Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
And I both sides of the aisle are claiming victory after the US Supreme Court handed down a split decision on the Arizona immigration law now three aspects.
Of SP 1070 was struck down by the High Court in a five to three ruling however the cornerstone of that law was upheld.
At a critical provision is the one that requires police officers to verify the legal status of anybody that they suspect to be in the country illegally.
And liberals from President Obama to the attorney general Eric Holder have long claimed that this measure would somehow lead to widespread racial profiling.
And that line of attack was revisited today on the senate floor by Harry Reid just moments after the ruling was in fact handed down what's what's this.
I don't think you're gonna be carrying your immigration papers which -- they should go.
But if you're an Arizona.
And you speak with a little bit of an accident or your skin -- brown you better have your papers with -- Unfortunate.
Now it's unfortunate that Harry Reid would rather play politics and protect the border -- later tonight will be checking -- Dick Morris and others.
On this developing story but first let me bring in our legal panel to explain exactly what was thrown out and what was left standing.
From the American set up along justice.
Why -- we go through this step by step.
Of this decision will be sure.
-- Sean that you know personal to the crux of the case was the section to be as it's called and that was the provision.
Which when a police officer stops want someone pro lawful reason that -- have probable cause to -- to stop someone.
When that happens.
You've got a situation where if there is probable cause they can check and ask for identification.
Whether it's papers and make a call to immigration.
To make sure that the persons here legally that was the controversy that's what President Obama was talking about when he did his press conferences.
And the Supreme Court unanimously said.
That provision was in fact constitutional and not preempted.
Bob by federal legislation the provisions -- -- were declared unconstitutional.
Actually -- the minor provisions you never heard about those in the press.
That was the -- issues involving employment.
Documentation for employment and reporting minor provisions overall.
I clearly I -- justice goalie I was the entire law.
Always upheld as constitutional I believe that Arizona has the right to defend its citizens they do have that right to wonder section to be and that the Supreme Court -- was constitutional.
All right let me let me go to Peter Johnson -- two things first of all the person had -- ultimately have been stopped already on something else threats are likely to pick somebody -- now it's it's not a matter -- like -- -- brown person -- -- Let's stop them.
Now that's not the law that's an important part of this and also the language.
Mirrored federal law and this was what Scalia was pointing out.
In his dissent today everybody's got to read scalia's dissent because it's exactly that the F founding fathers would have -- taken for the doors and not.
Taken up with the United States if they believe that the president.
Had the ability not to enforce the law.
As written and so now we've seen it.
In reaction to the Supreme Court decision that the federal government is continuing.
In its ways.
Today -- -- they suspended the partnership.
Between state and local law enforcement and the federal government.
On many immigration.
Enforcement activities suspended it.
Because of this including aggressive in the United States.
-- let me go to -- this is the whole crux of what -- -- describe -- my Homeland Security suspended the immigration agreements with Arizona and particularly here.
Now when you couple this right president's actions a week -- Friday.
When he basically said forget about the laws that congress passed you know forget about.
The laws that past presidents have signed.
I'm not gonna enforce a law.
So it seems right that would there's a bit of a constitutional crisis one after another has been precipitated by the president is that you take.
Yes self inflicted by the hear what you've got look at the situation -- -- is exactly correct.
So now the provision that's declared constitutional that all nine justices agreed including the most liberal members of the Supreme Court -- -- states so it was constitutional which is when you stop -- monopoly and you have reason to suspect that person's immigration status needs to be checked.
Make that call to ice.
Now the federal government saying.
Arizona you have the right to make that call there's only one problem we're not accepting that call.
So now you've got a situation where you know -- -- -- about judicial activist this is a presidential activism.
In an unprecedented scale the president is issuing decrees as if he was the king.
I mean you've got legislation on the books -- -- ignoring it the Supreme Court says that one provision.
It's constitutional White House says well we're just gonna suspend our relationship.
Important relationship with the state of Arizona which by the way has been most difficult.
