so i don't see the alien registration as a question of obstacle preemption, but appeal preemption that alien -- we don't want competing registration schemes. we want the registration scheme to be wholly federal. >> well, justice ginsburg, i think that's part of the reason why i accepted justice kennedy's characterization of the relevant language in hines, because although there's some general discussion there of field preemption, when the court actually states what its holding is, it does state it in terms of obstacle preemption. and here's where i think there's a critical difference between what the court had before it in hines and what you have before you here. in hines, pennsylvania passed its statute before congress passed the alien registration statute. so not surprisingly, you know, they weren't -- they weren't soothsayers in pennsylvania. they couldn't predict the future. so when it got up here, there was a conflict between the provisions of the pennsylvania registration law and the federal registration law. and this court struck it down on that preemption basis. here, it's quit

so i don't see the alien registration as a question of obstacle preemption, but appeal preemption that don't want competing registration schemes. we want the registration scheme to be wholly federal. >> well, justice ginsburg, i think that's part of the reason why i accepted justice kennedy's characterization of the relevant language in hines, because although there's some general discussion there of field preemption, when the court actually states what its holding is, it does state it in terms of obstacle preemption. and here's where i think there's a critical difference between what the court had before it in hines and what you have before you here. in hines, pennsylvania passed its statute before congress passed the alien registration statute. so not surprisingly, you know, they weren't -- they weren't soothsayers in pennsylvania. they couldn't predict the future. so when it got up here, there was a conflict between the provisions of the pennsylvania registration law and the federal registration law. and this court struck it down on that preemption basis. here, it's quite different.

to the exclusion of implied preemption, field or conflict. so we do think those principles apply here. we think there's a reason why the express preemption provision was limited to the employer's side, which is that after decanas laws had been enacted on the employer's side, and with -- congress was making clear that those were preemptive, there were no laws on the employee's side at the time. and therefore, no reason for preemption. >> thank you, general. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. >> mr. clement, minutes. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: i'd like to start briefly with the enforcement issues and then talk about the other provisions.the last thing i'll say about the enforcement provision, since i do think that the government's rather unusual theory that something that's okay when done ad hoc becomes preempted when it's systematic, i think that theory largely refutes itself. but i will say one thing, which is to just echo that there's no interference with enforcement priorities by simply giving the federal go

we fought the justice very hard for inventing fiction about preemption.ally well. it was pretty clear to me. section 2 and section 3, 5 and 6 were the sections under -- you don't hear in the media. but 60% of the sb-1070 is in effect. they only adjoined four sections and those were pretty clear that i think all of it would be -- the 5-3 decision on all of them. even sotamayor made it very clear. she said move on, you're not making your case. if it ends'7" before the supreme court, any provision of the law that you with wrote, did it feel risky for you in terms of its constitutionality? >> absolutely i anticipated. we went all that battle. their arguments were about preemption and arizona turning into the federal government's arena. the states have never been preempted. the courts ruled on that for 40 years. so i'm very confident and i would grateful to hear the justices speak out the way they did on the fact that the d.o.j. was reaching to try to defend their position. >> pearce, i understand you're optimistic, you said it over and over during this interv

. >> in case clearly before the court is about preemption. but it stands to be one of the biggest civil rights cases since brown vs. board of education because of its civil rights implication. >> justices must decide whether lower federal courts were right to block parts of the law. the ruling is expected in late june. >>> this morning abc news learned newt gingrich will us is his campaign tuesday and is highly likely he will endorse romney. despite reports he was still on the campaign trail this morning speaking at a breakfast in north carolina. he promised to keep campaigning through the week. he acknowledged romney's momentum after the former massachusetts governor swept primaries in five states yesterday. >> i am committed to defeating obama we will find ways to try to be helpful. i think it is clear that governor prom fee is going to be the nominee. we'll do -- everything we can to make sure he's effective. >> meantime, new poll finds michelle obama and ann romney are more popular than their husbands. the first lady had 59% favorable rat

