I know my history... and wars have consequences.
The Judge in the Arizona immigration enforcement law case today enjoined key provisions of the law from being enforced tomorrow when the law goes into effect. This was not entirely suprising, as Arizona is in the Ninth Federal Circuit, which ought to be renamed the FAIL! circuit.
To my conservative friends who are blustering and hyperventilating: Relax. No matter the outcome of this hearing, it was going to be appealed. I’m more interested in the reaction of the average joe to this, because then we will better understand if the American public will understand that their consent is no longer required by the governing, who apparently have so little respect for the rule of law that they will openly display their disrespect for the concept.
Out of all the analyses I perused today, I think Legal Insurrection had one of the better ones. I don’t know if the Professor was trying to be subtle, or if he came to the real nub of today’s decision without really noting its significance.
The result of this statutory interpretation was that the Court found the procedure — as written — to interfere with the federal immigration scheme:
“Thus, an increase in the number of requests for determinations of immigration status, such as is likely to result from the mandatory requirement that Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies check the immigration status of any person who is arrested, will divert resources from the federal government’s other responsibilities and priorities.”
Now one of the thrusts of the government’s case is that the Arizona law violates the Supremacy Clause, because immigration is a matter where Congress was explicitly given jurisdiction in the Constitution. That’s all fine and dandy, but there are only two recognized situations that I am aware of where the Supremacy Clause becomes an issue:
1. State law regulates the Federal government directly, or it discriminates against it; and
2. State law interferes with a Congressional Policy.
Any argument that rests in any fashion on what amounts to a claim that “The state law will require the Federal government to do the job it reserved to itself as an exercise of its expressly granted power, which might mean that it could expend money and other resources that it would rather spend on other priorities.” meets neither of these standards. What’s more, it demonstrates a unilateral revocation of a concept that has kept this nation from coup and overthrow for about 230 years: The rule of law.
The rule of law, put simply, is the idea that the law rules men, not other men. Because the law applies to everyone equally, everyone submits to its authority, with the belief that if it ever becomes necessary, aggrieved parties will have their day in court, and “self-help” remedies (like gunfights), which are destructive to social order, will not be necessary. By this admission in her ruling, Judge Susan Bolton fails to comprehend that the Federal Government’s desire (or lack thereof) to enforce certain laws is a factor in whether or not a state may adopt a law that is the mirror of the corresponding Federal law does irreparable violence to this notion, as well as the notion of Federalism itself. The states are supposed to be co-equal sovereigns with the Federal government, granting it authority to perform specifically enumerated tasks, the performance of which is necessary to the maintenance of a viable nation.
What happened today was that a state which is suffering from a co-equal sovereign’s utter failure to perform a task that was specifically assigned to it. That assignment was originally made because of the expectation that the Federal government would secure the nation’s borders and protect its citizens from many of the ills that an enormous influx of illegal aliens would bring. Arizona, and other border states have had an incredible burden placed on their resources as they have had to provide services for people who have no legal right to be here, and from the other associated effects such as wage depression, and the growing amount of narco-crime that has followed the influx of these criminals. [Yes, I used the word "criminals". In my Black's Law Dictionary, it still applies to people who break the law.]
If the Federal government can be so arbitrary and capricious with regard to enforcement of laws relating to a core duty it holds, then we all have reason to fear, because selective enforcement can be applied to any Federal law. If this cannot motivate the average citizen to bring real change to Federal government, then not only are we lost, but we deserve to be. If we accept lawlessness garbed in the authority and mantle of law, then we have surrendered any notion of being a free people.
And the meaning of another concept is adulterated.
So now preempt, according to this judge, means to exactly mimic?
This is utter lunacy the Fed cannot claim exclusivity in an action when their inaction causes harm. They have a positive duty to protect states from invasion. It is a core function. If they claim they don’t have enough money to do so maybe they can cut something like…oh… I don’t know…maybe the White House travel budget or Barack’s golf allowance, you know something.
