Return to Transcripts main page

Rick's List

Obama Administration Challenges Arizona's Immigration Law; Lindsay Lohan in Court

Aired July 06, 2010 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: There is so much news moving right now. And we're going to be able to take you through it.

First and foremost, I made a promise to you earlier this week that I would be taking you through the immigration law in Arizona. Well, guess what? The Obama administration is suing. They're challenging this law. I have it right here in front of me. I'm going to take you through this. And, to be fair, I'm also going to take you through the explanation being presented in Arizona as to why they need this law, both sides, and this on your LIST.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ (voice-over): Here's what's making the LIST on this day.

One of the elements for reasonable suspicion with the new Arizona law? What a person is wearing. Will that trigger a constitutional challenge?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We all want to put bad guys in jail.

SANCHEZ: Will this law be implemented?

Guess who has her day in court? Will a judge lay down the law for Lindsay Lohan?

You will hear the queen of England during this hour live from the United Nations. It hasn't happened in five decades.

And have you seen this? Talk about fireworks. Look out in "Fotos."

The lists you need to know about. Who's today's most intriguing? Who's landed on the list you don't want to be on? Who's making news on Twitter? It's why I keep a list.

Pioneering tomorrow's cutting-edge news right now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Hi, everybody. I'm Rick Sanchez. Here we go. We got a lot of stuff to get to.

First of all, the queen of England is here in the United States. This is the video just moments ago. No, these are live pictures now, we understand. She's about to address the United Nations. This is important because it's historic. This is a woman who represents 16 countries and 54 commonwealths. And she has not spoken in more than five decades to the United Nations.

So, this is critically important. We're going to be letting you hear for yourself what her majesty has to say in just a little bit.

But the big story that we have been following for you here, and, listen, folk, I will just be as transparent with you as I can be. We have got a lot of news to get in. And we are going to try to get it all in as we can as things are moving.

But the most important story affecting Americans today is the immigration law in Arizona. Why? First of all, yesterday, I began setting up the immigration law for you. I told you exactly what the argument is that's being made in Arizona.

And I know it gets complicated. But I have spent hours and hours and hours going through their explanation and I'm going to bring parts of that to you. But just as we were getting ready to bring you day two of immigration, the Obama administration has now stepped in and they have filed this lawsuit. You behind me, Robert? Which essentially says -- I mean, here it is. Look at it for yourself.

I just got it in my hands a little while ago. "The United States seeks to declare invalid the state of Arizona 1070 because it's preempted by federal law and therefore violates the supremacy clause of the United States of America."

Essentially, what they're saying is, this is not your turf, folks. A state doesn't need to go into immigration. The United States Constitution says the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters. This authority derives from the United States Constitution.

Essentially, what they're saying is it's up to the United States federal government to dictate and enforce immigration, not a state like Arizona. That's the argument. That seems to be the principal argument that they're using to sue Arizona to stop them from putting this law into the books.

And we're going to take you through all of this. But we're also going to be bringing in some of our own correspondents who are going to explain what's been going on in Washington. Among those, Jessica Yellin is going to be joining us in just a little bit. She certainly can answer some of these questions, many of these questions that you have that you have been sending to me, as well as Dan Lothian that you can see right there.

But, to be fair, once again, before I even go to them, I want to first let you hear something. There are a lot of different parts to this conversation. But one of the most important parts of this conversation is, what is it that an immigrant or a suspected immigrant can do to stop a police officer from even questioning them?

Well, let's be clear. If the person has identification on them at the time they are stopped by a police officer, there is no investigation. There is no way that you can push this thing any further. In fact, here's how it's explained by one of the Arizona officials. Let's take a listen.

Rog, roll this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BEVERLY GINN, ATTORNEY: Here's our suggestion, our recommendation to you. When you make a stop, if you have someone in your custody, you have an investigative detention, perhaps you have got to the point of probable cause and you have made an arrest, the first thing that you do as a matter of routine is ask for identification.

