« Catch this? | Main | Professor Howell offered job back »

Law Enforcement Officers Ordered Not To Enforce The Law

Our own Reliable Troll TM tried to stir the pot in the comments section of my previous post by noting that no one at WizBang had commented on US District Judge Susan Bolton's infuriating ruling Wednesday, which largely neutralized Arizona's attempt to enforce Federal immigration law. Arizona has already filed an appeal.

Judge Bolton essentially ruled that Arizona could not enforce existing immigration law because such enforcement would place a "burden" on Federal authorities and interfere with their "priorities." Specifically, Brewer struck down the provision in Arizona's controversial law requiring law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of suspects in cases where there is probable cause to assume that they may be illegal aliens. She also struck down Arizona's requirement for resident aliens to carry ID papers with them at all times, and ruled that immigrants (regardless of immigration status) are free to congregate in public places in order to solicit work.

Two thoughts come to mind. First, Judge Bolton's decision reveals with stunning clarity the Obama Administration's position that immigration law is simply not worth enforcing. That puts the United States in a unique position among civilized nations. Will the same people who have apparently succeeded in pushing immigration law enforcement onto the sidelines here in the US now turn their attention to Canada and Mexico? Since it's now obviously "racist" to ask someone to show their immigration papers, will the next target be the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative? Will the Mexican government be accused of racism and will protesters demand an end to Mexico's strict capture and deportation procedures for Central and South American aliens who enter Mexico illegally? Those people have dark skin too, don't they?

Second, since Judge Bolton has now established a precedent for ordering and end to the enforcement of laws that place undue burdens on Federal agencies, conservatives should start putting it to good use. For example, I think that enforcing the Federal health insurance mandate would place a serious undue burden on the Internal Revenue Service and hinder their ability to perform their primary duty, which is the collection of tax monies from businesses and individuals. I also believe that the new financial reform bill will place an undue burden on government agencies due to the thousands of businesses that will suddenly find themselves regulated as entities doing business that is "financial in nature." You know, come to think of it it's probably fair to say that the Obama Administration has placed innumerable undue burdens throughout the Federal government due to its avaricious and unprecedented power grabs.

Perhaps this is the antidote to the Democrats' "mad duck" legislative session that might transpire in the wake of heavy election losses this November -- obtain a judicial ruling that new laws or regulations place an undue burden on the government or significantly interfere with its priorities, and *poof* no one can enforce them any more. Four years of Barack Obama and the Democrats in the trash can, practically overnight.

You know, I'm really beginning to like this judicial activism thing ...


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (18)

It is a rather stark declar... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

It is a rather stark declaration of what amounts to "executive nullification."

Say, wasn't there a clause in that oath about "...faithfully execut[ing] the laws ..."?

Your headline - and the res... (Below threshold)
Raphael M:

Your headline - and the rest of your post along with it - is wrong.

On Wednesday, when the judge ruled, it was a statute - not a law.

It didn't become a law until today, and the judge ruled yesterday. The judge barred portions of the statute from becoming law.

"Law Enforcement Officers Ordered Not To Enforce The Law is false. The statute was modified. Nobody was ordered to "not enforce the law." The judge barred portions of the statute from becoming law.

"Judge Bolton essentially ruled that Arizona could not enforce existing immigration law ..." is false. There is no Arizona immigration law that Arizona law enforcement cannot enforce. What happened is that portions of the statute were barred from becoming law.

You are correct in that Arizona cannot enforce federal immigration laws, but then that isn't what you said, or what you were writing about. You were writing about the new Arizona law.

"Specifically, Brewer struck down the provision in Arizona's controversial law requiring law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of suspects in cases..." is false. Portions of the law were not struck down, portions of the statute were barred from becoming law.

You see, the Arizona statute didn't become law until the day after the judge ruled.

Your headline, and the premise of your post stating that a law was prevented from being enforced, is false. 100% false. It wasn't a law until the day after the judge ruled.

The difference isn't minor. The "law" wasn't changed, the statute was.

You're protesting that a ju... (Below threshold)

You're protesting that a judge ruled that legal US residents cannot be required to carry papers, and that they have the freedom to assemble in public?!

I don't think I like your idea of America.

I find it funny that someon... (Below threshold)

I find it funny that someone whose greatest foe is proper capitalization calls anyone "ignorant."

And a pet rock could do a better job than Obama has done. No, that's not hyperbole. If we had a president (and Congress) that did absolutely nothing after being inaugurated in 2008, this country would be far better off economically than it is now.

Anyway, back on point, the "undue burden" argument is very interesting, and I fully endorse it. After all, if it's an undue burden for the federal government to check the immigration status of everyone detained by Arizona's authorities, how much more of an undue burden is it to require the federal government ensures that every American citizen faithfully represents his entire economic activity for the year to the government, and pays the corresponding tax in accordance to a several thousand-page document? Clearly, the IRS is unconstitutional by this judge's reasoning. If it holds, I got no problem with that.

Gee look it's Whin\tney... ... (Below threshold)

Gee look it's Whin\tney... must have a "health care radar to beeps him'her'IT awake so they can pimp the commercial bullshit.

Hey Raphael M... pulls his ... (Below threshold)

Hey Raphael M... pulls his gold plated nit-pick card.

Law/Statute we get the drift you don't have to be so anal about it. Oh, and you're an undue burden.

Now on to a point or two:

Specifically, Brewer struck down the provision in Arizona's controversial law requiring law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of suspects in cases where there is probable cause to assume that they may be illegal aliens.
This is where she fuckered the ruling up.

The Fed law doesn't require "reasonable suspicion" A Fed agent can ask any one at any time about theie immigration satus.

Secondly (listen-up Raphael M you want false here comes false)

Bolton based her ruling regarding harassment of legal aliens in part on her view SB1030 requires Arizona to determine the immigration status of every person arrested in the state.

That's patently FALSE, the statute requires reasonable suspicion to enter at that point in every encounter.

And BTW... this law/statute doesn't BAN/outlaw the asking of status - read the footnotes of her ruling - it just ban the requirement to ask.

individual policemen or city/county policemen as a group can if they so desire.

Ummm ... guys ... she didn'... (Below threshold)
James H:

Ummm ... guys ... she didn't strike down the law. She issued an order to temporarily restrain enforcement of it pending the outcome of a court case.

Of course, she did this because she finds it likely the feds will prevail in the eventual suit, but that's another argument ...

"Susan Boltons infuriati... (Below threshold)

"Susan Boltons infuriating ruling"

Liberal's and illegal's. Not much of a fine line there. I wonder how many of the prior Susan employ's?

While infuriating and many ... (Below threshold)

While infuriating and many here wish to use it as a hammer against the current administration the fact is the other side of the political isle isn't much different.

Both political seem to need people who are not citizens of this country to vote them into office--mainly because I think the citizenry here in this country (or both sides of the political fence) are getting fed up with voting for them.

When you have to rely on votes from people who don't have the right to vote in order to get elected it is just a truly pathetic state we have reached.

914, it makes me wonder too... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

914, it makes me wonder too. And if I was an enterprising young IRS agent looking to make my bones, I'd check into that and see if she's paying her "nanny taxes."

Let's see her enforce her r... (Below threshold)

Let's see her enforce her ruling. Sheriff Joe basically told her to pound sand.

If you are an illegal in Ar... (Below threshold)

If you are an illegal in Arizona are you really going to think you are safe becasue of this ruling ?

No way ... they are packing up and leaving ...

The courts and Congress are... (Below threshold)

The courts and Congress are not going to be able to solve this issue for the U.S. A prime example is the issue of slavery. Case after case, compromise after compromise in Congress attempted to make everyone happy BUT this was one of those issues where there was no compromise and couldn't be.

In our post 9/11 world there can be no compromise on the issue of border security. Unfort., were stuck between the Dem's, who see a huge potential voting block and the Repub's, whose big money donors like the slave wages they pay sans any gov't involvement which adds to their bottom line.

Another prob is that many states don't see the problem. The border states are over run and budgets are strapped, California is allready lost, yet for someone in North Dakota, it's just not much of an issue. I guess until some terrorist sneaks across and plants a WMD in some major urban area it will continue to be a problem for someone else.

Just curious. State, county... (Below threshold)
Rich Fader:

Just curious. State, county and local authorities assist the feds in enforcing federal laws and cooperate with them on other matters all the time. Does that assistance also lay a burden on them, the feds, I mean? Should the states, counties and cities now stop helping the feds on everything else as well? Or just the immigration laws? And if so, why?

More of Barry's Bull credo.... (Below threshold)

More of Barry's Bull credo. I am the King. You are pawn's. Do as I say.

Never thought i would say this to a sitting U.S. President but 'SCREW YOU" With all due respect.

James H is correct. "She i... (Below threshold)

James H is correct. "She issued an order to TEMPORARILY RESTRAIN enforcement of it pending the outcome of a court case."

Hate to upset Asshole (yesterdays comment), but the Arizona law hasn't been abolished, killed, negated or declared unconstitutional.

It's now headed for a full court hearing. No matter the outcome, it WILL go all the way to SCOTUS.

Our nation is run by outlaw... (Below threshold)

Our nation is run by outlaw unelected liberal activists judges and a war crinimal in the whiyehouse

You know, I think it places... (Below threshold)

You know, I think it places an undue burden on state and local authorities to enforce violations of copyright and anti-piracy laws, and report violators to the FBI. Maybe Pirate Bay and other file sharing and torrent sites could be allowed to set up shop in places like Arizona. Let's see how Shakira, Rage Against the Machine and all of the media-telecom companies that funded the Obama campaign like that.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy