Posted on 07/24/2010 9:35:19 PM PDT by This Just In
July 24, 2010
Federal Failure and Arizona
By Anthony W. Hager
Now that the federal government has formally filed suit to block Arizona's efforts to identify illegal aliens, the emotional rhetoric that has controlled the debate should take a backseat to reality. The Justice Department claims that Arizona has usurped the federal government's authority over immigration and naturalization (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sect. 8) and the Constitution's supremacy clause (Art. VI).
Odd how Washington becomes concerned with the constitutional delegation of authority only when federal power is challenged. There was little interest in the Constitution's assigned powers when Congress passed the health care bill. Constitutional authority isn't mentioned when card check is debated, or when Social Security and Medicare are discussed. However, despite its disdain for the document by which it is supposed to abide, the federal government seems to be on solid constitutional footing this time.
Congress has the authority to "establish an uniform rule of naturalization." The reason the Founders granted this power to Congress was to avoid conflicts and wars with neighboring nations. John Jay argued in Federalist No. 3 that border states, the ones most likely to be affected by immigration and border disputes, were inclined to act "under the impulse of sudden irritation." Therefore, national control of the international borders provided a greater opportunity for sustained peace.
Alexander Hamilton affirms Jay's testimony in Federalist No. 32. Hamilton contends, quite logically, that if each state enacts individual naturalization laws, then the "uniform rule" demanded in Article I, Section 8 is impossible. Thus, legislative authority over the borders, immigration, and naturalization belongs to the United States government. This power, being granted to the national government, is naturally denied to the states.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
BS, the states have every right to enforce federal law and if they pass a law identical to the feds it is constitutional. The feds are barking up the wrong tree here and need to be slapped down.
I want the author to explain how Arizona is enacting an individual naturalization law by enforcing the Federal law.
Well, if *THEY* aren't going to lead then either follow, or get the heck outta the way...
the infowarrior
As we all know, one of our Federal governments duties is to protect our borders, which this administration is not. And I must say that our previous administration was derelict as well.
Our states have a Constitutional right as well to protect their borders.
This crisis isn’t so cut-and-dry. There is a challenge, which is to say that American citizens have a right to privacy. To arbitrarily violate that right by way of suspicion is venturing into dangerous waters (Think Nazi, Germany). Protectionism is a key component to Socialize/Communism. And yet, we have our current illegal immigration problem.
Gov. Brewer’s hand was forced, but this is a dangerous situation in which the solutions are not easily resolved. Well, not in this day anyway.
Socialize = Socialism
Posted earlier today about ranches being taken over in Texas.
Los Zetas Drug Cartel Seizes 2 Ranches in Texas
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2558447/posts
BREAKING: Multiple Ranches in Laredo Texas Taken Over By Los Zetas
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2558294/posts
But of course, when Obama’s on their side.
Obama is the worst threat to this country in its history.
I won’t even attend parties anymore where Obama supporters are present. I consider them traitors and complicit in the destruction of the US.
The feds are better able to control the border, even though they haven’t, but even if they wanted to provide for interior enforcement, they would fail. State and local law enforcement is much better prepared to perform interior enfocement, especially thru AB 1070 type laws.
As president, he is surely the most dangerous threat to our sovereignty, as well as the other liberal politicians.
Don't be silly. The law mirrors federal law. No one will be asked about their legality to be here unless they break some other law first. No one is going to be arbitrarily asking people for ID.
I think you have distilled the whole issue. The Feds ARE better able to control the border. Once the illegals are past the Feds, the interior law enforcement personnel are the most likely to apprehend and hold the illegals for the Feds. And THAT is why the libs hate the ARIZONA law!
How far will all this be allowed to go?
Parts of AZ are now Mexican controlled as well as some Texas ranches...
.
OT: By the way, Houston museum’s ‘corpe flower’ is blooming.
Live Cam:
http://www.hmnsmedia.org/CorpseFlower/
Time laspe of blooming: ( the vid runs thru once before it’s visable)
http://www.chron.com/video/?248171451001
Sorry to continue on the thread hijack (no offense patriot08) but did you hear that a couple was being married there this weekend and the stench of that flower was making them reconsider / relocate?
This is exactly to the point. If AZ was trying to make its own immigration law, the feds would have a case against the state. But since the AZ law is identical to the federal law, the only argument the feds can come up with is that the states are not allowed to enforce federal law. That is patently absurd, since the Fed govt expects states to enforce federal laws and mandates all the time. The notion that states are not to enforce federal law is simply bizarre.
What hijack? It was an interesting note. :)
They couple went through with the wedding.
If that is the case, do the Feds have even the slightest scintilla of a clue how dangerous to Federal Control that argument is?
“No one is going to be arbitrarily asking people for ID.”
You forgot to add the “...by way of suspicion”, which qualifies the statement.
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.