That's pretty much what we do in all circumstances. Not all circumstances is a person required to give you identification. But, in most circumstances, that's going to be your first question. If a person gives you identification that meets the presumptive identification under this statute -- and I will talk about what presumptive I.D. is in just a minute -- that's the end of your inquiry with regard to whether or not the person is unlawfully in the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: There is so much more to get you through on that conversation, for example, the question of what exactly a police officer has to be looking for and does that violate the Constitution?

They say no and they explain it. I'm going to bring you that and I'm going to take you through it step by step. Also, there is the question of, what are the elements that a police officer has to show? Does he need one, two, three or all of them combined?

I'm going to take you through that as well. But, first, let me bring in Dan Lothian and Jessica Yellin, our correspondents following the story.

Jessica, let me begin with you.

This action by the Obama administration, I imagine he's going to get a lot of criticism for this from a lot of politicians who don't want to come off as being soft on illegal immigrants. However, there may very well be a political motive behind this for the Obama administration.

So, I guess let me just ask the question very transparently and say, is this a political lawsuit or is this a legal lawsuit, if you get my drift?

JESSICA YELLIN, CNN NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I think that they filed this suit on the merits first and foremost, Rick. But it clearly has a lot of political benefits for them, also some political risks. But if you're talking about the benefits, it's no secret that the Latino community is -- has been outraged with the Obama administration. During the campaign, President Obama vowed to take on comprehensive immigration reform at the very beginning of his term, and he hasn't done that. I think they call it (SPEAKING SPANISH). Is that what they call it?

SANCHEZ: Yes, the promise of Obama, you're right.

(CROSSTALK)

YELLIN: Right. And so there's a lot of fury that he hasn't. And laying a clear marker on this case is certainly one way to show the Latino community that he stands with them. This is an important bloc of voters for him, for the Democrats.

But that doesn't also suggest that there's not also a law here that they want to establish and support, beyond the politics of the situation at all.

SANCHEZ: It's interesting. We're getting a couple of reactions. Man, this thing all just came to me as I was getting ready to go on the air. Let me take you through some of this.

And, Dan, I know that you're familiar with some of this as well, because there's a lot of questions as to what the motive is here. And, of course, some people are going to be questioning the motive. But let me take you through this. Here's Holder. Here's what Holder says. You ready? Robert, you want to come over my shoulder? Come on over here so we show this to the folks at home.

Attorney General Holder says setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility. Again, this goes to the supremacy argument that we were arguing, that I told you a little while ago. Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves.

All right, that's what Holder says. Holder's essentially saying, we have got to do this. Why? Because this is not the state's business. This is the federal government's business, and we don't want the states getting into the federal government's business.

OK. What does Napolitano say? Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who is from Arizona, by the way, is arguing something different. She says, we're actively working with members of Congress from both parties to comprehensively reform our immigration system, blah, blah, blah, blah.

But essentially Holder is using the supremacy argument, which says, this is not your turf, it's our turf, get out of here, Arizona. Napolitano is coming in and saying, oh, and by the way, as a caveat to that, we're coming up with our own law. We're coming up with some comprehensive reform right now. It's just a matter of time before we get it together.

There's the question to you, Dan. We have been hearing this comprehensive reform promise or (SPEAKING SPANISH) as Jessica would say, for a long time. Arizona's going to say, yes, that's all well and good, but there is no real federal immigration law with teeth. Where are you guys? And in the meantime, how dare you stop us from doing what we need to do, right?

DAN LOTHIAN, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That is the argument and certainly that's what Arizona is pushing, is that the federal government has been slow to respond at all in setting up what the president himself as then candidate Obama promised out on the campaign trail, that he would really push for comprehensive immigration reform.

What's interesting, though, Rick, is that just last week, I had some conversations with some advocates, immigration advocates. And they had been quite upset at the Obama administration for not moving forward on this issue. After meeting with the president, though, last week, it seems like they sort of backed off a little bit from the administration, now focusing instead on Capitol Hill and the Republicans that they believe have been setting up these roadblocks to immigration reform, Republicans who supported this in the past now setting up a roadblock.

So they're sort of changing their focus at who they're upset at. But, certainly, this -- that is the argument, that here is Arizona. They don't believe the federal government has done enough, so they're going to do it their own way.

The president -- I should point out, though, the president for his part has been saying that this law is just divisive, ill- conceived. And he doesn't see that there's any way that it can be enforced there on the ground.