Border control would shoot up any state in our union but that's the one that the Obama administration -- -- to suspend its politics.
So if you're with -- what he did last Friday -- -- we could go Friday here and use bypassing congress bypassing.
Laws already on the books.
It seems -- he doesn't respect the constitution in this sense separation of powers and checks and balances.
And these actions today it seems like he just basically thumbing his nose at the.
Judiciary for all I think it's it's an absolute some of the -- but it goes and even state -- a step further and I agree with what -- has said.
Now in essence the federal government has put out a wanted poster.
He wanted poster in effect for law enforcement in the state of Arizona they have now published a hotline phone number.
So that people in the and the state of Arizona can report.
Police officers on these kind kinds of stuff and the only reason -- want to report police officers.
Is to indict those police officers for civil rights offenses so let me ask you what does it mean that the that the only reason that Arizona.
Came up what this law -- Scalia goes -- to this.
Is because -- in Arizona are bearing the brunt of the -- -- federal government is not enforcing the laws of the land right so they said okay we'll use the exact language.
The exact law and will do the job you failed to do -- on the front lines -- this what does it mean that the president would.
Would not enforce it and then bypass.
It means to the president is not interested in enforcing those laws but -- it -- want to uphold the -- if he isn't there he is sworn to uphold the constitution but it means.
That he has no interest.
Especially in an election year in and forcing.
Those laws and he's taken two steps today to concrete steps him that say I'm gonna make it as difficult as possible.
To enforce immigration laws stay out Arizona we don't want your help.
-- 1800 number -- to report police officers doing their lawful job.
At the same time that -- that's what the federal government's done here and the same time under Eric Holder -- attorney general.
The United States Department of Justice was running guns into Mexico.
They said they assuming they don't -- what do they do they sue Arizona on this immigration case that's where they're spending the resources.
And now they're saying sorry Arizona if you find somebody lawfully here.
Well to -- -- illegally here too bad and I don't like talking to the Apollo at all.
Am -- talking to two brilliant lawyers both of you here.
And you basically saying the president the United States is taking a Jack hammer to the concept of checks and balances separation of powers and -- -- that he was sworn to uphold I.
Hours at a stretch no I don't think it's a stretch and I don't think the separation of powers means very much for this.
Particular president and I think.
That he wants to get the the case across.
That do not metal at all do not trying to enforce the laws that are on the books in the United States because we're gonna -- in your way.
And there be a hot line.
If you try to enforce those laws and we think he's totally wrong.
You're gonna go to jail you know let me.
Of an imperial presidency that Richard Nixon -- war.
Now what -- that we've seen this now -- -- -- -- he's that he -- Charlie's right I mean here's what didn't admit the reality of the situation is when you look at.
Not just this case -- look at a whole series of things that happened in the last few months whether it is fast and furious whether -- waving the immigration issue between sixteen and thirty.
And then you gotta ask yourself this the president of the United States.
Had a democratic controlled house and senate for the first two years of his term.
Did he put forward one.
Immigration bill no did he put forward any immigration bill no so what does he do five months before general election.
Politics that's what this is all about Peter you know the Supreme Court isn't yet and that's the danger here is the politics -- business and people -- voters -- He said in his own words that he couldn't do this but now he is literally negating parts of you know did I guess that the legislation that is the only laws that -- -- this is very serious.
We have a new.
In the United States where by president decides.
By words and deeds and executive orders and hotlines.
And decision -- to revoke immigration agreements with states and localities.
I can nullify laws.
In this country.
And they may be on the books and there may be laws that say you need to enforce the borders and we need to have limits.
But states if that doesn't comport with what I wanna do you're not gonna remember what he said it because it's the right thing to do for him in his mind.
-- even though we said he couldn't do it up to six months before that he said he could not do it.
Many decided to do it that's politics except you're playing politics with an immigration issue that's very serious alert service have a lot more to get to -- thank you both --
Filter by section