. >> basic judicial doctrines, the doctrine of preemption you have got to respect.e it in one case you may waive it in a case you'll regret. there are constitutional amendment issues that if you sort of accede to the states because you still have people who are arguing that the bill of rights has never been incorporated into the states so all of a sudden you're conceding that. there are areas that would be a real mistake. >> i agree with you, reap what you will sow. look what's happened in alabama, farms are having trouble getting workers. no major foreign investments since they passed their own version of this draconian law. >> they arrested a german executive because he wasn't carrying his papers. >> there is a residual and actually very important sort of flipside to that which is to say immigrants both legal and otherwise are being driven underground because they have someone illegal living in their house or pull their children out of school. there are long-term repercussions for those that have no sort of voice in this debate that in many ways exceed the financi

there's never been a preemption on the state to enforce these laws. arizona has a direct responsibility to enforce the law whether the federal government likes it or not. i thought they made that clear. >> [inaudible] >> even justice sandra sotomayor made things very clear. it was clear they thought the justice department was overreaching and that the -- pre-emption was there. -- sonya sotomayor. i thought it was a clear victory. i think we will been a minimum of a 5-3 and maybe even greater on some of these things. [inaudible] >> [inaudible] it has been political sound bites and that's why they never raised it. thanks for coming. it's a great day. >> i am tom. we filed on behalf of the author of 1070, the second brief was on behalf of state legislators from 20 states who wanted their voices heard in support of 1070, and the court hearing went very well. looks like to us the majority of the court uphold key provisions. the obama administration has run away from its earlier incendiary rhetoric suggesting this is about racial profiling. it's clear to me

. >> in case clearly before the court is about preemption. but it stands to be one of the biggest civil rights cases since brown vs. board of education because of its civil rights implication. >> justices must decide whether lower federal courts were right to block parts of the law. the ruling is expected in late june. >>> this morning abc news learned newt gingrich will us is his campaign tuesday and is highly likely he will endorse romney. despite reports he was still on the campaign trail this morning speaking at a breakfast in north carolina. he promised to keep campaigning through the week. he acknowledged romney's momentum after the former massachusetts governor swept primaries in five states yesterday. >> i am committed to defeating obama we will find ways to try to be helpful. i think it is clear that governor prom fee is going to be the nominee. we'll do -- everything we can to make sure he's effective. >> meantime, new poll finds michelle obama and ann romney are more popular than their husbands. the first lady had 59% favorable rat

the preemption issue is the same used. and the misinformation -- tourism is up in arizona. i get tired of the misinformation as we try to democrat gaug democragogue of a did -- i love my country, i love those that come. many that come are bad people, but some are good people escape be a terrible life, and i understand that, but we have a method of coming here and those laws must be honored. >> senator pyle release add statement saying he thought this is more political theater and not actually plent to about productive hearing. what do you have to say to that? >> i don't entirely disagree with that. we knew this was mostly politic. they don't have a vote. the supreme court does. schumer can run the bill. may get it out of his committee, that's where it will die. it's a popular ville, he doesn't even probably get it out of the senate i guarantee how to even get it heard in the house. >> senator, was it worth your while to come out here today? >> absolutely. again, i wrote the bill. i fill obligated to defend it, and even though you worry about decorum and able to say what's n

i consider him the number one attorney in the nation on preemption issues. we very careful, knew would go to court. >> under federal law it is a civil offense for a person to seek work when they are not document pd under arizona law it become as criminal offense. tell me exactly how we're mirroring federal law here? >> civil, and that's one of the greatest misunderstandings, howie, civil under federal law is a criminal offense. you can get fine and go to jail for it. not the same at state civil. we need to make sure that's clear. you know, entry and remaining here under federal law is a crime. >> so, senator, what -- did the supreme court, besides that, all of those four sections are unconstitutional. >> againance states -- all this did was put it, the state law in a manner to be enforced and eliminate sanction policies. it shon shouldn't have been necessary. imposeed by police chiefs and mayor ace cross arizona and across this nation. that's why it's in place. to remove the illegal -- illegal -- policies and we've done that. so the major part of is in full