SANCHEZ: Well, let's talk about the timetable then. Here's what's really going on here. Arizona just put out this tape which explains how this law is going to be enforced. My team and I have been going through it all day yesterday, most of today.

They're saying once their officers are all on board and everybody gets it about a month from now, this thing is going to become law, will be enforced as law. The Obama administration wants to stop that from happening. In other words, Jessica, it's much like a TRO, right, like a temporary restraining order.

We want to stop you, stay you before this thing actually gets into the books and starts getting enacted and enforced.

YELLIN: Well, they haven't actually -- I'm told, in this document, they don't actually ask for an injunction. But we expect them to. And the request is essentially to preempt it before it even goes into effect and exactly nullify that so it can't happen. That would be up to a judge, though, if it were to happen, Rick. We won't know.

SANCHEZ: But there's no way -- in other words, there's no way that a judge or a court is going to look at this in its entirety and make a decision over the next 20 days. That would be unprecedented, right? YELLIN: They could just freeze it temporarily, for example, right.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Yes, which is most likely what we're going to do. There is so much to get to.

I want to let you hear in their own -- because so many people who follow this story don't look at the exact law and don't look at the explanation of the law. I'm not going to let that happen here on RICK'S LIST. We're going to take you through what the law says and what police officials, the state board, Az POST in Arizona, are saying why they need to do this and how they're going to enforce it.

I'm going to take you step by step through this, so you're not missing that information, rather than just give you the headlines. I'm also going to read to you from the Obama administration's lawsuit, which explains why they think that it doesn't work when we let states regulate immigration.

I have it all highlighted for you. And I'm going to take you through the main points. That's just part of our newscast today, obviously, a very big part.

The other story we're following is the queen of England. When we come back, you may be able to hear from her live at the United Nations.

Stay right there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Welcome back. By the way, I told you moments ago that we're going to be covering extensively everything having to do with the Arizona law and we will in just a moment.

Before we do that, though, once again, I want to let you know that we're not just going to say that the Obama administration's suing and that the Arizona law is such and such. No, we're going to take you through in the words of Arizona officials what their intent is and how they want to enforce this law and what the questions are, what may work, what may not work.

I'm going to have a law professor here who's going to take you through some of the constitutional issues. We're going to be talking to police officers. We're going to talk to our own correspondents, and we're going to let you hear from Arizona officials themselves. We're going to cover this story as transparently and as completely as we can. My staff and I for the last two days have been going through every part of this explanation and we will bring to it you.

But first we go to the United Nations for what is going to be a historic event. The queen of England is about to address the United Nations, something that she hasn't done in, well, something like five decades. These are live pictures now from the United Nations. Her majesty was last there in 1952. Now, this is a very important event, because this is a woman who is the head of -- think about how many people address the United Nations that have this much direct or indirect power. She's the head of state of 16 countries and the head of 54 different commonwealths.

Roger Clark is good enough to join me now. He's going to be doing a little analysis as we get ready to hear from the queen.

Is this -- I imagine, as interested as we are in the United States, all over the world, this is a very important event.

ROGER CLARK, CNN ASSIGNMENT EDITOR: Well, you're quite right, because, as you said, the queen is the head of state of 16 countries around the world, countries like Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Jamaica, Tuvalu. I'm sure you knew that.

(LAUGHTER)

CLARK: And she's also head of the Commonwealth. And the Commonwealth is made up of 54 countries, largely countries which were once part of the British Empire.

SANCHEZ: Give me some examples of the commonwealths.

CLARK: Oh, Pakistan, India, South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, 54 countries around the world, two billion people, which represents a third of -- or, rather -- yes, a third of the population of the world.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Those are the inhabitants of the Commonwealth or the countries that she represents?

CLARK: Yes, of the 54 countries that are in the Commonwealth, that's two billion people, a third of the world's population. So, yes, there will be a lot of interest around the world in what her majesty has to say.

SANCHEZ: Does her majesty give a speech like the rest of the politicians in this country and in England and everywhere else in the world that, no matter how much they try to remain apolitical, you know there's always the politics inside of it? Or will this not be a political speech?

