2010 July 09 Friday
Obama Hypocrite On State Preemption

Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder recently sued the state of Arizona for having the temerity to try to enforce federal immigration laws. The elites of Democratic Party are keen to import as many future poor and therefore Democratic voters as possible. When state and local governments try to enforce the federal immigration laws this is poses an obstacle to their plans. Well, on other issues Obama is very keen for states to enforce federal law and to make policy on the same topics as the US government makes policy.

Just this past April, the Solicitor General submitted a vigorous anti-preemption amicus brief in the Supreme Court in Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America.  The case requires the high court to determine whether the motor vehicle safety standards established by the federal government effectively preempt a products liability claim under state tort law.  The Court of Appeals of California would not let the case proceed, ruling that the plaintiffs’ claims were preempted under federal law. The government’s brief argued strongly against preemption, urging the Supreme Court to grant discretionary review in order to overturn the finding of preemption.  Among other things, the government argued that the mere fact that auto manufacturers must comply with federal law when installing seat belts does not preempt a state law tort action.  Simply put, the Solicitor General “did not agree” with the “broader theory of implied preemption,” that some lower courts have advanced.  The government’s anti-preemption brief has been described as “blistering” by some commentators.

But that’s not all.  On May 20, 2009, President Obama issued a sweeping Presidential Memorandum on Preemption, which was delivered to all executive department and agency heads.  Seeking to curtail the broad invocation of federal preemption, the memo expresses alarm that “executive departments and agencies have sometimes announced that their regulations preempt State law, including state common law, without explicit preemption by the Congress.”  Most relevant to the Arizona litigation, the memo explicitly advances the view that “State law and national law often operate concurrently to provide independent safeguards for the public.”  The memo goes on to say that preemption of state law “should be undertaken only with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the States and with a sufficient legal basis for preemption.”  Recognizing that the states serve as “laboratories of democracy” and often are the most aggressive defenders of public health and safety, President Obama advocated a  presumption against preemption unless a contrary intention is expressly contained in the relevant federal statute.

Our enemy in the White House thinks the US Constitution should mean whatever he wants it to mean on a case by case basis.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2010 July 09 10:36 PM  Immigration Policy State Local

Lyle said at July 10, 2010 2:05 AM:

I agree with the idea that immigration is something where the federal government should be the ultimate arbiter. I'm also comfortable with states deciding that only cars meeting local requirements can be sold in their jurisdiction. One regards commercial matters (normally the purview of the states), and the other immigration (normally the purview of the federal government).

The question about whether the federal government is enforcing their policies is a different one, and to me a reasonable argument for the Arizona law. But I think your argument above is a little weak. Case-by-case interpretation is how the world actually works.

Also, "enemy in the White House," Randall? We typically get better from you.

dchamil said at July 10, 2010 6:37 AM:

The disgusting habitual liar in the White House is clearly an enemy of anyone who is a conservative.

James Bowery said at July 10, 2010 6:58 AM:

The more enforceable boundaries, the less virulence and the more symbiosis results from available diversity. Opponents of boundaries are almost invariably expressing virulence if not vectorism.

Its basic ecology.

no anon o anónimos said at July 10, 2010 10:33 AM:


El Procurador General de Obama, Eric Holder, recientemente demandó al estado de Arizona por haber tenido la osadía de tratar de hacer cumplir las leyes federales de inmigración. Las élites del Partido Demócrata están dispuestos a importar tantos pobres futuros y por tanto votantes demócratas como sea posible. Cuando los gobiernos estatales y locales tratan de hacer cumplir las leyes federales de inmigración que esto supone un obstáculo para sus planes. Bueno, en otros temas Obama está muy interesado para que los estados cumplir la ley federal y hacer política en los mismos temas que el gobierno de EE.UU. hace la política.

Nuestro enemigo en la Casa Blanca cree que la Constitución de los EE.UU. debe significar lo que quiera que signifique, caso por caso.

SC said at July 11, 2010 9:19 AM:

What is this spanish stuff? Have read your posts for some time now, I am not bilingual and do not want to be.

no i don't said at July 11, 2010 2:46 PM:

no anon o anónimos,

That's a lot of double morals hypocritical crap. Now, if you give your oppinion at least do it in English out of respect to all readers here or I'll have to repply to you in Spanish an put you in your place...

no i don't said at July 11, 2010 3:04 PM:

no anon o anónimos,

La ley federal de un país no puede contravenir el Derecho Internacional al cual el país está adherido. Especialmente si una ley estatal implica o se parece mucho al racismo. ¿Como exactamente luce un inmigrante ilegal, por cierto?

which means...

The federal law of a country cannot go against the International Law to which that country is also adhered to. Specially if a state law implies or resembles racism. What exactly does an illegal alien look like, anyway?

Crazy Otto said at July 12, 2010 7:35 AM:

no i don't said at July 11, 2010 3:04 PM:

Then the Federal law that Obama is sworn to uphold is also against international law. Instead of crying racism you should read SB107 and compare it to federal law. I doubt you will see much difference in fact the federal law allows for ICE official to stop anyone at anytime and ask for proof of residency and/or citizenship. Despite what the leftist critics say, in the Arizona law (1070), all someone has to do is to provide some sort of accepted identification(drivers license, State ID, foreign or US passport, green card, among other types). This is after the police determine that the individual has been or about to be involved in a crime. Gosh, I have to provide identification to buy beer, buy ammunition, vote, use a credit card, cash a check, or even when I am stopped on a traffic violation. What is wrong with this? What I find truly hypocritical is the fact that Mexican immigration law is borders on “human rights abuse”. Ask any Honduran.
The real aim of the left on this case is that they desperately need the Latino vote (both Illegal and legal) in order to remain in power. Power is all that matters. Not what is best for the country. If they were sincere they would have sealed the border and fixed the broken and over-extended immigration system.

no i don't said at July 14, 2010 6:06 PM:

"Then the Federal law that Obama is sworn to uphold is also against international law."

ha, ha, ha, ha. Is that so? And if true, what do you immagine it would imply? (?!?)

This is what I'm talking about when I mention NARCISSISM. Most Americans simply don't see it anymore.

It's now become proverbial... Legendary!

For future History books.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©