there has never been a preem preemption. the rule of law, dignified, compassionate, respectful, but not apologetic for enforcing our laws and securing our border. >> i respect that. i want to give you a chance to state your whole case because you're outnumbered here. >> it's usually the case, mr. chairman. >> i appreciate you being here. i do want to ask the question again, just if you could give me a yes or no answer. if 2 border were completely secure, and the government could show no new people were crossing the border, you would still want sb-1070 to remain in effect so that the people who are already here without status would leave or be apprehend and deported. that right? >> i don't mean to be difficult. >> just give me your answer to that question. it doesn't have to be yes or no. >> let me give you the answer. we're a generous nation. we allow more people in this country than every other developed nation combined legally. but yes, the number must be enforced. with that number you talk about, there ought to still be a

the concept of anticipatory self-defense was mentioned or preemption. we always as we know respected other people's borders and have every thought every country had the right to do what it needed to do within its own country, but so did the other countries, the neighboring countries. with the advent of these lethal weapons, weapons of mass destruction, the idea of waiting until you're attacked to defend yourself is one thing if someone is going to come across your border with conventional forces, quite another thing if you're going to be attacked with the weapons of that lethality, and you don't have the option to wait until you're attacked as previously the case when it was a ground force or bomb or conventional weapon of some kind. that caused the president to fashion what became known as a bush doctrine in part of anticipatory self-defense, the realization that in fact if you wait, it is too late. that is a hard thing, particularly given the unevenness of intelligence and the difficulty of the intelligence gatherer's task. another problem that came u

the preemption issue is the same. i'm getting tired of misinformation as we try to get a good bill in protection of our zit sennes. i love my country. i love and respect those who come here legally and many who don't, i know are not bad people. many of them are, but some are good people escaping a terrible life and i understand that, but we have a method of coming here and those laws must -- >> senator kyl released a statement, what do you have to say to that? >> i don't entirely disagree. they don't have a vote. the supreme court does and schumer can run his bill. he may get it out of his committee, but that's where it will die. it's a property bill supported across america. i guarantee you, even get it heard in the house. >> was it worth your while to come out here today? >> absolutely. again, i wrote the bill, i feel obligated. even though you worry about decorum and say what needs to be said, i think it's important that i come out here and represent the state of arizona. >> even though there were only two senators

there has never been a preemption. it has always been a collaborative effort between local law enforcement and the feds to secure this nation, and that should always be our priority, is the rule of law, dignified, compassionate, respectful, but non apologetic for securing our laws and boarders. >> i appreciate that and i want you to get the opportunity to state your whole case, because obviously, you're out-numbered here. >> that's usually the case, mr. chairman. >> okay, well, but again, i appreciate your being here. but i do want to ask the question again, just if you could give me a yes or no answer on that. if the border were completely secure, if the government could show and we could all agree that no new people were crossing the border, however accomplished, you would still want sb-1070 to remain in effect so that people who are already here without status would leave or be apprehended and deported, is that right? >> mr. chairman, i don't mean to be difficult, a yes or no answer doesn't -- >> well, just give me

here's the answer we have almost a generation no it has been immersed in this document doctrine of preemption we preemptively bomb countries and big countries murder their leaders we go in because we're afraid of what they might do now we have the same no should be applied to the populace in this country if you haven't done anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about it's better to check everybody you know it's better to put everybody through the security apparatus just so we might be able to catch somebody the problem is it's a rounding the liberties of this nation and and the boiling pot frog analogy is perfect it is got to the point now where we have dozens of police agencies in this country using drones we have the border patrol using drugs we have universities wanting to use drugs to get deeper and deeper into your personal life and this their water is literally boiling and it is it's about time that we stand up as a people as a nation and say you know what we don't live in east germany you know three nine hundred ninety we don't want to start you police state in foresee these

