so i don't see the alien registration as a question of obstacle preemption, but appeal preemption thatwe 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 differen

now, of course, there is an express preemption provision, but the express preemption provision, as this court has said many times, does not operate 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, 5 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, whic

now, in your view, is there any preemption exemption, any preemption argument against that sentence as i have just interpreted it? i don't know what your answer is. that's why i'm asking. >> we think it would ameliorate the practical problem, but there's still a structural problem in that this is an effort to enforce federal law, and under the constitution it's the president and the executive branch that are responsible for the enforcement of federal law. >> it is not an effort to enforce federal law. it is an effort to let you know about violations of federal law. whether or not to enforce them is still entirely up to you. if you don't want to do this, you just tell the person at lesc, if that's the right acronym? >> yes. >> when somebody from arizona calls to answer their question, and don't even both tore write it down. okay. i stopped somebody else. is he legal, illegal? oh, he's illegal. okay, thanks. good-bye. why it is still your decision, and if you don't want to know who is in this country illegally, you don't have to. >> that's correct, but the process of cooperating to enfor

now, in your view, is there any preemption exemption argument against any preemption argument against that sentence as i have just interpreted it? i don't know what your answer is, and that's why i'm asking. general verrilli: yes. we would think it would ameliorate justice breyer: and if so, what? general verrilli: it would ameliorate the practical problem; but, there is still a structural problem here in that this is an effort to enforce federal law. and the under the constitution, it's the president and the executive branch that are responsible for the enforcement of federal law chief justice roberts: it is general verrilli: and chief justice roberts: it is not an effort to enforce federal law. it is an effort to let you know about violations of federal law. whether or not to enforce them is still entirely up to you. if you don't want to do this, you just tell the person at lesc if that's the right is that the right acronym? general verrilli: it is, mr. chief justice. chief justice roberts: lesc, look, when somebody from arizona calls, answer their question, and don't even bother to

that is there's federal preemption here with respect to immigration laws. they struck down three of those provisions. that they left standing the one that says when they're stopped for a legal stop, they can ask for your papers. that is very problematic. i don't see any way to implement that decision without profiling. and without violating the constitution. but what they left open is court challenges and further litigation on that matter. i think we'd like to get this out of the campaign. i think we'd like to get this in the congress where it should be, they ought to fix this broken immigration system. governor romney ought to join president obama in calling on both houses, both parties, to work together to pass a dream act and pass comprehensive immigration reform. >> well, it's not happening. let me go to john heilemann. one reason it's not happening is that both parties have problems with a really tough solution. it's going to be difficult for both sides to reach an agreement on the immigration situation. a fair, enforceable immigration law. it's very h

that preemption doctrine is not a constitutional issue so therefore, congress could go back and change the laws to enable a state like arizona to pass this exact same law so we may see action in congress as well. >> what do you think the implications are? we know the justice department has taken action on similar laws in south carolina, utah and alabama, i believe. how do other states read this decision? is it not worth it to get into the heated immigration debate if you're looking at legislation like this? >> they'll be looking at it very r , very carefully, looking to see if their state laws are capable of being interpreted that they also conflict with the federal law because that's what led to three of the four provisions being struck down. it opens the door to provisions like the most controversial one that allows state officers to conduct immigration status checks on those they lawfully stopped so they know those provisions are right. i actually think maybe it means that states who want to have laws like this then go to congress and say hey, congress, it's up to you, you could act

scope of federal preemption. primal sovereignty. water rights. federal jurisdiction. to the general public, he will probably be remembered for two biting dissents early in his career and one dismissive majority opinion later in his career. when byron white assumed judicial office in april of 1962, the supreme court was at the threshold of a revolution in the constitutional definition of criminal justice, one no less sweeping or controversial than the constitutional dismantling of racial desegregation in the previous decade. the appointee of a liberal president was expected to get on the bandwagon. but white kept his own counsel. one of his first opinions, in fact, was a dissent on the decision invalidating criminal punishment for habitual use of drugs, which the majority of the court thought penalized a status, not an act, in violation of the due process clause of the 14th amendment. the case was called robinson versus california. and white wrote that the majority in the case was writing into the constitution its own abstract notions of how to best handle the narcotic