CLARK: Well, I can guarantee it will not be a political speech, because the queen...

SANCHEZ: Really?

CLARK: The queen is above politics and she's remained above politics since she ascended the throne in February...

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: What does that mean, to be above politics?

CLARK: Well, she doesn't get involved in political squabbling. The governments of her 16 countries are her governments in 16 countries and she has prime ministers to run her governments for her. She doesn't get involved in politics.

She's a constitutional monarch. Constitutional monarchs don't that. So she's above politics. And there you can see her majesty at the United Nations just preparing for the first speech that she's given there since 1957.

SANCHEZ: Oh, there we go.

CLARK: It's a long time. And I should imagine there's nobody in that conference hall today who was there back in 1957. That's Ban Ki- Moon talking now, the secretary-general.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

And as we do this -- we have got the shot up full now -- I understand -- do we have Richard Roth?

Richard, Ban Ki-Moon is going to be introducing her. Then we're going to hear from the queen, right?

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR U.N. CORRESPONDENT: That's right. Ban Ki-Moon is speaking right now. He just said in effect to the queen, he said -- he noted the challenges from the Cold War to global warming, he said, from the Beatles to Beckham, from television to Twitter, through the years, you have travelled the world and met its people. You have become a living symbol of grace, constancy and dignity.

SANCHEZ: Wow.

Let's listen in. Let's hear the intro and then we will hear from the queen. We are all plugging out, so you can plug in.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

BAN KI-MOON, UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL: ... and prosperity.

With you at the helm, the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth have contributed immensely to the United Nations. Today, the four largest providers of U.N. peacekeeping troops are Commonwealth countries.

Around the world, you're working with us to force the development, advance human rights, and promote global security. In September, we will gather to advance this mission further still by pushing for progress towards the millennium development goals.

This is a blueprint of the world's leaders to save lives of the poor and vulnerable, to combat hunger and disease, to promote gender equality, and to provide education, opportunity and decent work to billions of people.

We will once again heed your call and devote our full strength to the ideals of our charter and to realizing a better world for all.

Your Majesty, for your deep dedication to the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, to the United Nations and our common values, we say, thank you and welcome. We wish you continued good health. And we are happy to have you -- hear you today. Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have the honor to invite Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to address the U.N. Assembly.

QUEEN ELIZABETH II, UNITED KINGDOM: Mr. President, Secretary General, members of the General Assembly, I believe I was last here in 1957.

Since then, I have traveled widely and met many leaders, ambassadors and statesmen from around the world.

I address you today as queen of 16 United Nations member states and as head of the Commonwealth of 54 countries.

I have also witnessed great change, much of it for the better, particularly in science and technology and in social attitudes. Remarkably, many of these sweeping advances have come about not because of governments, committee resolutions, or central directives, although all these have played a part, but instead because millions of people around the world have wanted them.

For the United Nations, these subtle yet significant changes in people's approach to leadership and power might have foreshadowed failure and demise. Instead, the United Nations has grown and prospered by responding and adapting to those shifts.

But, also, many important things have not changed. The aims and values which inspired the United Nations Charter endure, to promote international peace, security and justice, to relieve and remove the blight of hunger, poverty and disease, and to protect the rights and liberties of every citizen.

The achievements of the United Nations are remarkable.

When I was first here, there were just three United Nations operations overseas. Now over 120,000 men and women are deployed in 26 missions across the world.

You have helped to reduce conflict, you have offered humanitarian assistance to millions of people affected by natural disasters and other emergencies, and you have been deeply committed to tackling the effects of poverty in many parts of the world.

But so much remains to be done. Former Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold once said that constant attention by a good nurse may be just as important as a major operation by a surgeon. Good nurses get better with practice. Sadly, the supply of patients never ceases.

This September, leaders will meet to agree how to achieve the millennium development goals, when each nation will have its own distinctive contribution to make.

New challenges have also emerged which have tested this organization as much as its member states. One such is the struggle against terrorism. Another challenge is climate change, where careful account must be taken of the risks faced by smaller, more vulnerable nations, many of them from the Commonwealth.

Mr. President, I started by talking about leadership.