. >> this is not the case about profiling or the fourth amendment, it is really about the preemption and relationship between the federal law and state law. >> the obama administration solicitor general argued that states would be allowed to engage in a massive incarceration of undocumented immigrants. the government acknowledged it is not about racial profiling. opponents say the law would allow it. >> the demonstrators crowded the high court, including this undocumented arizona resident. to go back home our community is in fear, my family is in fear. i am in fear of driving in going to work every day. >> are ruling is expected by the time this session ends in late june. >> it has been a heated battle for nearly two years now between the city of baltimore and the community. >> uploading from not. new tonight, a settlement. we will tell you who is paying for a change in construction coming up here y. >> >> live, local, late breaking, you are watching wbal-tv 11 news at 5:00 in hd. your insta-weather-plus forecast with tom tasselmire. 11 news at 5:00 in hd continues now. >> new tonigh

this is about preemption.ctice a challenge -- >> kimberly: they're asking to withhold the federal law not change the law as it stands. >> greg: cover all the bas bases. get a hispanic transgendered v.p. >> juan: that could be. you're hot today. that's the way i feel about you. >> greg: my prediction. >> juan: one more thing coming up next. stay with us. note ♪ ♪ president of creative digital imaging of bangor, maine. we have customers all over the united states. we rely on the postal service for everything that we do. the eastern maine processing facility is vital to our operation and our success. if we lose this processing facility we could lose clientele because of increased mailing times. we would have to consider layoffs as a result of that. closure of this plant will affect all of us. ♪ woman: what do you mean, homeowners insurance doesn't cover floods? [ heart rate increases ] man: a few inches of water caused all this? [ heart rate increases ] woman #2: but i don't even live near the water. what you don

this is about preemption.ractice a challenge -- >> kimberly: they're asking to withhold the federal law not change the law as it stands. >> greg: cover all the bas bases. get a hispanic transgendered v.p. >> juan: that could be. you're hot today. that's the way i feel about you. >> greg: my prediction. >> juan: one more thing coming up next. stay with us. note ♪ ♪ what makes the sleep number store different? you walk into a conventional mattress store, it's really not about you. they say, "well, if you wanted a firm bed you can lie on one of those." we provide the exact individualization that your body needs. oh, wow! that feels really good. it's about support where you find it most comfortable. to celebrate 25 years of better sleep-for both of you - sleep number introduces the silver edition bed set, at incredible savings of $1,000 for a limited time. only at the sleep number store, where queen mattresses start at just $699. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> dana: it's time now for one more thing. because juan is here, i'm going to

what this was about was about preemption and whether or not the federal government has exclusive rights to enforce immigration laws or whether the states can take part in that. you brought up a patchwork of laws. what's different than how we deal with drug laws or firearm laws? we have a patchwork of laws across every state in this nation. isn't that part of the whole design? >> but that's not what the constitution says. that's not what the constitution says the government's role is when it comes to this issue. and, again, let's get back to the point. two-thirds of americans, poll after poll has shown, right, that they want a crackdown on undocumented immigrants who are criminals but want to provide a path to legalization for people who are the good guys. what's happening with a law like arizona and alabama are the good guys are getting stopped and not just the undocumented people. we're talking about people who are american citizens getting stopped. i'm sure you've heard about the scathing report against sheriff joe arpaio by the justice department last september. >> good morning, jose

laws in arizona conflict with our policies, with our own laws, and that's the argument of implied preemption. it did not appear to be many justices that sub subscribe to that broad view. on one extreme you had justice scalia arguing very profound states rights argument they could close their borders effectively to illegals and most of the other justices were trying to sort of thread the needle once they accepted that arizona can legislate in the area. i think one thing that was clear is inquiring as to status did not appear to be problematic for many of the justices. >> right. governor brewer alluded to the grave dangers as they put it of illegal immigrants when she signed the law two years ago. have a listen to what she said. i want to ask about it. listen to this. >> we cannot sacrifice our safety to the murder us on greet of drug cartels. we can't stand by as drop houses, kid up thattings, and violence compromise our quality of life. >> she paints a truly dire picture. government says this is the type of crime that could be neglected if the system is simply overwhelmed and glutted by ever

