Legal experts -- including Fox's Napolitano -- dispute Fox's analysis that AZ lawsuit is "baseless"
On Fox & Friends, senior legal analyst Peter Johnson, Jr. claimed that the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona's controversial illegal immigration law is "baseless," "nonsensical," and "almost laughable." But legal experts -- and even Fox's own Judge Napolitano -- dispute this claim, saying the Arizona law is "un-American" and "unconstitutional."Do conservatives even read the Constitution they swear to care so much about. maybe they read, but lack the reading comprehension skills to understand what it says. In either case they certainly don't bother to read legal precedent.
[ ]...Fox News' own Judge Napolitano: Arizona law "is unconstitutional" because AZ "can't write a law that says the federal law means something different in Arizona than it does in the other 49 states." On the July 7 edition of Fox Business Network's Varney & Co., Fox legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano railed against the Arizona law, calling it "un-American." Napolitano called the law "unconstitutional" and noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that immigration laws are "strictly a federal issue."
[ ]...Constitutional law expert Dellinger: DoJ "had no choice but to bring this suit." New Republic reported that constitutional law expert Walter Dellinger said the DoJ "had no choice but to bring this suit":
Giving the national government control over immigration into the United States was a major decision made by the framers of the Constitution. That is neither a liberal nor a conservative position. Allowing states to set their own immigration policy could lead in the future to more rather than less unlawful immigration. Given the freedom of movement within the United States and the implications of immigration for domestic national issues and foreign policy, it is unthinkable to leave immigration policy to thirteen or fifty different states. Calibrating the right combination of enforcement tools to utilize is at the core of the national power over immigration, and state laws are preempted whether they purport to add to or subtract from the system put in place by Congress. Whether current federal enforcement is adequate or not, whether Arizona's law is wise or not, whether suing is good politics or not are all beside the point: it is essential that the federal government's control over immigration into the United States be protected from state interference. In my view the Justice Department had no choice but to bring this suit.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) Still CooCoo - Back To Beating The 'Death Panels' Drum. Bachmann is in serious trouble if we start requiring people to have mental competency exams before holding federal office. The government death panel nonsense has been debunked, like all wing-nut myths - The "death panels" are already here. Sorry, Sarah Palin -- rationing of care? Private companies are already doing it, with sometimes fatal results
