FILE PHOTO -- This undated photo taken from video and provided by KSAZ-TV FOX 10, shows U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton on the bench in Phoenix, Ariz. Bolton, a former state court judge appointed to the federal bench in 2000 by President Bill Clinton, will decide whether to block Arizona's sweeping new immigration law, which requires police, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if officers have a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. (AP Photo/KSAZ-TV FOX 10)
Current users sign in here.
© Copyright 2013, East Valley Tribune, Tempe, AZ. [Terms of Use | Privacy Policy]
A Division of 10/13 Communications
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:19 pm on Tue, Jul 27, 2010.
"Individuals have the right, in my opinion, to expect their federal government to step up and defend them in court,'' he said -- Hey Montoya, the federal government has been ignoring US citizens since the first amnesty. How's it feel?
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:22 pm on Tue, Jul 27, 2010.
"enforcing what he believes is an illegal law or risking losing his job for failing to do so" -- Gee, I think the speed limit inhibits my freedom of movement. I should be allow to go as fast as I desire. Maybe I should sue the state and federal government as well.
As a cop, you swore an oath to uphold the law, even ones you may not believe in. If that bothers you, QUIT!
samkat posted at 8:38 pm on Tue, Jul 27, 2010.
Right on rogue. [smile]
borderraven posted at 9:40 am on Wed, Jul 28, 2010.
Please explain to me, that if a bunch of states formed a Union, and established laws for the Union, why a state in the Union cannot make it a law for the police in the state to enforce the laws of the Union?
But, many cities in the Union, have passed laws and set policy, providing immigration sanctuary for illegal aliens who violate the immigration laws of the Union, and the President of the Union, is not suing those cities for providing immigration sanctuary?
Violation of 14th Amendment and dereliction of duty under Article II, section 3.