it is a case about the preemption in the relationship between the federal and state laws. one of the things that is a misconception for a lot of people is that the state law really does not authorize officers to do something they cannot do otherwise. it just makes it systematic and it has the effect of overriding some local policies that, contrary to federal statute, prohibited officers from communicating with the federal government. that is what makes the federal government's argument difficult because they have to argue that this interferes not with a federal statute but with their enforcement posture. a number of the justices' pointed out that they retain the decision about who to prosecute federal land to to remove it from this country. the principal provision discussed today really just puts the federal officials in the position to know who they have in the country and decide for themselves what to do as a matter of federal law. [inaudible] general verelli brought up an earlier case, hines. the kit -- they said that was something they cannot really take into account i

preemption worked as demonstrated success, '67. '81, 07. but that is where the similarities stop. situation in israel is confronting right now, nothing like those situations seems to me. even '67. in large part because from the standpoint of the international community, even the united states, this is a war of necessity right now for only one country. only one country believes right now this is a war of necessity. iran does not have a fissile materiel to create a bomb. it hasn't mastered the component parts of actually producing the weapon. it hasn't tested a weapon. it does not have a nuclear weapon. this is a war of discretion even from the perspective of israel's closest ally. under these circumstances i don't think the issue is barack and netanyahu overcoming the concerns of the defense and security establishment f barack and netanyahu come overcoming their own fundamental insecurities and uncertainties about the risks involved in this operation and the prospects of what returnxd justify those risks. right now an israeliÑiÑi n$+ckñó isñrxd lik"r mowingÑi the grass. the grass i

if congress does do that, it has the capacity -- because this is a preemption case and it is an issuewith state law, the congress can step in and say, from now on going forward, you're not allowed to do this. >> i'm guessing the students at nyu law school are appreciating this conversation with you, professor. >> let's hope. >>> in a moment, what does this home movie have with one of the greatest movies of all time? we're talking to three of the stars of this enduring classic next on "weekends with alex witt." four walls and a roof is a structure. what's inside is a home. home protector plus, from liberty mutual insurance, where the costs to both repair your house and replace what's inside are covered. and we don't just cut a check for the depreciated value -- we can actually replace your stuff with an exact or near match. and with the liberty mutual home gallery app, you can use a mobile device to easily catalog your belongings in advance, so you're always well prepared. home protector plus, from liberty mutual insurance, so your life can settle right back into place. to get a free q

legal terms that i don't want to give everyone at 6:00 in the morning, the issue of, the issue of preemptionff of the top, who should be in charge of enforcing these laws? the federal government said they're in charge of it. they set foreign policy and deal with relations with other countries and they can't have every state in this country kind of putting forth with their own foreign policy. the states say, we hear you, but arizona says we're a border state and you're not doing your job and we need to step in because we're facing a public safety and economic crisis. very interesting to hear how oral arguments go and, also, where the justices kind of pinpoint their question to the attorney. ashleigh, we knew you'd find this interesting. this is really the first rematch from the two attorneys arguing the health care case. so, they're back in the courtroom facing off again today. >> you're going to know everybody in that courtroom. >> we're all old friends. >> i really appreciate this, thank you, kate, nice to see you. >>> let's talk a little more washington, shall we? john edwards former aide

that this was a case about the preemption and relationship between the federal law and the state law, and i think one of the things that is a misconception that a lot of people have, but the state law does not really authorize officers to do something they cannot do otherwise. it simply makes its systematic, and it does have the effect of overriding some local policies that, contrary to federal statutes, actually prohibited offices -- officers from communicating with the federal government, and i think that is what makes the federal government's argument difficult, because they have to argue that this interferes not with the federal statute but with their enforcement posture, and, of course, i think as a number of justices pointed out, they maintain the ultimate decision on who to prosecute federally and hutu removed from this country. the arizona law discussed today, it puts federal officials in the position to know who they have in the country and then decide as a matter of law. , and i think, certainly, an issue that is attributed, i think a lot of the justices were of the view tha

