|
Supreme Court Declares Much of Arizona Law Preempted |
 |
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=13446"><span class="small">Jonathan Turley, Jonathan Turley's Blog</span></a>
|
|
Monday, 25 June 2012 15:39 |
|
Turley writes: "As we anticipated, the United States Supreme Court has reversed and upheld the Ninth Circuit in part in the immigration case."
Members of Promise Arizona react to the Supreme Court's decision regarding Arizona's controversial immigration law, 06/25/12. (photo: AP)
Supreme Court Declares Much of Arizona Law Preempted
By Jonathan Turley, Jonathan Turley's Blog
25 June 12
 s we anticipated, the United States Supreme Court has reversed and upheld the Ninth Circuit in part in the immigration case. Most parts - Section 3, 5, and 6 - are preempted. In this case, Justice Kagan recused herself and the opinion is written by Justice Kennedy. Both sides can claim some victory, though the Administration can claim the invalidation of most of the law. Yet, the most controversial provision remains unpreempted.
Only the provisions requiring a check of papers is found not to be preempted. The Court is fractured on the aspects with multiple opinions with Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito each filing opinions. However, Kennedy carries the day. He simply rejects the claims of cooperation in enforcing sections like section 6:
In defense of §6, Arizona notes a federal statute permit ting state officers to "cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States." 8 U. S. C. §1357(g)(10)(B). There may be some ambiguity as to what constitutes cooperation under the federal law; but no coherent understanding of the term would incorporate the unilateral decision of state officers to arrest an alien for being removable absent any request, approval, or other instruction from the Federal Government.
The majority expresses sympathy with Arizona but ultimately little support:
The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration. With power comes responsibility, and the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the Nation's meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thought ful, rational civic discourse. Arizona may have under standable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.
Yet, most of the attention of the public was focused on the "show me your papers" part of the law that requires state and local police to perform roadside immigration checks of people they've stopped or detained. This is the "reasonable suspicion" and will continue - though the Court cautions that it must be used with restraint.
The invalidation of the other provisions does not bode well for states and cities in passing a host of laws involving illegal immigrants. Ruled preempted are is (1) Section 3 making it a state crime to be here illegally; (2) Section 5(C) making it a state crime for undocumented immigrants to apply for a job or working in the state and (3) Section 6 allowing state law enforcement officials to arrest without a warrant any individual otherwise lawfully in the country when they have probable cause to believe the individual has committed a deportable offense.
 |
|
Democrats Should Come Out Swinging Against the Court |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=5903"><span class="small">Michael Tomasky, The Daily Beast</span></a>
|
|
Sunday, 24 June 2012 16:30 |
|
Tomasky writes: "The Democrats should see an adverse decision as a chance to put the other guys - the Republicans in Congress, Romney, and the court's ideological majority - on the defensive."
The Supreme Court's decision regarding President Obama's healthcare law could have a profound impact on his campaign. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Democrats Should Come Out Swinging Against the Court
By Michael Tomasky, The Daily Beast
24 June 12
If the Supreme Court overturns the health-care law, Democrats will be tempted to sulk and feel sorry for themselves. But that's the last thing they should do.
 et's say the court overturns the mandate by a typical 5-4 vote, but leaves the rest of the law intact. What must the Democrats do? The main thing is all about tone. I can just picture already what I fear I will see: Obama coming out to a press conference with his head down, speaking in a dour monotone, still trying to point out the silver linings but in a way that sends the message to anyone listening that he's really apologizing for them, and muttering that he is now "calling on the Congress to act" (this has become my least favorite Obama phrase) and get busy working on one of the alternative approaches that will still keep the law alive - which is nothing more than a punchline, really, because everybody knows Congress isn't lifting a finger.
No, a thousand times no! He needs to stand up there and get mad. The law may be unpopular, but he and the Democrats are stuck with it, and being stuck with it, they need to stick by it. Almost never before in American history has a Supreme Court taken a law duly passed by the people's representatives and in just two years' time invalidated it. If that isn't legislating from the bench, what is? Mr. Cool needs to get Hot. Against unanimous and ferocious opposition, and in the face of blatant lies about what this bill would and would not do, he and the Democrats came up with a way for people with cancer and diabetes and what have you to get the treatment they need and not be either turned away or gouged. He's proud of that, he ought to say, and by God, he's going to fight for it. That provision of the law is wildly popular - 85 percent supported that, in a late-March New York Times survey. If you can't play offense with 85 percent of the people behind you, I give up.
