Ace of Spades HQ

July 14, 2010

Ann Coulter On Arizona Law: Esteemed Justice Brennan's Precedent Says It's Okay
— Ace

Good piece. I trust she's right because she usually is about these things.

Brennan was of course the unscrupulous uberliberal Justice who made up whole sections of "constitution" to push his liberal agenda.

According to the Supreme Court's most recent pre-emption ruling [concerning a claim of preemption in prescription drug regulation], 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 Â– 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 -Â– per Justice William Brennan Â– 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 who enters 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.

Mark Levin also called the suit pure trash.

Unrelated, But Good: Coulter on what progressives mean when they say that discussions are wide-ranging and nothing is sacrosanct.

Posted by: Ace at 02:39 PM | Comments (46)
Post contains 361 words, total size 2 kb.

1 "Pure trash." Pretty much sums up the entire Administration.

And probably the only pure thing about it.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at July 14, 2010 02:42 PM (Jdtsu)

2 Shouldn't that be, "the suitS pure trash" considering there are multiple stupid groups suing Arizona?

Posted by: Trinity at July 14, 2010 02:42 PM (keC7U)

3 Caqn we all go to a sanctuary city to escape these communist bastards?

Posted by: TexasJew at July 14, 2010 02:42 PM (8yMvt)

4 This can't be. Obama is a constitutional scholar.

Posted by: tachyonshuggy at July 14, 2010 02:46 PM (yUybe)

5 If I am not mistaken the ACLU has already lost a similar case in the 9th circuit on the AZ law.

I still think this case is nothing more than smoke and mirrors for the fall election. It will disappear after Nov.

Posted by: Vic at July 14, 2010 02:47 PM (/jbAw)

6 Caqn we all go to a sanctuary city to escape these communist bastards? Posted by: TexasJew at July 14, 2010 06:42 PM (8yMvt) Toronto or Eilat?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 14, 2010 02:48 PM (5jbD3)

7 It will disappear after Nov. Posted by: Vic at July 14, 2010 06:47 PM (/jbAw) I hope alot of things disappear after November

Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 14, 2010 02:49 PM (5jbD3)

8 Ann Coulter, one of those single women. Wonder how many of the five things men don't like apply to her?

Posted by: sTevo at July 14, 2010 02:50 PM (zIUsq)

I liked the unrelated Coulter piece as well. One of my favorite libtard bumper stickers is, "My Karma Ran Over Your Dogma."

Open mindedness, indeed.

Posted by: ErikW at July 14, 2010 02:52 PM (9BzMV)

10 So, bottom line, "Esteemed Justice Brennan's Precedent" seems to have put a couple of torpedoes into Holder's and Obama's suit against Arizona ...

Posted by: Arbalest at July 14, 2010 02:52 PM (3foPD)

11 This suit is going to destroy the Dims in November - and it has no hope of success - what the hell is Obama's plan.

Posted by: Jean at July 14, 2010 02:54 PM (CPefM)

12 Is is just me or has anyone else wondered what the hell is up with women like Coulter and Laura Ingrahm??? Nice looking, smart....unmarried???

Wonder if they ever 'get together' and chew the fat....

I'll be in my rack......

Posted by: Portnoy at July 14, 2010 02:54 PM (azgo2)

depending on how things go in november some posters here might disappear.

Posted by: evil libertarian at July 14, 2010 02:55 PM (T6U2B)

14

It is truly amazing to see the paroxysms of rage from the left over this law. The damn thing DOESN'T DO ANYTHING.

If ICE doesn't remove them, the illegals just walk. BO can just as easily stop ICE deportations stemming from local LE referrals, or something similar.

But just the FACT that this law exists drives them batshit insane.

I love it.

Posted by: s'moron at July 14, 2010 02:56 PM (UaxA0)

15
wow and I thought the KSM trial this summer would be a gift for the Stupid Party^tm; this is even better.

Posted by: i'm blowing my little vizoola at July 14, 2010 02:56 PM (gt3o0)

12 Is is just me or has anyone else wondered what the hell is up with women like Coulter and Laura Ingrahm??? Nice looking, smart....unmarried???

How about that Laura Ingraham was dating Keith Olbermann? Wrap your brain around that.

Posted by: Pocono Joe at July 14, 2010 02:57 PM (yFWMe)

17 Is is just me or has anyone else wondered what the hell is up with women like Coulter and Laura Ingrahm??? Nice looking, smart....unmarried???

