-------
reverse cowgirl?
On Jul 15, 4:36 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As usual, Ann Baby is right on the money. I swear, sometimes I think she is
> a member of the group!!! (*See* CW) :
>
> *New Black Panthers, You're Free To Go -- Not So Fast, Arizona*
> by Ann Coulter
> 07/14/2010http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38073
>
> So I guess all that hysteria about the Arizona immigration law was much ado
> about nothing. After months of telling us that the Nazis had seized Arizona,
> when the Obama administration finally got around to suing, its only
> objection was that the law was "pre-empted" by federal immigration law.
>
> With the vast majority of Americans supporting Arizona's inoffensive little
> law, the fact that Obama is suing at all suggests that he consulted
> exclusively with the craziest people in America before filing this
> complaint. (Which is to say, Eric Holder's Justice Department.)
>
> But apparently even they could find nothing discriminatory about Arizona's
> law. It's reassuring to know that, contrary to earlier indications,
> government lawyers can at least read English.
>
> Instead, the administration argues, federal laws on immigration pre-empt
> Arizona's law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
>
> State laws are pre-empted by federal law in two circumstances: When there is
> a conflict -- such as "sanctuary cities" for illegals or California's
> medical marijuana law -- or when Congress has so thoroughly regulated a
> field that there is no room for even congruent state laws.
>
> If Obama thinks there's a conflict, I believe he's made a damning admission.
> There's a conflict only if the official policy of the federal government is
> to ignore its own immigration laws.
>
> Only slightly less preposterous is the argument that although Arizona's law
> agrees with federal law, Congress has engaged in "field pre-emption" by
> occupying the entire field of immigration, thus prohibiting even harmonious
> state laws.
>
> Field pre-emption may arise, for example, in the case of federal health and
> safety laws, so that manufacturers of cars, medical devices and drugs aren't
> forced to comply with the laws of 50 different states to sell their products
> nationally.
>
> And yet, just over a year ago, the Supreme Court held that there was no
> "field pre-emption" even in the case of an FDA-approved anti-nausea drug
> because Congress had not explicitly stated that state regulation was
> pre-empted.
>
> The drug, Phenergan, came with the warning that, if administered improperly
> (so that it enters an artery), catastrophe could ensue.
>
> In April 2000, Phenergan was administered improperly to Diana Levine -- by a
> clinician ignoring six separate warnings on Phenergan's label. Catastrophe
> ensued; Levine developed gangrene and had to have her lower arm amputated.
>
> Levine sued the health center and clinician for malpractice, and won.
>
> But then she also sued the drug manufacturer, Wyeth Laboratories, on the
> grounds that it should have included more glaring warnings about proper
> administration of the drug -- like, I don't know, maybe a flashing neon sign
> on each vial.
>
> Wyeth argued that since the Food and Drug Administration (after 54 years of
> study) had expressly approved the warnings as provided, state tort law was
> pre-empted by the federal drug regime.
>
> But the Supreme Court held that Congress had to make pre-emption explicit,
> which it had not, so Levine was awarded $6.7 million from Wyeth.
>
> If ever there were a case for "implicit pre-emption," this was it. Without
> federal supremacy for the FDA's comprehensive regulation of drugs,
> pharmaceutical companies are forever at the mercy of state and local laws --
> and trial lawyers -- in all 50 states.
>
> As much as I would like pharmaceutical companies to rot in hell for their
> support of ObamaCare, I might need their drugs someday. Now, drug prices
> will not only have to incorporate R&D costs, but also the cost of paying for
> trial lawyers' Ferraris. (Perhaps that should be listed as a side effect:
> "Caution! Improper use may cause nausea, dizziness, shortness of breath, and
> six new houses for John Edwards.")
>
> But the point is: According to the Supreme Court's most recent pre-emption
> ruling, Arizona's law is not pre-empted because Congress did not expressly
> prohibit state regulation of illegal aliens.
>
> In fact, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the pre-emption argument
> against state laws on immigrants -- including laws somewhat at odds with
> federal law, which the Arizona law is not.
>
> In the seminal case, *De Canas v. Bica* (1976), the court held 8-0 that a
> California law prohibiting employers from hiring illegal immigrants was not
> pre-empted by federal law.
>
> The court -– per Justice William Brennan -- said that the federal
> government's supremacy over immigration is strictly limited to: (1) a
> "determination of who should or should not be admitted into the country,"
> and (2) "the conditions under which a legal entrant may remain."
>
> So a state can't start issuing or revoking visas, but that's about all it
> can't do.
>
> Manifestly, a state law about *illegal* immigrants has nothing to do with
> immigrants who enter legally or the conditions of their staying here.
> Illegal aliens have neither been "admitted into the country" nor are they
> "legal entrants."
>
> Indeed, as Brennan noted in the De Canas case, there's even "a line of cases
> that upheld certain discriminatory state treatment of aliens lawfully within
> the United States." (You might want to jot some of this down, Mr. Holder.)
>
> So there's no "field pre-emption" of state laws dealing with aliens, nor is
> there an explicit statement from Congress pre-empting state regulation of
> aliens.
>
> On top of that, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld state laws on
> immigrants in the face of pre-emption challenges. Arizona's law is no more
> pre-empted than the rest of them.
>
> Unless, of course, Obama is right and it's a violation of federal law to
> enforce federal immigration laws, which is the essence of the Department of
> Justice's lawsuit.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment