Eric Holder: Stupid? Racist? Incompetent? Yes.

[SlowwHand]

Wait just a minute. Don't say Hispanics as an all-inclusive statement.
Yes, you can turn on the TV and see a lot of protesters, brought in by bus.
If a Hispanic that has taken the time to gain citizenship is asked, they're as likely as anyone to say that the laws should be followed. I've pointed this out before.

[David Floyd]

Why not? Governments try to do it all the time in other fields?

Sure they do. But why intentionally interpret the Constitution in such a way that allows them to continue to do so, when there are MUCH simpler interpretations available? In order to get to your interpretation of preemption, you have to suspend disbelief and common sense - you are essentially fitting a desired result into the text any way you can. My interpretation is simpler, and relies mainly on reading comprehension.

Well, or they think the immigration laws are unjust (but don't have the votes or don't want to try to get the votes to overturn them).

Isn't it the job of the DoJ to enforce the law, whether or not they agree with it, even if the President doesn't want them to?

[Wiglaf]

Wait just a minute. Don't say Hispanics as an all-inclusive statement.
Yes, you can turn on the TV and see a lot of protesters, brought in by bus.
If a Hispanic that has taken the time to gain citizenship is asked, they're as likely as anyone to say that the laws should be followed. I've pointed this out before.

What a joke. Hispanics, even legal ones, tend to break all kinds of other laws (carjackings, etc) in greater numbers than most ethnic groups. They also tend to support lawbreaking aliens because most of their families want to invade the U.S. and take our jobs. (Or at least, play the Powerball and mooch off their relatives)

[Imran Siddiqui]

But why intentionally interpret the Constitution in such a way that allows them to continue to do so, when there are MUCH simpler interpretations available?

Mostly because this IS the simpler interpretation for the vast majority of federal and state overlap. And yes, every once in a while it may result in a greater patchwork rather than a lesser one, depending on the federal government's aims.

Isn't it the job of the DoJ to enforce the law, whether or not they agree with it, even if the President doesn't want them to?

The boss of the DOJ is the President. The executive's job is the enforce the laws and it can be done in whatever way the executive wants.

[Berzerker]

they took my joooob

[David Floyd]

Mostly because this IS the simpler interpretation for the vast majority of federal and state overlap. And yes, every once in a while it may result in a greater patchwork rather than a lesser one, depending on the federal government's aims.

Except that passing concurrent legislation and voluntarily assisting in enforcement DOES NOT create a patchwork of inconsistent laws. It only does that, if, well the federal government is refusing to enforce their own laws in the first place, in which case it's the feds who are at fault. Just because immigration may be in the federal sphere doesn't mean that states don't have a compelling interest in seeing immigration law enforced. Additionally, when is the last time you heard the feds complaining about state and local law enforcement officers assisting in a federal investigation of, say, kidnapping across state lines? Terrorism? Tax evasion?

The boss of the DOJ is the President. The executive's job is the enforce the laws and it can be done in whatever way the executive wants.

Hmmm, then Nixon should have just been able to handwave away Watergate by firing the Special Prosecutor and ordering the AG to shut down the case, right? And Clinton should have been able to tell Ken Starr to **** off, then?

[Wiglaf]

I'm sorry Berzerker but people like Slowwhand are partially to blame for that for their naivetay.

[SlowwHand]

Wiggy, you're a classic example of why we don't want "you people" getting involved.

[Elok]

I'm not sure that it's reasonable to expect constitutional law to be consistent or make sense.

[Caligastia]

they took my joooob

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hmmm, then Nixon should have just been able to handwave away Watergate by firing the Special Prosecutor and ordering the AG to shut down the case, right? And Clinton should have been able to tell Ken Starr to **** off, then?

You realize that the Independant Council in the Starr case was technically not under the DOJ, right? He was confirmed in his appointed by the US Court of Appeals for DC Circuit and not answerable to the Attorney General.

And Nixon DID fire the Special Prosector (before the IC law came into effect) and attempt to order the AG to shut down the case (resulting in two AGs resigning) and then got Robert Bork to do it. There was nothing illegal about that, but it did speed up the whole impeachment proceedings thing.

[David Floyd]

My fault Imran, you're right re: Nixon and Clinton.

[Solomwi]

Illegal aliens fall under state's rights.