really sad part is the left does not care. That is how self loathing and american hating they are. ww

The Obama administration could have given an honest report to the UN Commission of Obscene Jokes if they'd just added the word "exclusive," but they didn't. Instead, they chose to lie about it to boost their case.

Jay,

Placing the word "the" in front of a word singularizes it, thus "the authority" and "exclusive authority" mean the same thing. There was no lie or attempted deception.

Jay Tea adds: Tina, I have the power to edit your comments however I see fit. So do Kevin and Maggie. Were I the only one, I would say I have "the exclusive power" or "the sole power."

Many countries practice genocide, ethnic cleansing, slave trade, sex trade, kidnapping, torture and Obama has lumped Arizona in with these groups. It is disgraceful. The really sad part is the left does not care. That is how self loathing and american hating they are. ww

Obama is not doing that, read the introduction to the report.

Some may say that by participating we acknowledge commonality with states that systematically abuse human rights. We do not. There is no comparison between American democracy and repressive regimes.

Placing the word "the" in front of a word singularizes it, thus "the authority" and "exclusive authority" mean the same thing. There was no lie or attempted deception.

Tina S

Nonsense. "John has the authority to authorize expenses of this nature. Bill also has the authority to authorize such expenses." Clearly neither John nor Bill has exclusive authority. You need some grammar lessons.

I agree. I noticed that, too. Kudos to Tina.

Come on Tina S. Do you actually believe this. There was no need to mention Arizona. The law is still being litagated. How about mentioning protected peoples rights to vote by keeping armed Black Panthers out of polling places. That goes more in line with the cause. You are sometimes unbearable. Just say they screwed up and get it over with. ww

I also see he failed mentioning Obama's keeping Guatanamo opened. ww

Jay cites the 10th amendment as proof of... well, it proves Jay wrong butt he won't admit that.

Here's what Jay cited:

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.

The jay sticks his head all the way up there:

"Seems pretty simple. If something isn't specifically set aside for the feds, it devolves down. So, if the feds won't live up to their duties, then similarly it should devolve down as well."

So if any state decides at any time that the fed isn't doing what the Constitution requires it to do then any state can pass any law in contravention to the Constitution because... hey - they've decided it was necessary.

Protecting the national border is specifically spelled out as Federal power.

The State of Arizona doesn't get to decide what Constitutionally mandated federal powers it gets to take over and usurp.

Ass meets hat - film at 11.

Have you thought about practicing law, Jay - for our side?

Dane, your side keeps arguing that the Constitution is an "evolving" document. So why can't it evolve this way?

And should there be a conflict between the states and the federal government, wouldn't it be convenient if there was a system set up to resolve it? Oh, yeah, we do -- it's called the courts.

Where's your alternative, anyway? Or are you just content to cheap-shot at others' ideas, without putting out your own?

J.

What I've noticed is......Obama media
is in forced hiatus re the midterms.
They hope against hope that Barry breaks
even....or keeps his nostrils high enuff
to keep from drowning in the political tide.
If he escapes total inundation, these bastards
will be right back sticking you in the eye
daily. Let's make them CRY on Nov. 2!
Matthews et. al. need a bat to the head
to mute their sycophancy.

Jay Tea adds: Tina, I have the power to edit your comments however I see fit. So do Kevin and Maggie. Were I the only one, I would say I have "the exclusive power" or "the sole power."

Jay Yea, I can offer one possibe reason for bringing up S.B. 1070 in the report. However, I can not say it is "The Reason".

I know many of you think differenly, but Obama may not want to take questions from world leaders on S.B. 1070. The brief mention of S.B. 1070 allow Obama to establish the ground rule of not taking comments on an ongoing lawsuit from members of the U.N.

Again, I'm not saying this is "the reason", there are lots of possible reasons and none of us know for sure what the true reason is.

A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.

Teacher, teacher, Tommy stepped on my toe....