Follow by Email

Sunday, August 08, 2010

Arizona, Virgina, Missouri, The PEOPLE, The ANGER

This is a Dangerous time for America.

Hey folks,

I told America itself is on the line. The grumblings from the Basement dwelling, Tin Hat Wearing, Black Helicopters Type, has gone Mainstream. State after State are staring to form a NEW Confederation. In Spirit only at this point. What is it they all agree on? "Screw Obama and the Liberal Government in control."

They are LISTENING to their People. You all know about Arizona. Now we have Virgina,

RICHMOND (August 3, 2010) – The Office of the Attorney General’s statement on the Marshall opinion: Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II

The official opinion that Virginia law enforcement officers may inquire into the immigration status of persons stopped or arrested simply declares what is existing law. In the context of a legal law enforcement stop or arrest, there is no legal distinction between immigration crimes and any other crime. What a law enforcement officer can and cannot ask in a citizen encounter is the same whether the underlying concern is an immigration violation or a bank robbery.

Settled legal principles

The law does not distinguish between criminal violations of immigration law versus violations of any other criminal law. Crime is crime. As a matter of Fourth Amendment law, it is settled that:

- A police officer can approach anyone and ask him or her questions. The officer cannot detain that person unless the officer has "reasonable articulable suspicion" or probable cause that a crime has been committed. The person approached can choose to answer or not answer the questions.

- When a police officer has "reasonable articulable suspicion," the officer can briefly detain a suspect and investigate whether a crime has occurred. If the officer has probable cause to believe a crime has occurred, the officer can make an arrest.

These scenarios are true whether the crime is bank robbery, murder, trespass, or criminal violations of immigration laws. The legal framework does not change just because the crime happens to be an immigration-related crime.

Although immigration is politically controversial, the legal principles discussed in the opinion are a matter of settled law and do not break any new legal ground.

What Delegate Robert Marshall asked the Attorney General’s Office

The question from Delegate Marshall was (1) whether Virginia officers have the legal authority to perform a “background check into the legal presence status of persons in a vehicle that is stopped by police or in similar circumstances as persons are being questioned in Arizona under their new Immigration Law;” and (2) if Virginia law enforcement officers do have this authority under current Virginia statutes, would those statutes also apply to zoning officers in counties and cities, and state park administrators.

Our response

(a) As we noted in 2007, police can arrest people for criminal violations but, because the law is not clear, it is not advisable to arrest for civil infractions.

(b) We noted that police can make inquiries: When police have reasonable articulable suspicion to believe a crime has been committed, or that probable cause is present, police can inquire about that criminal violation – whether the crime is a violation of immigration laws or some other crime.

(c) We said that when police have done a lawful traffic stop, police can ask about immigration status so long as that does not prolong the length of the stop. The U.S. Supreme Court expressly has said that this is permissible.

(d) We also noted that when persons are in more prolonged state custody (a traffic stop would not qualify), the Vienna Convention on Consular relations requires an inquiry into citizenship.

(e) Finally, we noted that conservation officers do have the authority to investigate crimes (including – where appropriate – immigration violations), but zoning officers do not.
But "Immigration" reform, AKA Illegal Alien Enforcement, is Federal. You can't do it. Obama said so.

Does this usurp federal authority?

This does not usurp federal authority, because Congress created by design a cooperative federal-state immigration enforcement process. Some aspects of immigration law are reserved to federal authorities, while some are joint federal-state efforts. With respect to crimes, Virginia routinely cooperates with the federal government on matters of immigration enforcement.

The Supreme Court of California noted (correctly) in 2009 that:

“While it is well settled that only the federal government may regulate the border and establish rules governing who may enter and who may stay, equally clear is that Congress has in its immigration enactments embraced a model of collaborative federalism under which states and localities may assist in the enforcement of federal immigration policy.” In re Jose C., 198 P.3d 1087, 1091 (Cal. 2009).
But that is NOT the only thing Virgina is saying no on. 20 States are now Suing Obama over Obamacare. Virgina is one of them that the Obama Regime attempted to stop. Didn't work.

Federal judge rules against feds’ Motion to Dismiss Virginia health care lawsuit; suit will move forward

Richmond (August 2, 2010) – A federal judge ruled today that Virginia does indeed have standing to bring its lawsuit seeking to invalidate the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The judge also ruled that Virginia had stated a legally sufficient claim in its complaint. In doing so, federal district court judge Henry E. Hudson denied the federal government’s motion to dismiss the commonwealth’s suit.

