The hypocrisy of 'US v. Arizona'

NY Post ^ | July 7, 2010 | Rich Lowry

[Scanian]

THE legal case against the Ari zona immigration law is unassailable. The Justice Department and the American Civil Liberties Union argue that the law impermissibly "conflicts with federal law and enforcement priorities," in the words of the ACLU suit.

And who can disagree? Clearly, Arizona's priority is to enforce the nation's immigration laws; the federal government's priority is to ignore them as much as possible. Case closed.

President Obama last week warned ominously of a "patchwork" of immigration laws arising as "states and localities go their own ways." Sanctuary cities acting in open defiance of immigration laws have never notably been the object of his wrath. (Who's to judge the good-hearted people of Berkeley?) There's only one part of the dismaying patchwork that stirs Obama's Cabinet to outrage and his attorney general to legal action -- Arizona's commitment to enforcement.

The legal fight between the federal government and Arizona will be a case of dueling insincere arguments. The federal government will pretend that it objects to Arizona supposedly creating a wholly new scheme of immigration regulation, when its real problem is that the state wants to take existing law too seriously.

Arizona will pretend that it is acting in keeping with long-standing federal intent, when its law never would have been necessary if the feds intended to enforce their own statutes.

The case against Arizona rests on "pre-emption," the notion that federal law "occupies the field" on immigration and prevents states from passing their own regulations.

[Condor51]

**** How do we overturn the years of precedent which handcuff the American people? ****

Our dilema is that we've been down this road to perdition for over 100 years.

Starting with the 'progressive' Teddy Roosevelt and his legal war against the 'Robber Barons' (if it wasn't for those Robber Barons' the USA wouldn't BE the USA.)

Then we had the 'progressive' Woodrow Wilson and his 'vision' of a One World Government (Wilson was really a hateful bigoted SOB). Thanks to 'progressives' like him we LOST our 9th and 10th Amendment rights with the 17th Amendment (adopted on April 8, 1913) and direct election of Senators. They no longer owed their allegiance to their state and protecting its Rights.

Which gets is the FDR. Another 'progressive' and the worst of the bunch. What he pulled before and during WWII should have put him in prison. While Hitler sent people to 'Death Camps', FDR just sent them to 'camps' (not only Japs were rounded up). And anyone who disagreed with FDR would 'disappear' -- like a State Dept Message Decoder employee in London who was going to give a message FDR sent to Churchill to the Republicans in Congress. The guy was 'snatched' when he stepped foot of the boat in New York and 'disappeared' (Ann Coulter - Treason).

Then came the 'progressives' on the Fed Courts and SCOTUS. They let Congress run amok with the Commerce Clause in ways that would make the Founders go ballistic. For seventy years at least Congress has played their game with the 'CC', and STILL DO, like ObamaDeathCare. Not until 'The Rehnquist Court' did SCOTUS start overturning blatantly unconstitutional Commerce Clause Laws. I won't even go into asinine rulings like Roe or Lawrence v Texas.

An aside: As Alexander Hamilton said regarding the Constitution: 'We didn't spend enough time on the Courts'.
(Boy did he ever have that right.)

So 'we've suffered a long train of abuses' [(gee, that sounds familiar ;-)], and an Amendment won't solve any of it. The Constitution and Bill of Rights need to be restored and the way things are going ... well... it won't be easy, or pretty.

[ViLaLuz]

Yep. I think the citizens hurt by non-enforcement of our federal laws have a case, too.