I have much admiration for those who have the talent to lead, particularly in public service and in diplomatic life. And I congratulate you, your colleagues and your predecessors on your many achievements.

It has perhaps always been the case that the waging of peace is the hardest form of leadership of all. I know of no single formula for success, but over the years I have observed that some attributes of leadership are universal, and are often about finding ways of encouraging people to combine their efforts, their talents, their insights, their enthusiasm and their inspiration, to work together.

Since I addressed you last, the Commonwealth, too, has grown vigorously to become a group of nations representing nearly two billion people. It gives its wholehearted support to the significant contributions to the peace and stability of the world made by the United Nations and its agencies.

Last November, when I opened the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Trinidad and Tobago, I told the delegates that the Commonwealth had the opportunity to lead. Today, I offer you the same message. For over six decades, the United Nations has helped to shape the international response to global dangers. The challenge now is to continue to show this clear and convening leadership, while not losing sight of your ongoing work to secure the security, prosperity and dignity of our fellow human beings.

When people in 53 years from now look back on us, they will doubtless view many of our practices as old-fashioned, but it is my hope that, when judged by future generations, our sincerity, our willingness to take a lead, and our determination to do the right thing will stand the test of time.

In my lifetime, the United Nations has moved from being a high- minded aspiration to being a real force for common good. That of itself has been a signal achievement.

But we are not gathered here to reminisce. In tomorrow's world, we must all work together as hard as ever if we are truly to be United Nations.

(APPLAUSE)

SANCHEZ: Watch to see the ovation there at the United Nations General Assembly.

The queen, no puffery. There's her husband, his royal highness, the duke of Edinburgh. And, as we continue, I was interested in what she said, Roger Clark, at the very end. She seemed to be giving a wholehearted endorsement of the United Nations, and almost a quick summary and history in historic form of where they were and where they are now.

CLARK: Yes.

I mean, she talks about, in my lifetime, the United Nations has gone from being a high-minded aspiration to a force for common good. So, what she's saying is, she's lived through the lifetime, pretty much the whole lifetime, of the United Nations. She -- she talked about the work that the United Nations has done in helping people in need around the world, in trying to reduce conflict around the world.

She talked about how, when she addressed the United Nations in 1957, there were three U.N. operations overseas, and then talked about how there are now 120,000 men and women working in 26 missions.

But she also talked about the challenges ahead for the United Nations in particularly climate change. The queen is passionate about the subject of climate change.

And, of course, some Commonwealth countries are more affected by that than others -- so, a speech very much sort of reminiscing a little bit about the fact that it is such a long time since she was there, and she talked a little bit how to world has changed. And you heard Richard Roth earlier sort of putting into context the last 57 years.

SANCHEZ: I want to go back to Richard because he covers the United Nations regularly, and I'm interested, Richard. Here you have certainly one of the most important persons, if not women, in the entire world, giving a wholehearted seal of approval to the United Nations and its efforts while we hear from many politically here in this country that the United Nations has lived its -- outlived its efficacy at this point, outlived its need, its use.

How are some people going to put those two together?

ROTH: Well, the United States also has people who support the United Nations. We may get a one-sided view at times here, but the United Nations is viewed outside of the USA borders as something more important, despite all its problems at times.

I think what was refreshing -- and I have heard many speeches in my years here -- this was a queen, yes, but in a way, an outsider, someone offering a fresh, if you may, with a gap of over 50 years, a fresh perspective, not lecturing, but words that we don't often hear from the roster of the General Assembly, someone who has lived through much of history, and telling history and telling leaders of the commonwealth nations and others how to care for their people and how the world has indeed changed, but some values have not. We don't often hear that at the United Nations. No one's trying to be a cheerleader here, but the U.N. General Assembly room could use a sweeping change regarding attitudes and stop being so inclusive in that hall and be more relative to the real world that is out there.

The queen has certainly seen a lot more than these dodgy delegates sent from capitals and who tend to lose touch with what's going on back home for the people outside their limousines.

SANCHEZ: Interesting. Roger, go ahead.

CLARK: I was going to say, Richard says many speeches at the United Nations over the years, and so many of them are incredibly predictable. Politicians, presidents come there and say absolutely what you expect them to.