He should also go right at Mitt Romney, on two points. First, Romney flatly opposes coverage for all people with preexisting conditions. He backs care only for those who have had "continuous coverage," and not for people whose insurance had lapsed at any point during their illness. So Romney is against something 85 percent of Americans support. I am sadly confident that you did not know that. Good work, Democrats.
Second: when Romney was governor, he supported - insisted on - exactly the same provision that the court will have just struck down. The people of Massachusetts were forced to buy insurance. They live under that regime today, thanks to Governor Romney. And guess what? They like it - 62 percent approved of the law, in a poll from earlier this year. And now, to please far-right interests putting hundreds of millions of dollars into his campaign, he would deny the people of the country the one good thing he did for the people of Massachusetts as their governor.
Now we come to the court itself. Far be it from me to second-guess Jeff Shesol, who wrote in Newsweek that Obama should not take on the court. But a brand-new poll by Hart Research for the Alliance for Justice suggests that with the right approach, the court can be made an issue. In the case that I suggested at the top of this column - a 5-4 decision along the usual lines - 69 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of independents agreed that "they would believe that the justices based their decisions more on their own political views than on their interpretation of the law and Constitution." Fifty-seven is not an overwhelming majority. But it's a majority nonetheless, and if Democrats aren't afraid to make this case strongly, they can turn it into an even bigger one.
And finally: blow that stupid broccoli analogy out of the water. Need to know how, Democrats? Here: read me on it.
In sum, the Democrats should see an adverse decision as a chance to put the other guys - the Republicans in Congress, Romney, and the court's ideological majority - on the defensive. It is what Republicans would do; they'd bay endlessly about an "out of control" court and all the rest. It's one of the key psychological differences between conservatives and liberals. When conservatives suffer a political setback, they prowl the terrain like lions, looking for a few necks to bite. When liberals suffer one, they ball up like kittens and ask themselves, "Oh, gee, what did we do wrong?"
That impulse, not any particular talking point, has been the whole problem on this health-care debate to begin with. As it is on so many matters. Maybe John Roberts and his little quartet of sea-green incorruptibles will finally get it through their heads.
|
|
|
What About Some Corporate Patriotism! |
|
|
Sunday, 24 June 2012 16:25 |
|
Nader writes: "What would happen if we asked the executives of the giant US corporations, whose products constantly surround us, to show some corporate patriotism?"
Ralph Nader being interviewed during his 2008 presidential campaign, 08/01/08. (photo: Scrape TV)
What About Some Corporate Patriotism!
By Ralph Nader, Reader Supported News
24 June 12
 hat would happen if we asked the executives of the giant U.S. corporations, whose products constantly surround us, to show some corporate patriotism?
After all, General Electric, DuPont, Citigroup, Pfizer and others demand that they be treated as "persons" under our Constitution and our laws. And, they expect unfiltered loyalty from American workers even to the point of blocking the organization of unions so workers can band together for collective bargaining.
Moreover, many of these corporations expect to be bailed out by American taxpayers when they are in trouble, and they regularly receive a covey of direct and indirect government subsidies, giveaways and complex handouts.
Some of them pay no federal income taxes year after year, and a few game the tax laws to receive additional money back from the U.S. Treasury. Historically, the U.S. Marines and other U.S. armed forces have risked their lives to protect or protect these corporations' overseas interests by invading or menacing numerous countries.
So it is reasonable for the American people to expect some reciprocity from these immense corporate entities that were born in the U.S. and rose to their economic prowess on the backs of American workers. The bosses of these companies believe they can have it both ways - getting all the benefits of their native country while shipping whole industries and jobs to communist and fascist regimes abroad that keep their workers in serf-like conditions.
The first test as to whether these U.S. companies have any allegiance to the U.S. and its communities is to demand that CEOs stand up at their annual shareholders meetings and pledge allegiance in the name of their corporation, not their boards of directors, "to the flag of the United States of America," ending with that ringing phrase, voiced by millions of Americans daily, "with liberty and justice for all."
More than seventy years ago, a famous Marine general, the double Congressional Medal of Honor awardee Smedly Butler, said his Marines were ordered to make sure the flag followed U.S. companies from Central America to Asia. In the past, the lack of allegiance was shockingly callous. DuPont and General Motors worked openly with fascist Germany and its companies before World War II and did not sever all dealings when hostilities started.
About fifteen years ago, I sent letters to the CEOs of the top 100 largest U.S. chartered corporations asking that they pledge allegiance to our country in the name of their company at their annual shareholders meetings. Their responses were instructive. Many said they would review the request; others turned it down, while some were ambiguous, misconstruing the request as being directed to their boards of directors instead of their U.S. chartered corporate entity.