seventy immigrant law it was a split decision from scotus three provisions were struck down on their preemption a federal law but it seems the ruling is in the eye of the beholder. c.n.n. c.n.n. reported the arts of immigration law rejected while fox news touted that fox the supreme court upheld part of the law allowing police to ask about immigration status and find the m s n b c brag that the high court struck down most of arizona immigration law here's what was being debated number one make it a state crime to be an undocumented immigrant or to allow police to conduct warrantless arrests and three criminalize work for undocumented immigrants so those are all struck down with the most controversial piece of legislation that was upheld is the show me your papers provision which allows police to question anyone suspected to be an undocumented immigrant and demand to see their papers this may seem controversial but other countries have had much more strict legislation dealing with immigration so how does the u.s. compare to the rest of the world joining me now to discuss this is ben cohen editor

seventy immigrant law this is a split decision from scotus three provisions were struck down in their preemption of federal law but it seems the ruling is in the eye of the beholder. c.n.n. reported that parts of the law were rejected of all fox news touted that the supreme court upheld part of the law line police to ask about immigration status and finally and this n.b.c. bragged that the high struck the high court struck down most of the arizona immigration law here's what was being debated here's what was struck down it would make it a state crime to be an undocumented immigrant allow police to conduct warrantless arrests and you would be criminalized if you were an undocumented immigrant trying to get work but the most controversial piece of legislation was upheld it was the show me your papers provision which allows police to question anyone suspected to be an undocumented immigrant and demand to see their papers this may seem controversial but other countries have much stricter legislation dealing with immigration so how does the u.s. compared to the rest of the world earlier i was joined

it's a legal judgment by the administration that these where the preemption claims that they mostly wonay the strongest ones to weed with and go with now, and the racial profiling claims as the court recognizes can be litigated once this law goes into effect. >> john: with i'm sure will happen. your organization did file a brief in this case with the supreme court. >> right. >> john: what was your brief pertaining to? >> it explained that the founders gave exclusive power to the federal government in areas like immigration and naturalization. there is actually the term in the constitution uniform when it describes the federal power over naturalization. it gives specific and contactual support of the invasive role of the federal government for setting immigration policy for this country. our argument was in this area in particular the federal government has to set an uniform standard for policies and the state's can establish their own laws, their own attrition by enforcement policy. >> john: the biggest argument we hear against more hate crimes laws is just enforce the laws already on t

alecky preemption in there. >> you have the microphone in the back. let's go to her. >> thank you for that over review. my question will follow -- what are your thoughts about addressing demand issues and also energy conservation and efficiency? to what extent will both play a role in policy discussions? >> this goes to my point earlier a bout the legislation that i think is just good stuff that helps move us towards greater conservation, greater efficiencies. yet we are not able to move that through the process. we need to go to those areas where the low hanging fruit exists. we need to realize the greatest savings is not the technology that will build on some superstate thing, it is saving the energy we have it. we are pretty wasteful as a society when it comes to us as consumers. i do not think we have done enough. when i speak of and all of the above policy, in my mind it is a three legged stool. you have increased domestic production from the more traditional sources. you clearly have the leg that is the future that is renewable sources. the thir

underneath this issue was a question of what's called implied preemption.ecause congress said they couldn't, but because the federal government occupies the field. there are good reasons to oppose that. i don't think it is necessarily purely id logical. i think roberts agreed with the liberal justices here. i don't think he's laying the ground work. we have to remember the stolen valor case is still coming down. i've been really emphasizes for folks, that free speech case has equally sweeping potential for american citizens. it did have a significant impact on the first amendment and that is the first torpedo in the water with health care. julian, i'm no constitution scholar, as you know, but the supreme court is meant to be nonpartisan and yet, we have a patent with the two decisions today plus past rulings like citizens united and bush v. gore. can we expect this court on the basis of that to strike down the health care law? >> i think it's very hard to tell. when we were reading the tea leaves -- >> you're an expert. >> of all the experts, including myse

