Does Federal Law preempt Arizona State Law against Bank Robbery?

Question

We are told that Federal Law preempts Arizona State Law against illegal aliens, because it is a Federal Crime to be an illegal alien in the United States of America.

However there are Federal Laws against the Robbery of a Federally Insured Bank. If it were true that Federal Law preempts the Arizona State Law against illegal aliens, it would appear that Federal law also preempts State Law against bank robbery.

Answer 1

The Supremacy clause mandates Federal law is the 'Law of the Land' and directs all Judges to not be bound by any State laws contrary to Federal law. It is long accepted precedent that any state may have a law mirroring a Federal statute.



Therefore, state bank robbery laws don't violate the Supremacy clause, and neither does the Arizona statute making it illegal to be in Arizona illegally.

Answer 2

Federal law preempts Arizona law in regards to illegal aliens because the US Constitution specifically gives the national government the power to have a standardization of naturalization. In other words, immigration is clearly in federal control - by law.



No state can usurp the powers given the federal government by the Constitution.



While there are federal laws against bank robbery, it is not one of the specific powers in the constitution. Therefore, the state can have its own rules to the same regard.

Answer 3

actual definite, it quite is authentic. economic organization robberies are against a federal regulation, so the FBI has jurisdiction. economic organization robberies are investigated and prosecuted by ability of the FBI. community police could help yet they, and local or state courts, don't have the excellent say. The Fed. government. justifies this ability under its powers to alter interstate commerce. economic organization theft is considered as an 'interstate' crime, basically like carrying stolen merchandise, unlawful drugs, or prostitutes in the time of state lines. the common issue with the Arizona regulation is that a state isn't allowed to make its own immigration coverage. my own feeling is that the politicians of Arizona knew this all alongside, they KNEW the regulation could be struck down by ability of federal courts. they only exceeded the regulation for purposes of political posturing. From that perspective it makes extensive sense (to them besides). They get credit with the state's Republicans while they bypass the regulation, and then while it quite is struck down they are able responsible the Fed. government. for being 'liberal' and exhort each and every physique to bypass to the polls to choose greater Republicans. possibly they're per Republicans no longer understanding that the Republican occasion has by no ability quite been anti-immigrant. The final president who gave illegals an amnesty became Reagan, and the final individual who tried and failed became GW Bush. right here in California we had the comparable component. we actual exceeded a pollinitiative, it is greater valid in a approach through fact a majority of electorate actual voted for it. It made it unlawful for faculties to coach unlawful immigrant toddlers, for well being middle emergency rooms to attend to them, etc. It became very almost right this moment struck down by ability of the courts. So Arizona Republicans ought to have huge-unfold that would happen to their regulation additionally. So we out-of-staters, we 'liberals', see it as basically a cynical ploy. unlawful immigration is a controversy Republicans use to get votes and help, yet they for sure by no ability quite plan to do something too substantial, through fact they love low fee hard work. basically as they have promised to limit abortion for approximately 30 years now yet by no ability actual tried, even while situations have been optimal. by some ability otherwise clever Christians and conservatives by no ability look to attain how badly they're being gamed!

Answer 4

No, because the prosecutors actually went to law school and know the difference between concurrent jurisdiction and supremacy.