Many of the provisions in the two laws are similar. For example, both laws state that upon an arrest or traffic stop, law enforcement must make a reasonable attempt to determine the person’s citizenship and immigration status. Both laws also state that law enforcement may not consider race, color or origin in enforcement of this law. Both laws state that lawful presence may be presumed if the suspect can present a state-issued photo ID, state or federal issued ID, or passport. In Arizona, A person is guilty of trespassing if he is present on any public or private land in the state and does not have his or her Alien Registration card or has failed to register.
When evaluating the President’s relationship in regards to habeas corpus, one must first consider whether or not the President even has the right to confine individuals. “Absent a military conflict, the answer is likely no, whereas when Congress specifically authorizes detention, the answer is certainly yes” (Howe, 2014, p. 678). After 9/11, Congress had passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). AUMF allowed the President to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organization or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons” (Howe, 2014, p. 678). No matter what AUMF says however, one thing that it does not clearly state is whether or not the President is allowed to confine individuals.
In 1994 a lower federal court judge postponed the trail indefinitely and this postponement was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. 4) There are a few precedents that contributed greatly to the case. First, Nixon v. Fitzgerald explained “the sphere of protected action must be related closely to the immunity’s justifying purpose.” Secondly, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer made it to when the President takes official action; the court has the authority to determine whether he has acted within the law. Thirdly, U.S. v. Nixon held that a subpoena duces tecum could be directed to the President. And the finally precedent in this case is Article II of the U.S. Constitution because this is where it states that a single President responsible for the actions of the Executive Branch as a whole.
Supreme Court of the United States Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v The Wilderness Society et al. Argued Jan 22, 1975 Decided May 12, 1975 Cause of Action. This lawsuit is in reference to Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (hereafter, “Petitioner”) brought suit against The Wilderness Society, charging that the environmental group should not be granted an award of expenses and attorney’s fees after prevailing in federal litigation to prevent issuance of Government permits required for construction of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline. Procedural History. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia: Granted a preliminary injunction against issuance of the right-of-way and permits.
The Supreme Court stated that the statue did not meet the states goal of preventing breaches of peace because there was already a Texas statute which prohibited all breaches of the peace. The Supreme Court ruled that the Texas statute was inconsistent with the first amendment and they got rid of the statute. 7.) Difference between case law and statutory law? Focus on how case law and statutory laws are created, the
Is Senator Gravel’s alleged arrangement with Beacon Press protected by the Speech and Debate Clause? No Opinion of the Court (White) The Speech and Debate clause of the U.S. Constitution was intended to protect members of Congress from any prosecution that disrupts the legislative process. Therefore, Gravel is justified in his claim that he is protected under it. The aides of a member of Congress are perceived by the Court to be “alter egos” of the member itself. Thus, the Court holds that, by the indistinguishable nature of the characteristics and duties of the members and their aides, the protection provided by the Speech and Debate Clause should be extended to the aides.
“On April 23, 2010, Arizona governor Jan Brewer signed into law a discriminatory and un-American law that will require police officers in Arizona to ask people for their papers based only on some undefined "reasonable suspicion" that they are in the country unlawfully. We believe this law, which invites
Policy-Making in the Federal System Rona Harris POL 201 Instructor: Roger Pao June 3, 2013 Policy-Making in the Federal System The expression federalism itself exemplifies the concept of collective although separate powers. In a federal system national and local governments obtain power from the citizens (Levin-Waldman, 2012, p. 66). The guidelines affirm actions federal and local state governments must consider to impose legislation upon its citizens. The Affordable Health Care for America Act (Obama-care) passed and signed into law in 2010. However, considered by its opponents as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court intervened and in a five to four decision upheld the health care law as constitutional in 2012.
American View on Immigration Immigrants and immigration has played a major role in the history of our country. The United States population of immigrants came from Europe, Asia, Africa, South America and mostly, Mexico. Therefore, one would ask why state governments are enforcing laws such as SB 1070 to discriminate and profile Mexicans or any colored people who appear to be of Hispanic descent. The Arizona Law states that any Hispanic, or anyone who looks “illegal”, must show proof or identification that he or she is a legal American citizen. If they are caught as an illegal immigrant, they are sent to jail or confinement till further notice.
Although the federal government stills working on the immigration reform, according to Arizona’s law, it is a state crime not carrying immigration documents. According to the law S.B.1070, police officers are required to question an individual's immigration