there's never been a preemption of states enforcing the law.wanted to preempt the states, they could have used their power. they have not done that. but the cheap labor, the cheap vote crowd, it's ok. the deaths and costs of billions of dollars is ok for them. it's outrageous. do you know how the immigration law has been reasonably enforced, 9/11 would have been averted. four out of the five main hijackers were stopped by law enforcement and were let go and were in the country illegally. overstayed their visas. one of them had the citation, the car that was abandoned at the airport. but apparently that's ok to the left. >> i think you are articulating the frustration and probably the out and out anger have i seen as i have reported in the state of arizona where people are trying to figure out how do you figure out how to deal with an immigration problem in that state. one of the concerns, as you know, when it comes to this provision that was upheld by the supreme court, is will it lead to racial profiling. how can you guarantee that in fact it

the health care law deals with a different question, it doesn't deal with preemption questions.deals with the extent of congress' power to tell the american people they have to buy something. that's completely unprecedented in american history, and so it's a very different set of circumstances. i don't think this sends a message one way or another. jenna: thank you for bringing your unique background to our conversation today, senator lee. we look forward to having you back. >> thank you, jenna. gregg: you know what? you've got to be a really smart guy to be able to get the job as a supreme court, you know, associate or intern or, you know? that's impressive. jenna: that's tough to do. gregg: yeah. a clerk for the u.s. supreme court? very hard to do. all right, more unmanned drones expected to hit u.s. air space in two years, but some warn that hackers could seize control of the spy planes, so we'll take a look at the risks of putting more and more drones up in the sky. gregg: welcome back. the faa is working on a plan to open u.s. air space to drones by the year 2015. the unman

the will of the people was thwarted once again by a supreme court that misapplies principles of preemption and dismisses the basic right of state sovereignty. our media has largely focused on the anger of latino voters this election year the real and under reported anger out there is felt by hard working americans of all ethnic background who want the borders enforced and our laws upheld. that's the memo. now for the top story. two other views on this. joining us from kansas city kris kobach who wrote the arizona immigration law. with us here in washington is chuck rocha, the executive director of the latino project which has been fighting this law. okay, gentlemen, interesting decision today. none the less, still controversy regarding it. chuck, tell us your take on what happened at the court. do you feel like your views have been vindicated? >> yes, and. no i think that it shows that a patchwork of state laws are not going to work and that we need comprehensive immigration reform and that congress needs to act and they must act or these law also continue to spring up. the supreme court a

i would like to preemption and there. >> okay, and you have the microphone. in the back there, the young lady. let's go to her after this one. >> thank you for that very interesting overview of madam senator. i do work in the area of green building sustainability and of course my question will follow, which is what are your thoughts about addressing demand issues and also energy conservation and efficiency? to what extent will does play a role in the policy discussions? >> and this goes to my point earlier about the shaheen portman legislation, which i think is just good stuff that helps move us towards greater conservation, greater efficiency and yet we are not able to move that through the process. we need to go to those areas where the low-hanging fruit exists, and i think we should all recognize that the greatest savings when it comes to energy is not the technology that will build out some futuristic thing that is saving the energy that we currently have. we are pretty wasteful society when it comes to us as energy consumers. i don't think that we have d

clarified what i have been arguing all along and i think most people who follow this specific area of preemption law know. that is there have always been windows of opportunity where states can act as long as those actions are consistent with federal law. the court reiterated that. they said in our federal system the courts can take certain steps to discourage illegal immigration and communicate and assist with the federal government, assist the federal government in enforcing our immigration laws. court reit late... reiterated that today. i think you're going to see states continuing to take reasonable steps to try to rebuild the rule of law. >> ifill: professor gonzales, what is your sense of how wide open that window of opportunity is now based on what the court did? >> i think it's a very narrow window that the state... that the court has left for the states. the provision that's left standing -- and they can be still be challenged in the future -- simply allows police officers to inquire about the status of someone. if they contact the federal government and the government says we're not in

this was the justice department's lawsuit that said, look, this is what the lawyers call preemption.'s a long-standing rule that says when congress passes a law, it preempting the field and the states can't pass laws at odds with that. that was the main question here. did the arizona law stray too far from federal law, and after all, the whole question of immigration is a federal question. it's the federal government alone that gets to decide who can be here legally and not. nobody disputes that's a federal decision. the question is how far can the states go in helps ing to enfor that? that didn't deal with this question still in the courts about whether this law encouraging police officers to engage in racial profiling and whether that's unconstitutional. that's just in the early stages, so it's going to be another couple of years before that's sorted out. >> we have that, and we're still waiting for health care. pete, what's the status of that? >> we don't know. we may find out in a few minutes what the other decision days will be this week. we'll know whether if there's two or one