The queen's speech today was very different. It was reflective, but it also spoke about the challenges for the future. I can tell you that speech wasn't written by a government. It was written by her and her advisers. That's quite unusual for the queen to be so hands-on in writing a speech.

But it was written by Buckingham Palace. It was written by the queen who had a big hand in that speech. And then it was circulated around her 16 prime ministers around the world and the senior officials in the commonwealth.

But that was very much the queen speaking and very much a speech that one would expect from a queen who, as I said earlier, is above politics.

SANCHEZ: My thanks to both --

CLARK: Makes you think, though, doesn't it?

SANCHEZ: I will tell you this. I think most Americans like myself are fascinated anytime we get a glimpse at what we -- we've never had royalty or anything that comes close to it, although we like to talk about different political families that have come close to it, but we don't have that.

When we see the queen, I think we are as curious as much as we marvel in it. But I think for most American, getting a chance to see her there and the expressions and the question I asked you as I was listening, it's probably the kind of questions people were asking themselves at home -- why does she always wear a hat?

CLARK: The queen's always wore a hat. Although, when I met the queen, she wasn't wearing a hat. She was inside. But when she's outside, she always wears a hat.

SANCHEZ: It's what she does.

CLARK: It's what she does. I presume when Prince Charles becomes the king, he won't wear a hat.

(LAUGHTER)

SANCHEZ: I suppose not. Richard, go ahead, get in here.

ROTH: In the General Assembly hall, one diplomat e-mailed me to say it was an air of electricity as she walked in the General Assembly despite the World Cup semifinal being played, was packed.

And this is what's supposed to happen. It used to happen after World War II with an important world leader coming into the august historic General Assembly hall. I'm not going to say things have gotten a little bit blase, but Roger talked about it being predictable many of the speeches.

We've had the president of Iran here. The speeches he's given for the last four or five years, they could have all been mixed up in read in different years and would have almost said the same thing.

I think the queen's words will be heartfelt, but how do you get that message to the world leaders? You heard this so-called millennium development goals, a very boring title. This is world leaders who a few years ago promised to effect major dramatic changes in reducing poverty, helping education, health standards around the world. Predictable they're behind those standards. The queen is giving it a little royal push there.

SANCHEZ: Richard Roth, my thanks to you for following so diligently all things United Nations. I think Roger, you wanted to put a period at the end of our sentences?

CLARK: Yes, just to say that I'm with you in Atlanta. Richard Roth is at the United Nations in the CNN office there. But Richard Quest was actually in the room to hear the queen make that speech, so hopefully you'll be talking to him a little bit later because he would have experienced the atmosphere and the feeling inside that chamber when her majesty made her speech.

SANCHEZ: As Richard would say, it's all but guaranteed! Yes, we've booked him and he's going to come up in just a little bit.

I should tell you that there are other stories that we're following for you, and one of them has to do with another foreign dignitary who found themselves in our country today.

This is important. You, like me, have heard all the comments about the president of the United States and the prime minister of Israel not getting along. As a matter of fact, some have said there has never been such a strained relationship between a president and the Israeli leader as there has been with Netanyahu and President Obama.

The two men today got together, had a meeting, and you should see the video that we were just able to turn around moments ago that almost goes right to the point, or the accusation, I should say, that these two men don't get along. You must -- if you see nothing else, you must watch this. Also, the very latest on the immigration law in Arizona which is being challenged now officially as of about an hour before we went on the air, challenged now officially by the Obama administration. We have every part of this story and we'll bring it to you as transparently as we possibly can. We'll see you after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: It's the Obama administration versus the state of Arizona, and specifically the governor of Arizona who's the one who signed this into law. There you see Eric Holder as he was explaining it today.

But now I understand Governor Jan Brewer has just tweeted -- we keep a list of all relevant tweets and we bring them to you as we see them. Here we go. She says, "Look, we're going to be very aggressive in defending our law." And then she asks for a donation to help keep AZ safe.

I want to bring you a couple of things. First of all, I want to bring you up to date on the fact that, again, if you're just now joining us, the United States of America under the administration of President Obama, is suing the state of Arizona, saying that the state of Arizona has no business trying to dictate or enforce or make law about immigration because this, that I hold in my hand, says that that is something where the federal government has supremacy.

