Social Question

Nullo's avatar

What if Arizona responded to California's boycott with an embargo?

Asked by Nullo (21939points) May 13th, 2010

Arizona sends a lot of power and water to Southern California. Say they retaliated by shutting them off. What do you think would be the fallout from that?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

41 Answers

Silhouette's avatar

Dry humor. A lawsuit that neither California nor Arizona can afford,

dpworkin's avatar

You need to learn the difference between a boycott and an embargo.

DrasticDreamer's avatar

Nothing. I’m sure other states would pitch in to send stuff to California. And Arizona wouldn’t do that to California anyway, because then other states would be all over Arizona’s ass that much more.

Nullo's avatar

@dpworkin Thank you.
I am technically aware of the differences, but using the one term instead of the other had not occurred to me.

tranquilsea's avatar

Can I get some back story on this? To what are you referring?

shilolo's avatar

California has the 6th largest economy, in the world. Arizona… not so much. The net effect of losing all of that business from CA would be much worse for Arizona, which is precisely why this hasn’t even occurred to them (or if it has, for political reasons, they made a prudent decision not to propose it). Of course, Republicans have a habit of convincing people to vote against their economic interests, so I wouldn’t put it past the current leadership to float the idea.

jaytkay's avatar

Stopping the power and water would break a lot of huge contracts. I believe Hoover Dam, for example, is partially owned by the Los Angeles Dept of Water and Power.

But @shilolo is right, Arizona has the weak hand.

semblance's avatar

I am an attorney. Although I don’t claim to be an expert on the topic you asked about, I know enough about the basics to be confident of this much.

1. Arizona would be in breach of contract, as another poster said.

2. Arizona would also probably be acting unconsititutionally as its actions would violate what is known as the commerce clause.

3. Within days of Arizona even announcing that it would cut off power and water to California, a federal lawsuit would be filed. The judge would issue a temporary restraining order at the request of the United States or the State of California. This would prohibit Arizona from cutting of power and water to California.

4. Later, Arizona would lose the lawsuit.

5. When all is said and done, neither power nor water would be disrupted, even temporarily, and only the lawyers involved in the case will have benefitted.

Mandomike's avatar

Arizona doesn’t need to respond to political posturing which is what this is, the bill removes the possibility of racial profiling under the law it just reinforces the current federal law which the government refuses to enforce.This issue is being used by the Obama administration to hopefully gain Latino voters during the election cycle.

ETpro's avatar

@Mandomike Now there is an interesting example of the cart before the horse., Obama made Arizona pass an state immigration law so he could get Latino votes. With both houses of the Arizona Legislature and the Governor’s office in Republican hands, just how did Obama makenthem pass this legislation?

shilolo's avatar

@ETpro Never let a good (read: fake) talking point go to waste.

tranquilsea's avatar

Can somebody provide a news reference to what you are discussing here? I tried a search, but I’m not sure what to search for exactly and I’m coming up with no results.

ETpro's avatar

@tranquilsea Here is reasonably balanced view: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8658779.stm

Arizona also just passed a law limiting the scope of Ethnic Studies classes in publicly funded schools. It is actually just aimed at disallowing classes that focus primarily or only on the exploitation of a particular race, because they feel this tends to make students of that race feel alienated when they may not actually have any reason to feel so. But coming on the heals of a law likely to fuel racial profiling, it certainly is poor timing and has raised further cries of racism.

If you want to read what the two partisan sides are saying, Google arizona anti-immigration law and arizona ethnic studies law.

Nullo's avatar

@ETpro I’d also heard that there’s talk of making it necessary for English teachers to be able to speak English clearly, and to have proper grammar.
The horror!

ETpro's avatar

@Nullo While that should be in the hiring standards, the Arizona Legislature would be wise to give it a rest for now. Sadly, wisdom is always in short supply once tempers are aroused.

shilolo's avatar

This whole piece of legislation is moot, as it is a clear-cut violation of the 4th amendment to the Constitution which protects specifically against unreasonable search and seizures. There is no basis for requiring that individuals carry identification at all times, and as such, the law will be struck down on appeal.

ETpro's avatar

@shilolo It may well violate the primacy clause of the Constitution. There may be 4th Amendment concerns as well. It will definitely get its day in court.

@tranquilsea You’re welcome.

Dr_C's avatar

I’m curious as to how “if you look like a foreigner you must produce your papers” removes the possibility of racial profiling.

shilolo's avatar

@Dr_C Stop quibbling with the talking points! Those are minor details. I should smack you.

perspicacious's avatar

Legally they can’t.