Laura was engaged, but the relationship broke up shortly after she was diagnosed with breast cancer. She's since adopted a couple kids. I don't know what the deal with Ann is. It's quite possible that the insouciance and wit that make her so entertaining and unflappable in public make her insufferable in private.

Posted by: Ombudsman at July 14, 2010 02:58 PM (y4B2y)

18 Toronto or Eilat? If you are trying to escape communism , Toronto is a poor choice .

Posted by: Bill D. Cat ( Nobel Prize winner ) at July 14, 2010 02:59 PM (NuAIL)

19 yea both ann and laura have been engaged a couple times....and i still can't understand the oberdouche thing...fuck i want to puke.

Posted by: evil libertarian at July 14, 2010 03:00 PM (T6U2B)

20

STOP THE PRESSES!

Michael Steele DEFENDS the Tea Parties from charges of racism?

Must be some typo in the RNC press release.

Posted by: s'moron at July 14, 2010 03:00 PM (UaxA0)

Let the lawsuit roll on. It's just one more landmine that the Comrade Zero Administration has voluntarily leapt onto in the run-up to the 2010 midterms.

Posted by: Cicero at July 14, 2010 03:00 PM (9hu1I)

22 How about that Laura Ingraham was dating Keith Olbermann? Wrap your brain around that.

Hey, everybody has one of those in their past. Best to learn from your mistakes, forget about it, and move on.

Posted by: Ombudsman at July 14, 2010 03:00 PM (y4B2y)

23 Coulter is brilliant, has more balls than the entire Republican Party and is a great writer. The fact that she is also a Dead fan is just icing.

Posted by: JackStraw at July 14, 2010 03:00 PM (VW9/y)

24
Whaddaya mean, like a rapture?

Or are some of us gonna become like Soylent Green, or something?

Posted by: i'm blowing my little vizoola at July 14, 2010 03:03 PM (Wzli+)

25 Coulter is brilliant, has more balls than the entire Republican Party and is a great writer. The fact that she is also a Dead fan is just icing.

Do you remember Coulter's first foray into public life? Her book on the Clinton impeachment. It was no polemic, by any means. But then, as she did her media tour, it dawned on her that the more outrageous she was, the more attention she could get and the more money she could make. Being a smart woman....

Posted by: Ombudsman at July 14, 2010 03:04 PM (y4B2y)

26 Posted by: JackStraw at July 14, 2010 07:00 PM (VW9/y) If you ask nicely , the other Jack will hook you up with something epic . He's good that way .

Posted by: Bill D. Cat ( Nobel Prize winner ) at July 14, 2010 03:04 PM (NuAIL)

27 Posted by: Ombudsman at July 14, 2010 06:58 PM (y4B2y)

I'm actually a big Laura fan...have been for years........I don't know the specifics behind her break up...I thought it was a shitty thing to do on her fiance's part.

Just doing some brainstorming in true AOSHQ fashion...

Posted by: Portnoy at July 14, 2010 03:05 PM (azgo2)

How about that Laura Ingraham was dating Keith Olbermann? Wrap your brain around that.

Posted by: Pocono Joe at July 14, 2010 06:57 PM (yFWMe)

I thought it was Coulter that banged Olbernoid.

GAH!! Either way, this is getting hot sickening.....

Posted by: Portnoy at July 14, 2010 03:10 PM (azgo2)

29 Levin's legal group is trying to file an amicus brief. It's worth reading.

Posted by: Garbonzo the Garrulous at July 14, 2010 03:10 PM (oL8lS)

30 who the hell invited that fuckstick alan colmes on fbn? i can't even switch back to fox now that sheep smith is busy fellating the libtard party.

Posted by: evil libertarian at July 14, 2010 03:12 PM (T6U2B)

31 Toronto or Eilat?

Eilat, no question. Hot, nympho IDF chicks with guns that love Americans.......that was 20 years ago, but I'll bet that it hasn't changed much.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at July 14, 2010 03:15 PM (P9+0W)

32 Just another nail in the coffin of RACIST! Eric Holder.

Anyone got a pardon lying around for sale?

Posted by: GarandFan at July 14, 2010 03:19 PM (6mwMs)

33 Frankly, I can't believe that anyone takes this ridiculous "pre-emption" argument seriously. It's pathetic. Ask any lefty to read the Constitutional section that gives the federal government all powers over "immigration". They don't know, because they think that making "uniform laws of Naturalization" means 'immigration', but it doesn't. All it means is that Congress gets to define the circumstances and actions that will lead to US citizenship, or losing it. Legal presence of persons is covered under a wholly different section, and is more closely related to guarding against invasion than immigration. But, in exactly this context, States are given wide latitude to defend their own Citizens.

