You know, for the former Editor of the Harvard Law Review, I'm a bit disappointed in a lot of the times it seems the following occurs for the President: (Law A passed/enforced) President: blah blah Hope Change Transparency -- You can't do that! --- hope change blah blah. Passer/Enforcer: Uh, actually we can. The Supreme Court has ruled/will rule on it being constitutional. OR, it's been a federal law for X years. President: Oh. Um. We should reverse it.
Of course, it wasn't the President who said anything about this case, it was the acting solicitor general. Who works for Obama, but is not literally Obama. But in fact the supreme court has not ruled on it - this story is about the administration asking the supreme court to rule on it. And it conflicts with federal law, that's the basis of the objection from the adminstration. Edit: actually, the snippet in the original post is misleading. The administration isn't actually the plaintiff in this case, the Chamber of Commerce and other organizations brought the suit. The administration was asked by the court to weigh in on it. You seem to be presuming the conclusion that the supreme court will uphold the AZ law. What happens to your argument if they don't? barfo
It's funny that a standard/popular criticism of the AZ law is that it DOESN'T target employers... Ed O.
I know you're all waiting for me to weigh in and decide this issue so you can go home, but first I will need to know--What is the "careful legal balance that Congress struck nearly 25 years ago"?
Illegal aliens, and employers who illegally employ illegal aliens, should ALL be prosecuted and punished. It ain't rocket science, and the word ILLEGAL should be a dead giveaway here even for the slow-witted folks.
