Page values for "Behind US v. Arizona: pure politics"

Jump to navigation Jump to search

"_pageData" values

1 row is stored for this page
_creationDate   July 13, 2010 11:39:32 AM
_modificationDate   July 13, 2010 11:39:32 AM
_creator   Yaron Koren
_fullText   {{Item |author=Kris Kobach |source=New York Post |date=July 12, 2010 |url=http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/behind_us_arizona_pure_politics_doTiHt4iEpjt4mlSMPMvlO |quote="Because other kinds of pre-emption don't apply, the department can only win if it can show a conflict ...
_categories   Items
_numRevisions   1
_isRedirect   No
_pageNameOrRedirect   Behind US v. Arizona: pure politics

"Items" values

1 row is stored for this page
Author   Kris Kobach
Source   New York Post
Date   July 12, 2010
URL   http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/behind_us_arizona_pure_politics_doTiHt4iEpjt4mlSMPMvlO
Quote   "Because other kinds of pre-emption don't apply, the department can only win if it can show a conflict with federal law. But there is no federal statute that Arizona's law conflicts with. The department's legal filings don't offer any answer to this fundamental problem. The opinions of the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits of the US Court of Appeals (which are all of the circuits that have addressed the issue) also support the authority of Arizona to enact its law."
Summary   

Behind US v. Arizona: pure politics by Kris Kobach (New York Post, July 12, 2010) (view)

"Opinions" values

1 row is stored for this page
Topic   United States of America v. Arizona
Position_fragment   Lawsuit was justified
Position   United States of America v. Arizona / Lawsuit was justified
Position_link   

Lawsuit was justified

Stance   against