And, if you want to have fun, ask the "pre-emption" screaming lefty about who responds to bank robberies and why.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 14, 2010 03:20 PM (Qp4DT)

34 Eilat, no question. Hot, nympho IDF chicks with guns that love Americans.......that was 20 years ago, but I'll bet that it hasn't changed much. Posted by: IllTemperedCur at July 14, 2010 07:15 PM (P9+0W) Yeah Eilat would be my choose also. But the trip is a bitch.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 14, 2010 03:21 PM (5jbD3)

35 10 So, bottom line, "Esteemed Justice Brennan's Precedent" seems to have put a couple of torpedoes into Holder's and Obama's suit against Arizona ...

Posted by: Arbalest at July 14, 2010 06:52 PM (3foPD)

It's mind boggling that the dumb asses at Obama's DOJ didn't do any research regarding prior precedent. These fuckers are just brilliant.

Posted by: Darth Cheney from his hospital bed at July 14, 2010 03:24 PM (YVZlY)

36 Is Ace currently in the throes of a religious epiphany?

Posted by: Bono at July 14, 2010 03:29 PM (7aNei)

37 36 10 So, bottom line, "Esteemed Justice Brennan's Precedent" seems to have put a couple of torpedoes into Holder's and Obama's suit against Arizona ... Posted by: Arbalest at July 14, 2010 06:52 PM (3foPD) It's mind boggling that the dumb asses at Obama's DOJ didn't do any research regarding prior precedent. These fuckers are just brilliant. Posted by: Darth Cheney from his hospital bed at July 14, 2010 07:24 PM (YVZlY) No, as noted above, this is just a sop to the left, and will get dragged out past November. After that, if they lose, they don't really care.

Posted by: XBradTC at July 14, 2010 03:32 PM (uPerR)

38 Since when does the result of a lawsuit deter Obizzle's minions?? The Gulf moratorium's been shithammered twice, and they're still going through with it. What they can't do de jure, they'll simply do de facto.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at July 14, 2010 03:38 PM (ySNz/)

39 Obviously Coulter is ignoring the Health and Welfare clause of the Constitution.

She doesn't spend enough time listening to the wisdom of the more crooked, racist and self-aggrandizing (not to mention tax-evading and pork-loving) member of Congress.

Posted by: MrScribbler at July 14, 2010 03:50 PM (Ulu3i)

40 Obviously Coulter is ignoring the Health and Welfare clause of the Constitution.

Posted by: MrScribbler at July 14, 2010 07:50 PM (Ulu3i)

Heh heh. That was a classic.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 14, 2010 04:22 PM (Qp4DT)

41 Illegal aliens have neither been "admitted into the country" nor are they "legal entrants."

I believe the historically correct term is 'invader' - whether armed invaders or not, since caveman times, is up to the victim nation's will to survive.

Many a nation's politicians have tried to use an invading force to their personal benefit, many have succeeded, but not to their nation's benefit.

On that, President Nero has already expressed his will.

Posted by: Druid at July 14, 2010 05:28 PM (Oe01r)

42 8 "Ann Coulter, one of those single women. Wonder how many of the five things men don't like apply to her?" I doubt she suffers fools gladly. Not many single dudes her age make as much money as she.

Posted by: Uncle Jed at July 14, 2010 06:28 PM (7pGLt)

43 While trying to capitalize on the Hispanic vote Democrates accidentally caused the Actual Law and the Duties of the Goverment to be Focused on by the WHOLE voting population...So the Goverment is Suing part of itself at the cost of the Taxpayer instead of securing the border.. You Dems just made voting alot easier. Thank you YOUR FIRED !!!!

Posted by: Dw Pepper at July 14, 2010 09:02 PM (yorvz)

"Mark Levin also called the suit pure trash"

WOW! Does that mean God has spoken.

Look who's calling the kettle black. Mr. ANGER himself.

Posted by: Peter at July 15, 2010 06:44 AM (E9Jde)

45 Ann Coulter has been caught out on dates by various paparazzi and so on. She's mentioned keeping that part of her life private because of the stalkers and death threats.

Wikipedia says 'engaged several times but never married' and lists a few.

Posted by: luagha at July 15, 2010 09:27 AM (Dk9yX)

Hi, your post is impressive. You may see my blog for similar topics

http://pu0703shi.insanejournal.com/1951.html

Posted by: ijmusd at September 22, 2010 07:58 PM (KqACW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

91kb generated in CPU 0.0434, elapsed 0.2336 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2098 seconds, 174 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.