In other words, this is something the federal government is supposed to do, not the state of Arizona.

The state of Arizona for its part has presented a video that explains how they are going to do this in a very just and fair way that in no way violates the Constitution, the constitutional rights of its citizens, or of any of the suspected illegal immigrants. That's essentially the gist of this.

I want to bring you a couple of different arguments that they make. Maybe the first one that I should bring you -- I made these notes as I was watching this video, and I want you to watch this because this is important.

This is going to cut three, guys, in the control room. The very first part of this -- no, I'm changing my mind, sorry. I want to see cut two. This one goes about two minutes.

Let me explain this as I understand it, as it's being explained by police officers in Arizona. A police officer can arrest a person in three ways. He can make a consensual arrest. That's when you happen to be walking down a sidewalk and you bump into someone and you make the decision that you're going to enact this law or any law for that matter.

The third one is a lawful stop -- something is wrong with their car, perhaps the headlight is out or something. And the third is a lawful arrest. You have a consensual, you have a lawful stop, or you have a lawful arrest. This law, as they explain it in Arizona, you cannot arrest someone or question them about their legal status in the United States under a consensual stop. It has to be in regard to something else that you've witnessed -- a legal stop or a legal arrest. So of the three, you can only do it on number two or number three.

Understanding that, now listen to how it's explained by Arizona's legal officials. Here it is. Play it, Roger.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: For any lawful stop, detention, or arrest, in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance -- so understand that where 1051 begins for us is when we've stopped or detained someone because we have reasonable suspicion that that person has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is preparing to commit a crime.

That's the initiation of the application of 1051. The reasonable suspicion applies initially, obviously, to the commission of the crime.

If in the course then of investigating that crime you develop reasonable suspicion to believe -- and here's the language of the statute -- "reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States."

Understand now, we're talking about separate reasonable suspicion. We have reasonable suspicion that the crime has occurred or is occurring, may occur, for which we've made the initial stop or the investigatory detention.

Now we're developing reasonable suspicion to believe that a person is in the United States unlawfully. You have to understand in these circumstances that what we're talking about is separate reasonable suspicion. When we talk about reasonable suspicion as law enforcement officers, we clearly understand what we're talking about.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Yes, Roger, stop it right there, because I want to make this point right here. And I think this is important. We've been studying this, and I'm going to be talking to a lawyer in just a moment, a constitutional lawyer who's going to hopefully shed some light on this.

But did you hear what she just said there? There are two reasonable suspicions that they are going to be dealing with here. Follow me here. I was confused when I first heard it too, but then I started asking questions and listening to her carefully.

The first reasonable suspicion is a reasonable suspicion that a crime may have been committed of any kind. In other words, someone did something that makes the police officer stop them and investigate them for that crime.

Then in the commission of investigating them for that crime, crime "a," suddenly they start to wonder if this person is an illegal immigrant as well. That is crime "b," and they need reasonable suspicion for that as well.

And then she goes on to explain what the reasonable suspicions are for crime "b," or what the elements are of that reasonable suspicion. And I'm going to be taking you through those in just a little bit.

Let's take a break right now. When we come back, the latest on this. Also, the president of the United States meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and, well, how that went. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: So much to talk about and so little time. One quick note on the Arizona law -- and again, we're going to let them explain to you, Arizona officials, how the law is used.

You saw right there what Arizona law officials are saying. Look, if a person has ID, we're not asking any more questions. We're walking away if they have a proper government ID.

And also, we're not going to go around looking for people who look like they're illegal aliens. The only way we're going to challenge someone on their status or their legality is if they've been stopped for something else. That's what she was explaining moments ago.

Now, within that, there are still questions that are being raised. I'll just give you one example before we move on here. One of those is some of the things that they say can be used as, quote, elements of suspicion, or if a vehicle is overcrowded, if they're dressed a certain way, if they have difficulty speaking English.

Now, certainly that might raise some constitutional questions, and, in fact, as we go back to the statute being raised by the Obama administration or the lawsuit that has been presented by the Obama administration, they do question some of those things, and I'm going to take you through those in just a little bit.