They don’t have enough resources because they indulge in too many socialist redistribution plans. Those thing are expensive ask Greece if hasn’t fallen into the Aegean under the weight of all that public sector fat and debt.
I guess all that money they are using to brainwash people into thinking their health care situation is going to improve is more necessary than the the integrity of the southern border.
Oh and since when is it the exclusive right and duty of the Fed to enforce the law? Local LEO’s have always been used as adjuncts to the Federal enforcement regime haven’t they?
The “rule of law” has been so totally corrupted by this administration and by the residual judges of other “democrats” that anarchy is close at hand. This law was one of the most benign pieces of legislation that could have been passed in no way does it contravene any federal mandates it actually embraces previous federal deputation of local LEO’s to help enforce immigration law.
This is a nakedly political decision. It was meant to provoke. It has to be. No one is that dense. Of course being a Clinton appointee Bolton is probably only marginally acquainted with the constitution and the law and apparently according to, Andy McCarthy at NRO is not above twisting words and premises and misapplying precedent to get to the desired political end. Just like her patron.
Again we are the citizens here. It is OUR right to be secure in our own country. It is that right that needs to be upheld not have some invented “right” by the forces of decomposition(thank Dr Bennett) that people are allowed to come here without our consent. Remember in a vast majority of the cases of these border jumpers and invader we are subsidizing them through tax dollars they are a net drain on this economy.
Meanwhile, the scofflaws in “sanctuary” cities engage in outright disdain for the requirements and they go their merry way.
When South Carolina defied an actual Federal mandate President Jackson announced he was going to walk in a hang the first usurper he saw from the first tree he could find. This President steals more money for them from us.
By not doing it’s constitutional duty to protect the Arizona border and by creating a situation, by law suit, where Arizona cannot exercise it’s constitutional right to self defense in the absence of the REQUIRED federal response he has essentially put Arizona outside the Union.
Brewer should, in the face of this clearly egregious and lawless decision, consider something else Jackson said:
Justice Marshall has made his decision let him now enforce it.
I hear barking, Obama and the NDSWP better wake the hell up before something irreversible happens.
This is truly mind-boggling …… “sanctuary cities” ignore Federal immigration law with impunity, yet Arizona attempts to enforce a law that mirrors the Federal statute and is then sued by the Department of Injustice.
“1984″ in spades!
“If the Federal government can be so arbitrary and capricious with regard to enforcement of laws relating to a core duty it holds, then we all have reason to fear, because selective enforcement can be applied to any Federal law.”
That says it all ……. and we are well past the point where we should have been outraged by the behavior of this administration that makes it absolutely clear that they have no regard for the rule of law and intend purely selective enforcement of existing law motivated by political pandering.
We are now squarely on the road to tyranny and oppression and if the Democrats succeed in their plans for open borders to bolster their voting base of entitlement mentalities we will solidify our application for third-world status.
Barking? I detect the beginnings of an enormous, rumbling, earth-shaking roar.
Myself, I’m a huge fan of the law of unintended consequences, of which this ruling will be a case in point. The administration has gotten their “win” but in the end, they’ll lose.
2/3 of Americans supported the AZ law, especially the provisions that Bolton stopped. This is going to be yet another moment of the administration going against the will of the people, and the people will remember.
Why is the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidlago so difficult for some people to accept?
Where’s my pet troll, graybitch?
Probably face down with a ball in his mouth. He’d call, but he’s probably busy right now…
He’s been busy with conspiracy theories of Republican evil over at his newly updated “Two Useful Idiots” blog, with his only friend and village idiot assistant Yellow Dawg, threatening to banish anyone who challenges his stupidity and lies after he advertises he welcomes challenge. Graychin is nothing if not cowardly.
There was a lot of censoring, editing and modifying to catch up on as only a few fools like me, who will on occasion provide a comment demonstrating his untruthfulness and abject stupidity at his own insufferable an loathsome site.
But I always was a sucker for the unpopular kid in class with big mouth and bad attitude nobody liked.
He started seeing November from his house.
I know my history… and wars have consequences.
Ouch!