Walmart replied that they would "give it every consideration." Federated Department Stores expressly thought it was a good suggestion. Citicorp (now Citigroup) wrote that it is "not our practice to respond."
Time for an update. I've just sent letters to twenty of the largest U.S. chartered companies renewing the request for the pledge. They include Exxon Mobil, Walmart, Chevron, General Motors, General Electric, Ford Motor, AT&T, Bank of America, Verizon Communications, J.P. Morgan Chase, Apple, CVS Caremark, IBM, Citigroup and Cardinal Health.
Imagine the CEOs of General Motors (or Exxon Mobil, Citigroup, Bank of America, etc.) pledging allegiance "to the Flag of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
You may wish to contact these companies and urge their CEOs to take the pledge. This effort needs your participation as consumers, workers, taxpayers or shareholders. It opens up a long-overdue discussion about corporate patriotism and what it all should mean.
As conservative author Patrick Buchanan wrote some years ago: "If they [large U.S. corporations] are not loyal to us, why should we be loyal to them?"
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer and author. His most recent book - and first novel - is "Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us." His most recent work of non-fiction is "The Seventeen Traditions."
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
|
FOCUS: What Sheldon Adelson Wants |
|
|
Sunday, 24 June 2012 14:06 |
|
Excerpt: "No American is dedicating as much of his money to defeat President Obama as Sheldon Adelson. He is the perfect illustration of the squalid state of political money ..."
Sheldon Adelson has donated millions of dollars to opponents of President Obama. (photo: Reuters)
What Sheldon Adelson Wants
By The New York Time | Editorial
24 June 12
 o American is dedicating as much of his money to defeat President Obama as Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate who also happens to have made more money in the last three years than any other American. He is the perfect illustration of the squalid state of political money, spending sums greater than any political donation in history to advance his personal, ideological and financial agenda, which is wildly at odds with the nation's needs.
Mr. Adelson spent $20 million to prop up Newt Gingrich's failed candidacy for the Republican nomination. Now, he has given $10 million to a Mitt Romney super PAC, and has pledged at least $10 million to Crossroads GPS, the advocacy group founded by Karl Rove that is running attack ads against Mr. Obama and other Democrats. Another $10 million will probably go to a similar group founded by the Koch brothers, and $10 million more to Republican Congressional super PACs.
That's $60 million we know of (other huge donations may be secret), and it may be only a down payment. Mr. Adelson has made it clear he will fully exploit the anything-goes world created by the federal courts to donate a "limitless" portion of his $25 billion fortune to defeat the president and as many Democrats as he can take down.
One man cannot spend enough to ensure the election of an unpopular candidate, as Mr. Gingrich's collapse showed, but he can buy enough ads to help push a candidate over the top in a close race like this year's. Given that Mr. Romney was not his first choice, why is Mr. Adelson writing these huge checks?
The first answer is clearly his disgust for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, supported by President Obama and most Israelis. He considers a Palestinian state "a steppingstone for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people," and has called the Palestinian prime minister a terrorist. He is even further to the right than the main pro-Israeli lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which he broke with in 2007 when it supported economic aid to the Palestinians.
Mr. Romney is only slightly better, saying the Israelis want a two-state solution but the Palestinians do not, accusing them of wanting to eliminate Israel. The eight-figure checks are not paying for a more enlightened answer.
Mr. Adelson's other overriding interest is his own wallet. He rails against the president's "socialist-style economy" and redistribution of wealth, but what he really fears is Mr. Obama's proposal to raise taxes on companies like his that make a huge amount of money overseas. Ninety percent of the earnings of his company, the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, come from hotel and casino properties in Singapore and Macau. (The latter is located, by the way, in China, a socialist country the last time we checked.)
Because of the lower tax rate in those countries (currently zero in Macau), the company now has a United States corporate tax rate of 9.8 percent, compared with the statutory rate of 35 percent. President Obama has repeatedly proposed ending the deductions and credits that allow corporations like Las Vegas Sands to shelter billions in income overseas, but has been blocked by Republicans.
Mr. Obama's Justice Department is also investigating whether Mr. Adelson's Macau operations violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, an inquiry that Mr. Adelson undoubtedly hopes will go away in a Romney administration. For such a man, at a time when there are no legal or moral limits to the purchase of influence, spending tens of millions is a pittance to elect Republicans who promise to keep his billions intact.
|
|
HE United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights.