governments are preempted from enacting their own employment verification laws and penalties, federal preemption of employment verification laws has been endorsed by the u.s. chamber of commerce and many other business groups and trade associations. and i hope colleagues from both sides of the aisle will join me in this effort, in the event it becomes necessary which i hope and believe it won't because i do believe the supreme court will decide that sb-1070 is not constitutional. based on the evidence that is all on one side here. i now look forward to hearing from our -- i now would like to turn it over to senator durbin for an opening statement. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much for calling this hearing of the immigration subcommittee. on the question of sb-1070, the aurs immigration law, which i join you in hoping that the supreme court finds unconstitutional. under our constitution states do not have the right to pass their own laws preempting federal laws on immigration. it is wrong and counterproductive to criminalize people because of their status, their immigration status. law enforce

that is an issue about preemption, whether federal statutes are broad enough to occupy the whole field and prevent arizona from doing what it did. i do want to say it is not constitute an issue -- i do want to say -- it is not about the constitutional issue. i want to say a word about the caller's attitude. host: we will continue to move the conversation along. our callers have a lot of attitude. guest: i believe it is a 10th amendment issue. the federal government has plenary power to set immigration law. nothing in the arizona statute changes that substance of law. the question is one of enforcement. to both federal and state governments have concurrent enforcement power? that is not necessarily a pre- emption issue. what this caller raised was the problem the federal government is not enforcing its own law. that raises the question. does the state have the power to enforce the law? in the oral argument this week, that is exactly the issue that came up. does the state have to remain disarmed so to speak to protect its own citizens if the federal government is not doing so? none of th

this was not a case about profiling or a case about the fourth amendment, it is a case about the preemptionnd the relationship between the federal law and the state law. one thing that is a misconception that a lot of people have, state law does not relate authorized officers to do something they cannot do otherwise. it simply makes it systematic and helps in overriding some local policies that, contrary to federal statutes, prohibited officers from communicating with the federal government. i think that is what makes the federal government's argument difficult. they have to argue that this interferes with their enforcement posture. of course, as a number of justices pointed out, they retain the ultimate decision about who to prosecute federally and who to remove it from this country. the principle or the arizona law that was discussed today really just with the federal government in the position to know who they have in the country and to do what they have to according to federal law. >> [unintelligible] >> there was an issue brought up. i think a lot of the justices feel that was not some

there are other bills in the hopper include a potential data breach bill that would deal with preemption you don't have 50 states putting out different laws about data breach and how you're supposed to be notified if someone steals your information. there is energy grid bill in the energy and commerce committee that may come out and cyber commissions do we have strong enough laws to go after bad guys when they commit acts in the u.s.. >> host: last couple calls. kelly, independent. welcome. >> caller: this is tony from chapel hill. >> host: oh, go ahead, tony. >> caller: okay, thank you. look, i have two real concerns. for one thing initially when they started homeland security i don't know if that brings back not to reference to anyone but they need to think about this. and also, when they retroactively allow at&t or any other communications company to, that handles the internet to retroactively be innocent of the crimes that they have already committed, this is step by step a new ss or the new gestapo of america that will be happening in about 15 or 20 years. and she said there was goi

what does preemption say, meaning did the federal government preempt and push the states out of the wayon proceeds. and arizona saying, we're not doing immigration, we're enforcing the federal laws and we have that right. >> alisyn: it will be interesting to hear the final oral arguments this wednesday at the supreme court. and meanwhile, the supreme court has been on the mind of everyone because they have been hearing the arguments about obamacare, the affordable care act. those, that decision won't come down until june, but something interesting is happening and that is that you're seeing a bit of a defection, by democrats. or democrats who are now seeking out against the affordable health care act because they believe for a host of reasons it shouldn't have been passed in the wholesale manner that it was. >> and interestingly, some democrats are leaving office and as you pointed out. they're unfettered, unshackled. they can't do it while in congress, but here is one. broad miller of north carolina, a democrat. he says i think we'd all be better off if we related to the economic issue