Posted on 07/10/2010 10:35:17 AM PDT by Sense
The feds claim that Arizona oversteps its bounds because its law "pursues only one goal--'attrition' "--at the expense of others, such as concentrating enforcement on the most dangerous aliens, protecting the rights of asylum seekers, and maintaining amity with Mexico and other foreign countries.
The real issue in this case is not whether the federal government has the power to pre-empt Arizona's immigration law, as it asserts in the lawsuit. It unquestionably does. The question is whether Washington has properly exercised that power.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
The real issue here is not whether the federal government has the power to pre-empt Arizona's immigration law, as it asserts in the lawsuit. It unquestionably does NOT have the right to pre-empt Arizona law, as there is no CONFLICT between the Arizona law and the Federal law... so there is not even standing that exists to enable the assertion of a Federal privilege in pre-emption... and it cannot be claimed that an UNJUST assertion of (or the unjust failure to assert) Federal power, that is not only outside the law, but in direct contradiction of it, can create or justify any superior Federal power or right.
To find as the WSJ advocates, would be to choose to change the much more fundamental requirement that the laws be "well and faithfully executed" into an issue of convenience and whim, in essence, making Federal government enforcement of any or all of our laws a purely "voluntary" affair.
Instead, whatever it is that is motivating Arizona's choices, the PROBLEM is a failure of the government in PURPOSEFULLY failing to "well and faithfully" enforce the laws of the United States... which Arizona's decision to re-enforce the "Federal effort" in enforcement makes all too clear.
The question becomes, does the Federal government have the full right to choose to NOT "well and faithfully execute the laws of the United States"? If the Federal government has that power, where in the Constitution has that right to act outside of the law been surrendered by the people and the states to the Federal government ?
The right context in which to view this conflict as it is going to court is to ask: "Which OTHER laws of the United States do you think it would be quite alright for the Federal government to choose to not enforce, in the extra-legal interest of "maintaining amity with foreign countries"?
If the Chinese find our laws against piracy or our anti-dumping trade laws annoying... or if the Russians, along with the Democrats, dislike some of Rush Limbaugh's opinions enough to want them surpressed, and see no reason why the law should protect free speech, and see no obstacle exists to prevent them from "failing" in having THOSE laws be "well and faithfully executed" ?
If there is a problem with the law that concerns the Executive enough for them to seek it be changed... that does not change the fact that Congress, and only Congress, can change it.
To advocate any other policy, such as here, with the WSJ advocating for enabling a policy of willfull disregard for the law by the Executive, through enabling their choice of purposeful failure in its execution, only as that law is not to their liking, is to obviate the meaning of the law... and not only the immigration law.
And where are the Feds going after cities and localities that pass “sanctuary” laws which, unlike the Arizona law, directly defy and contradict federal law?
We will witness in the next decade or two the break up of the United Soviet States. Socialism is an unsustainable economic model doomed to failure. A nation “not defined by its borders” is doomed to collapse.
Taranto is an open-borders and anti-birther RINO. I cancelled WSJ after reading it for years. They were always pro-amnesty but they are worse now. Investors Business Daily is so much better.
For AZ to exercise their right to protect its citizens is must organize their own Militia like the Texas Rangers. They have this right according to the Constitution. Then use the Militia to patrol near the border so as not to interfere with the Border Patrol. The Militia should have all authority to even shoot direct threats. The Militia must have the right to destroy gangs and drug cartels within their border. The Militia should have the protection of the Governor and their Justice Department.
We need to start the montra that to secure our borders and enforce current immigration laws. I am sick and tired of hearing ‘secure the borders first and then we can have comprehensive immigration reform(code word for amnesty.
I don’t have any problem with thinking that we SHOULD have a fairly liberal immigration policy. I do recognize that enabling the government in choosing, as they are, to implement the policy that they want, even though that policy violates the law... makes the issue in question about something ELSE that is VASTLY more important than what the immigration law “is”...
Are we a nation of laws... or not.
Does the Constitution matter... or not.
Those two questions are the same, of course.
I agree with others on the implication... that either Arizona will succeed in forcing the Federal government to respect the laws of the United States... or the United States government will prove that it operates outside the law, and has ceased to serve a purpose that is relevant to the people...
While I agree with what you said, I think the author's point is very valid and perceptive. Everything with Obama is about expanding the power of the executive.
The Feds haven't been enforcing the deportation part of the law for ages, even before Obama, but I have always had a feeling that this was an agency decision rather than a conscious policy. I'm sure the upper echelon of the INS or whatever they're calling it these days is stuffed with raving liberals.
But with Obama, I think we are seeing a conscious policy, and I think the Federal challenge to this law, even the fact that it is based on "usurpation of powers," shows that the thing in the WH is annoyed at having his will challenged.
Ping!
I think they should have a facefoff at the OK Corral.
I do think there are a number of other steps Arizona might take.
The Governor might declare that Arizona is being subjected to a purposeful foreign invasion... which is true... and send a message to the President that declares that invasion is an state and national security emergency. Arizona should demand, using the tools that the Constitution provides, that the Federal government protect its borders...
I do believe that States have both the right and the responsibility to defend themselves from foreign invasion... which is not a right which is pre-empted by any Federal failures to provide for a proper common defense...
I mentioned on another post to somebody a few days ago that the talk in Arizona should be about SECESSION. That talk will spread to other states, maybe 13 or 14. The law and the constitution are not being followed. That’s our country’s breakdown.
The essence of Obama’s legal argument is that his discretion and policies as “President” supersede valid state laws. If he wins, we really will have an imperial national leader, not a president as defined in the Constitution.
As long as the feds are allowing sanctuary cities they shouldn’t have any standing here otherwise preference is given to some states over others. Of course, the 0bama admin would ignore it even if these sanctuary states/cities were breaking the law.
Cindie
The question is - Will Brewer stick to her guns and give real Americans an opportunity to defend, in whatever way necessary, AZ against this completely corrupt White House? - IMHO.
The Arizona law does not in any way mention immigration. Arizona is not setting new standards or procedures for foreign citizens to become naturalized. That is still a federal power.
Arizona is simply asking: Are you a citizen? If not, you’re outta here, as per the federal law.
Instead, Arizona faces an entire slate of mandates and traditions, both written and unwritten, concerning invasion. What powers and rights does a sovereign state have when faced with an outright invasion from another sovereign body? We know the feds are dropping the ball on this one, so what can the state do?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.