Well that didn’t take long. Federal Judge Susan Bolton went right after the DOJ’s assertion of pre-emption as it pertains to immigration law:
“Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?” U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton asked in a pointed exchange with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler. Her comment came during a rare federal court hearing in the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer (R).
Bolton, a Democratic appointee, also questioned a core part of the Justice Department’s argument that she should declare the law unconstitutional: that it is “preempted” by federal law because immigration enforcement is an exclusive federal prerogative.
“How is there a preemption issue?” the judge asked. “I understand there may be other issues, but you’re arguing preemption. Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?”
Exactly. The state has the ability to create law that will enforce already existing federal law. It’s already ILLEGAL to be here in America without documentation. If an officer, arresting someone for a crime, asks for documentation he is simply enforcing federal law. It’s not pre-emption. It’s common sense.
And I am so glad “she” did! Gail M. Harding wrote an exceptional piece that I love – mostly because it begs the question: What the? But also because she exposes a serious lack of common sense, in liberal thinking!
Our president stands before the microphones, proclaiming we will not torture (waterboard) to obtain information from suspected enemies of our country. He also rescinds the Mexico City policy, thereby providing taxpayer-funding of overseas abortion (burning by saline solution, tearing apart limb by limb, jamming scissors in base of skull — the purpose being death). He supports government-funding of Planned Parenthood (our country’s largest abortion provider) — an estimated $300 million from federal and state tax dollars. He promises to sign “women’s right to choose” legislation (abolishing state protections of the unborn).
Some citizens object to pro-lifers fighting abortion (killing the innocent pre-born or partial-born) but not capital punishment (executing those who have been found guilty of breaking established laws and receiving just punishment).
So, it’s not OK to torture (without killing) suspected enemies of our country in order to protect our citizens, and it is not OK to kill by lethal injection or electric chair those found guilty of certain crimes, but it is OK to torture to death innocent unborn babies at home and abroad and to pay for it with taxpayer funding? Does this reasoning make sense? America, wake up.
Seriously, we need some common sense policy making again in our government! And so I say Yes and Amen to this article.
If a woman is pregnant, then what is she pregnant with?
As I see it you have limited choices:
Human
Alien
Clump of tissue
Animal (Dog, Cat, Mongoose, etc.)
Yeah, I know it’s a simple question but yet somehow people are stumped by it — really. I have spent many a days, with Bound4LIFE, praying at the U.S. Supreme Court and have of course had to answer questions about why I am praying.
Here is a little scenario:
Spectator: What are you doing?
Me: Praying for God to end abortion.
Spectator: What? Why?
Me: I believe murdering innocent children is wrong.
Spectator: Well the fetus is not a person.
Me: Then what exactly is a woman pregnant with?
Spectator: Bigot.
Sure, not everyone responds like this but I think you would be surprised by the number of people who do. It seems as if simple common sense has all be escaped us as a society. Or, perhaps it’s easier to convince ourselves that a child is less than human so that we can feel better ourselves. Either way abortion is wrong and must stop.