Dr_C's avatar

@shilolo is it because I “look Mexican”? :p

mattbrowne's avatar

I’m planning a vacation in Arizona this summer. Should I be worried?

ETpro's avatar

@Dr_C Funny, you look sperical to me.

Dr_C's avatar

@ETpro well the tag line is in french so it’s still a foreign sphere…

@mattbrowne only if Ze State Police ask for Ze papers.

ETpro's avatar

@mattbrowne Do you carry proof of citizenship when you travel domestically? Bear in mind, drivers licenses from most states don’t count as such.

Dr_C's avatar

@ETpro he’s traveling from Germany…

Dr_Dredd's avatar

@shilolo I’m not sure if the identification requirement would be struck down. In Hiibel v. Nevada, the Supreme Court held that a person could be required to identify themselves to law enforcement agents. I don’t know if that automatically translates to a requirement to produce “papers,” but given the make-up of the Court, I wouldn’t put it past them to uphold such a requirement.

Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, yadda, yadda….

Dr_C's avatar

@Dr_Dredd there is a difference between carrying identity papers such as a driver’s license or ID card and having to carry proof of citizenship and in some instances proof of legal residence.

Take into account this has the potential of affecting not only tourist from other countries (which in itself will hurt the economy), as well as long time legal residents of color… some living in country for generations. They have to carry proof of citizenship in their own country. It’s demeaning.

shilolo's avatar

@Dr_Dredd Perhaps, except that there are several other Supreme Court cases that have struck down similar “stop-and-identify” laws. Indeed, in Brown v. Texas, a unanimous court struck down a Texas law and stated that the Forth Amendment “requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts”. It is entirely unclear what “specific facts” police officers are going to use in Arizona to distinguish illegal immigrants from those with visas, green cards or legitimate citizens. Will it be dark skin, speaking
Spanish, paint on your clothes, cut up hands suggesting manual labor? How will that distinguish the illegal immigrant day laborer from the citizen do-it-yourselfer?

My wife has an olive complexion and tans very easily. When we travel to Spanish speaking countries, the natives often assume she is Spanish speaking, simply on the basis of her appearance. She could easily get detained in Arizona based on their new law, and not carrying a passport, might land in jail. Is this what our country has become? When are the badges going to come out?

Dr_C's avatar

@shilolo I think this is more what you had in mind.

shilolo's avatar

@Dr_C Or, for those who need it simplified a bit more, this. Everything I learned, I learned in kindergarten.

Dr_C's avatar

@shilolo +10 internets for that one. I think this is how they plan to enforce it. this, this and this however seem to sum up the mentality quite nicely.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

@shilolo I hope you’re right and the requirement isn’t upheld. But when you have a Court that just overturned decades of campaign finance law and held that corporations are now persons, I’m skeptical that they will be consistent respect judicial precedent.

ETpro's avatar

@Dr_Dredd Apparently in Republican circles “activist judge” means a judge that doesn’t act guided only by right-wing ideology.

shilolo's avatar

Well, in this case we should all breath easier. Strict constructionists like Scalia should have no problem with this issue.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

@ETpro Activist judge = one whose decisions you don’t agree with

ETpro's avatar

@shilolo I hope you are right. But didn’t the strict constitutionalist, Scalia vote with the majority in deciding corporations are people with 1st Amendment rights? We didn’t even have anything like the modern corporation when the Constitution was written. Companies operated under an individual state charter and were tightly regulated to protect the interests of the people. The Founders were not anxious to see their own version of the British East India Company take root in their new land. In 1886, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that it did “not wish to hear argument” on whether corporations were “persons” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process guarantees originally intended to safeguard the rights of emancipated slaves. It simply asserted that corporations should be treated the same as people, at least for Fourteenth Amendment purposes.

How strict constructionist is that?

mattbrowne's avatar

My kids are Americans, but I’m a German citizen. I am allowed to stay in the US for 3 months at a time without a visa but I need to carry my passport and this little slip you fill out on the airplane and that gets stamped by the US-VISIT officer. I never ever had any problems. In 2007 during our last US vacation some Kansas state trooper stopped our car on I-70. As soon as he realized my wife and I were tourists from Frankfurt, Germany they were very nice.

Nullo's avatar

The law permits the police to ask you for your papers if they catch you behaving in a criminal fashion, not if you just happen to look suspicious. In that respect, it’s rather like the way it’s legal for the cops to search your car for drugs.

Dr_C's avatar

Actually the law does not stipulate criminal behavior as a motive for requesting proof of citizenship. The basis for the request can be as simple as suspicion based on judgment and does not require a specific behavioral pattern to be proven or even witnessed.

So basically if you “look” illegal then you are presumed so until proven otherwise

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther