Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Lawless?

July 14, 2014

When a State or Federal Appellate Court decides that a Federal Law should be ignored by a state, is that not a violation of Federal law and the Constitution? When the President condones the breakin......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(6)

Ritty77

Jul-14-14 5:16 PM

"So babies in diapers are crossing the southern border..."

Not all of them. Some are washing ashore.

How's Obama's border policy working out?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jul-14-14 3:55 PM

"So babies in diapers are crossing the southern border all by themselves requiring borders agents to be on diaper duty." - Chuck

You've once more fallen for the government line. The 'children' who have crossed the border make up only one in six of the illegals who've flooded this country in the past few months. The adults are just turned loose. They talk about the children in hopes that we won't notice the invasion of adult illegals. Hook, line and sinker, right Chuck. It's all fun and games until an illegal takes your job. Then maybe you'll wake up.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Jul-14-14 1:43 PM

Nobody is enforcing our immigration laws. While it was bad under Bush, the lack of enforcement is even worse under President Obama.

So, we have selective (or no) enforcement of current law while the President says we need reform and amnesty.

Sorry, we the people do not agree with the elitists on both sides of the aisle who wish to grant a free pass to criminals.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jul-14-14 12:20 PM

The states are enacting laws that the Appellate Courts said they states can not do. They are not following federal law they are making their own about the border.

So babies in diapers are crossing the southern border all by themselves requiring borders agents to be on diaper duty.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jul-14-14 11:12 AM

Erik, Though he didn't communicate it well, George is referring to the states being prohibited from enforcing federal law by the federal courts. He is saying that if a state court made that ruling, it would be seen as unconstitutional, so it should also be seen that way when a federal court does it. Federal courts have prohibited border states from enforcing federal immigration laws or even passing laws identical to the federal laws. We don't need immigration reform, we need to enforce the laws already on the books. The system is not broken, it's not being used.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Jul-14-14 7:34 AM

Without reading the remainder of the letter, the author clearly thinks federal laws Re more important than state rights.

Perhaps a refresher in the Constitution is in order.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 6 of 6 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web