a pack of preemption in my. >> okay. you're the microphone. in the back there the young lady. let's go to her after this one. >> thank you for the very interesting overview senator. work in the area conservation, green building stability. of course my question will follow, which is what are your doubts about addressing demand issues and also energy conservation and efficiency? to what extent will this play will the policy discussions? >> this goes to my point earlier about the shaheen portman legislation, which i think is just good stuff that helps move us towards greater conservation greater efficiencies. then we are not able to move back through the process. we need to go to those areas where the low-hanging fruit excess and i think we should all recognize that the greatest savings when it comes to energy not the technology that will load of some futuristic thing. it is saving the energy we currently have. we are pretty wasteful society when it comes to us as energy consumers. i don't think we have come near enough. so when i speak as in all of the above policy, in my mind i

and i'd like to ask anyone who is familiar with their practice, sifma supports federal preemption of state laws related to breach disclosures and notification and what specific differences in state laws pose challenges for sfma and can you explain why you favor preemption? >> so i'll take a first crack at that one. the issue that i think we really have, one. major ones for us, is being able to reconcile the more than 50 different state laws and local regulations that we have to deal with when it comes to notification and it's very, it's a time-consuming process to figure out which ones apply, what notifications we have to provide, when and how much. just the consolidation to a national breach notification standard we can rely on would that eliminate that administrative overhead. that burden. allow us to turn around notifications much more quickly and confusion customers get today when they receive multiple notifications, different formats and different remediation standards. >> i would look to ask mr. woodhill. in your testimony testimony you make it clear that you believe account ta

. >> well, i think i'm not surprised that the court said that preemption prevents arizona from regulatingor policy is what i've generally found deference to the federal government. in that sense, i'm not surprised. with respect to the decision that was upheld, basically what the court is saying, it's still too early to tell. without knowing how the law is going to be implemented, we really can't say one way or another, whether or not this state law is preempted by federal law. >> but let me ask you, if this goes into play, how do police avoid racial profiling? >> well, the issue of avoiding racial profiling exists with respect to a myriad of state laws that are already on the book and have been on the books for decades. we do have federal laws in place. that protect against racial discrimination. and to the extent that police officers, they go into training, the presumption that law enforcement is going to engage intentionally in racial profiling to me i think is a disservice to a public law enforcement officials. 99.9% of whom simply go out and do their jobs to the best of their ability

administration's desire to underenforce where we want to strictly enforce federal law but the doctrine of preemptionernment is using doesn't apply to disagreements between the state and administration's decision to underenforce, it applies to a situation where there is con conflict between state law and fed he ral law. all four of the provisions are entirely consistent with federal law. >> shannon: i want to bring in general king here. sir, do you think that laws like sb 1070 are necessary or constitutional or not? >> well, two different questi n questions and i think those of us in the west feel very stro g strongly about our states rights and so i think that the constitutionality question is important to us and also in looking at what the supreme court has done and the questi n questions that they asked. i think that they are going to say that cooperation between the federal government and the state governments is important and to the extent that this law moves that along that that will be a good thing. with regard to the necessity, i think that new mexico has take and little bit different approac

arizona was a brutal attack on the tenth amendment, an expansion of the federal preemption power beyondhat is provided in the constitution. and the decision today as i will get into it in some great detail is a brutal assault on individual sovereignty. now we have something akin to the warren court. it's still evolving but we'll find out one day i'm sure. and there are conservatives out there -- it's painful to watch these people, bending over backwards to pretend this was a great victory. but they are wrong. they are dead wrong. just because five lawyers in black robes, one of whom was purported to be conservative a man i knew a long time ago, issue a decision of the sort they issued, doesn't make it proper. as a matter of fact this decision i would go so far to say as it is lawless. that's why people are stunned. megyn: shannon bream covers the high court for us. >> reporter: washington is rampant with discussion on what motivated john roberts to uphold the law based on the congress' power to tax. >> i think that the affordable care act opinion goes a long way towards saying the rober