First, though, what we do here every day and you ask us to is part of "RICK'S LIST" as important as anything else. When I give you the weirdest and coolest videos of the day, Fourth of July means fireworks -- I wouldn't be showing you fireworks right now if it wasn't something that certainly had, well, a lot of folks wondering what happened?

Here now, "Fotos del Dia."

"Rockets' red glare"? Everywhere except straight up. Our iReporter in Illinois said he knew something was amiss when the rockets started flying sideways and bouncing off the ground. Then panicked screams drowned out the "oohs" and the "ahs." Let's listen, shall we?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) (SHOUTING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Yes, you could tell, no "oohs" and "ahs" there. Seems like a box of fireworks fell over and went off by accident. That's an Independence Day to remember.

OK, here's another one. Wait for the music, please.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Yes! Didn't expect that, did you? This is kind of funny and kind of not funny. These are Israeli soldiers. That;s right, Netanyahu comes to America, we show you the video he maybe doesn't want you to see.

They're obviously having some fun, and good for them for making a video that's gone viral. The problem is these guys might be in trouble for goofing around while on patrol in Hebron, one of the most dangerous and volatile places in the Middle East. Come on, give them a break. Israeli army commandos are clearly not amused.

Last one. Forget soccer. Who understands that? This is a real sport. It's called "wife carrying," and nowhere on earth do they take it more seriously than in Finland, where the world championship went down this weekend for the 15th straight year.

The grand prize is the wife's weight in beer. There you go, guys. Sadly, any dignity lost is gone forever.

(LAUGHTER)

You can see all of our photos every single day on my blog. And what is it? It's CNN.com/RickSanchez.

On top of the queen being in the United States, Netanyahu being with President Obama, and everything going on in Arizona, we have another story we're following. In fact, we've been following it live all day, and it has to do with, you guessed it, Lindsey Lohan in court again. What will the judge do to her this time?

We'll take you through it. In fact, we might be able to dip in and let you see it for yourself. Talk about an "ooh" and an "ah."

This is your national conversation. I'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: I'm getting so many tweets on this day on so many stories, but I promised you moment ago I was going to bring you the latest on what's going on between our president and the prime minister of Israel.

So here we go, the time to check your list now, the intriguing people in the news today.

You heard his name all day long. He's visiting the United States. He met face to face with President Obama at the White House. He's hoping for help doing the same with his number one rival. Born in Israel, went to high school in Pennsylvania. Did you know that? Eventually he got a masters degree at MIT, and then back to his country and a career in politics.

That's him right there. He is the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Now here's the story. At the moment he's not holding face to face talks with his Palestinian counterparts. The peace process is stalled. Mr. Obama said he is not happy with that. Prime Minister Netanyahu is not saying he wants to change that.

CNN is committed to the story. Benjamin Netanyahu is Larry King's guest tomorrow night right here on CNN. But today on our show, "RICK'S LIST," he is by far the most intriguing person in the news today.

Could what you're wearing get you arrested in Arizona, and what legal leg does the Justice Department really have to challenge the Arizona immigration law in the first place?

The stock markets around the world are rallying today, trying to stop this double dip thing that we've all been talking about. Stay right there. So much news, so little time. This is "RICK'S LIST."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu had this joint news conference today, and they made it sound like no two leaders in the history of the world have gotten along better than these two guys.

But many of you tweeting are saying you didn't buy it. I just want to show you one of those. Listen to this. A very regular Twitterer -- "Netanyahu leaning forward, Obama leaning back -- they're not getting along. But they will stay together for the kids' sake."

(LAUGHTER)

I thought that was very creative.

Alison Kosik will join us now talking about the economy. The Dow has been down so often recently, if it continues that way in the next couple of days, we could be looking at a double dipper. But something else happened today against that, right?

ALISON KOSIK, CNNMONEY.COM: Yes. We started really strong Rick. We started out with a huge rally, getting up to 172 on the DOW. It looks like we're still going to end in positive territory. We did watch this rally fizzle out a lot because it's really about reality setting in. There are ongoing concerns this economic recovery is getting weaker.

The DOW is up 58 points, though, and once again we're breaking that losing streak. That's great news, Rick.