. >> mr. bouma, forget the arguments you would address to the legislature. tell us how the judge was wrong own each four if you would, please. >> okay. with respect to -- i think we first start with the proposition that this is a facial challenge, and she mentioned the challenge, the standard for that challenge principally that is no set of circumstances exist under which the statute would be valid. put another way with respect to each of the sections challenged that is unconstitutional in every conceivable application. >> let me ask you this. you mentioned solerno. is that principle somewhat intentioned with the government's argument here that these provisions are preempted completely? >> these provisions are not preempted completely. they -- in every instance comply with a congressional objectives and not a one of them that does not comply with obvious jexes and do not conflict and can comply with state and federal law in each particular instance, and none stand as an obvious -- obstacle to the full objectives of congress. there's no expressed preemption.

they were dealing -- >> mr. bouma, if judge ferguson analyzed the congressional intent as to whether to punish employees as a condition of bonding them out; right? >> yes, sir. >> why is it that general premise what the intent of congress was appliable not only when dhs does it, but when the state does it? >> well, dhs doesn't have any police powers to begin with. secondly -- >> we're dealing now with the intent of congress. if the intent of congress is found to be black by judge ferguson, just because it's in one room or another room, dhs or the state, doesn't stop it from being black. >> i was trying to address your question even if you agreed with me which you weren't sure you did about the legislative history and you're bound by the opinion, and my answer is you i i don't think you are. he addressed the specific subject before you, did not address it against the presumption of preemption and i think he was wrong with all due respect of legislative history, and when you take a three people present and say that's th

. >> mr. bouma, forget the arguments you would address to the legislature. tell us how the judge was wrong own each four if you would, please. >> okay. with respect to -- i think we first start with the proposition that this is a facial challenge, and she mentioned the challenge, the standard for that challenge principally that is no set of circumstances exist under which the statute would be valid. put another way with respect to each of the sections challenged that is unconstitutional in every conceivable application. >> let me ask you this. you mentioned solerno. is that principle somewhat intentioned with the government's argument here that these provisions are preempted completely? >> these provisions are not preempted completely. they -- in every instance comply with a congressional objectives and not a one of them that does not comply with obvious jexes and do not conflict and can comply with state and federal law in each particular instance, and none stand as an obvious -- obstacle to the full objectives of congress. there's no expressed preemption.

if you look at section 1644, 13th 57 -- >> mr. bouma, on that point, the supreme court said that adding as a misdemeanor the failure to register was treading on federal ground. we have, under sections 1304 and 1306, we have a well- detailed and regulated policy about what documents immigrants or aliens must carry under the federal statute. arizona is saying that is fine, but if you do not carry those, we're going to put you in jail for up to a year or four new -- or fine you. >> the arizona statute has less penalties than the federal. it goes to 30 or 60 days. the people who can. congress has the penalties. they have stiffer penalties than arizona does. arizona is just saying, comply with the rules. reductor argument is that the state can take a look at whether -- >> your argument is that the state can take a look at whether the federal government is enforcing a lot and if they are not enforcing the law, the state can come along and impose. would the state of california be able to sue me for not paying my federal income tax? >> i do not

. >> mr. bouma, forget the arguments you would address to the legislature. tell us how the judge was wrong own each four if you would, please. >> okay. with respect to -- i think we first start with the proposition that this is a facial challenge, and she mentioned the challenge, the standard for that challenge principally that is no set of circumstances exist under which the statute would be valid. put another way with respect to each of the sections challenged that is unconstitutional in every conceivable application. >> let me ask you this. you mentioned solerno. is that principle somewhat intentioned with the government's argument here that these provisions are preempted completely? >> these provisions are not preempted completely. they -- in every instance comply with a congressional objectives and not a one of them that does not comply with obvious jexes and do not conflict and can comply with state and federal law in each particular instance, and none stand as an obvious -- obstacle to the full objectives of congress. there's no expressed preemption.