Since the argument has already gone through one state, and there's more coming. If the Federal judge does acknowledge the States Sovereignty and they do have the right to reject the Federal mandate, how can the Federal judges deny any states right on illegal immingration? The problem being argued in both cases state the law, or lack of enforcement of the law by the Feds, cause an undue financial burden on the states. If the term Financial burden, or anything close to it is recognized, will it not at least give more credibility to the argument 150 years ago? I know, that's over and done with, but the question is still the same. It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm seeing it go to the SCOTUS and that's where the real problems may pop up. You know, those political apointments to the bench up there?
Pam