“We are pleased that Judge Hudson agreed that Virginia has the standing to move forward with our suit and that our complaint alleged a valid claim,” said Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Cuccinelli and his legal team had their first opportunity in court on July 1, arguing that Virginia’s lawsuit was a valid challenge of the federal health care act and that the court should not dismiss the case as the federal government had requested.

The U.S. Department of Justice argued that Virginia lacked the standing to bring a suit, that the suit is premature, and that the federal government had the power under the U.S. Constitution to mandate that citizens must be covered by government-approved health insurance or pay a monetary penalty.

In denying the motion to dismiss, Judge Hudson found that Virginia had alleged a legally recognized injury to its sovereignty, given the government’s assertion that the federal law invalidates a Virginia law, the Health Care Freedom Act. In addressing the issue of Virginia’s statute, the Court recognized that the “mere existence of the lawfully-enacted [Virginia] statute is sufficient to trigger the duty of the Attorney General of Virginia to defend the law and the associated sovereign power to enact it.” He also found that even though the federal insurance mandate doesn’t take effect until 2014, the case is “ripe” because a conflict of the laws is certain to occur.

“This lawsuit is not about health care, it’s about our freedom and about standing up and calling on the federal government to follow the ultimate law of the land – the Constitution,” Cuccinelli said. “The government cannot draft an unwilling citizen into commerce just so it can regulate him under the Commerce Clause.”

The Court recognized that the federal health care law and its associated penalty were literally unprecedented. Specifically, the Court wrote that “[n]o reported case from any federal appellate court has extended the Commerce Clause or Tax Clause to include the regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce.”

A summary judgment hearing is scheduled for October 18, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. to decide if the federal health care law is unconstitutional.

The case is Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelius in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, in Richmond.
20 States folks. Missouri just Voted on it. The PEOPLE spoke.
WASHINGTON – Missouri voters' overwhelming opposition to requiring nearly all Americans to buy health insurance puts one of the least popular parts of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law back in the political crosshairs.

Even if the vote sets no legally binding precedent, it will help mobilize foes of Obama's agenda in the fall midterm elections, and that could make a difference in some states with close congressional races that could decide the balance of power in Washington.

On Tuesday, Missouri voters cast 71 percent of their ballots in favor of a state measure to bar the government from requiring people to carry health insurance, and penalizing those who don't.
The VAST Majority of the American people are against Obamacare, the Lack of Illegal Alien Enforcement and Amnesty, Out of control spending, Cap and Tax, and the overturning of the very Definition of Marriage. Yet, other than the Gay Marriage Issue, which Obama is also against, the Obama Regime is going ahead with their insane agenda ANYWAY. They just agreed to give more money to Unions "Teachers" and Fannie and Freddie want over a Billion more dollars.

Highest continued unemployment numbers since the Great Depression, Home loss, Private Corporations taken over, and TRILLIONS of Dollars in dept. NOTHING solve. Every Poll you look at, the VAST Majority of People are against the Obama Agenda. They are against the Far Left Socialist Agenda. They are saying ENOUGH is ENOUGH, we are mad as hell, and we are not going to take it anymore.

All this Judge in California did was fuel the anger. Fuel the fire. More and more people are openly speculating if we could be heading for a NEW American Civil War. They are openly suggesting that it is because of Obama and his Regime, that a new Revolution may be forming. The People against the Government that IS out of control.

The Economy the way it is, and EVERYTHING Obama does makes it worse. His out right LYING about a recovery and Job Gains, to him taking a Six mile Helicopter ride to give a speech and Michell take 40 friends to Spain on YOUR dime? FOUR Vacations in a single month? Playing Golf while the BP Deep Horizon Accident was in full bloom?

Just wait. You think it's bad now? Wait until the Bush Tax Cuts Expire. Wait until Gas goes up to $4.00 or $5.00 dollars a Gallon. Wait until Grandma can't afford to heat her home anymore. You think that it's bad NOW? You think the American People are Mad NOW? Just wait.

I am TRULY fearful for this Country. I truly am. We need to at least attempt to slow this down. I do not think we are past the point of no return yet, but we are heading there fast. We get there? It will not matter WHO gets in the White house in 2012. We will be at War with ourselves. We are just now starting to see, and feel the effects. The "air" of it is out there. Vote these idiot out in November. Bring back at least a resemblance of balance to Government.

The People have and continue to speak, loud and clear, we are NOT a Socialistic Society. We are STILL a Conservative Country, and we want NOTHING to do with those that are, and of whom want to change this great Nation. We WANT the Constitution to be the driving force. Not something to be ignored. WE want our Representatives to LISTEN to us. We want smaller and less intrusive Government and we want our Freedom. This country was founded and defended by blood, and now there is a growing number of people who are wondering, "Is it time to do it again?"
Peter

No comments: