Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Not Letting Arizona Enforce Immigration is to Take Away Arizona's State Sovereignty


By Douglas V. Gibbs

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court ruled on Arizona's Immigration Law, and all sides think they have won something.

But when a State is sued for enforcing laws on the books, and for flexing its authorities on a concurrent issue, it places the very sovereignty of the State in danger.

Before I discuss this, I want you to remember that the federal court system has no constitutional authority to strike down State laws (or any law, for that matter). According to Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, all legislative powers are granted to the Congress. By striking down a law, the courts are acting legislatively, and therefore unconstitutionally.

Now, that said, the United States Supreme Court, yesterday, struck down Arizona's requirement for aliens to carry registration papers. They struck down the law's application of criminal penalties for employing illegal aliens, and the authorization of warrantless arrests for deportable crimes. However, all eight present justices voted to allow the mandatory immigration check requirement to go into effect.

What happened was that a federal court dictated to a State what it can and can't do regarding an issue it has authority to pursue. This means that once again the federal government has again worked to silence the States, and tell them they don't have say over anything. . . especially if the States try to do something contrary to the federal government.

That's the argument. Sure, the immigration law in Arizona mirrors the federal law, and Arizona is simply enforcing immigration laws that the federal government refuses to enforce. Therefore, the federal government has determined that Arizona is acting unconstitutionally for daring to enforce existing laws on the books.

The argument surrounds the Supremacy Clause.

First of all, the word "contrary" in that clause is about legislation. Arizona's legislation is not contrary to the laws on the books at the federal level.  Secondly, the Supremacy Clause only applies to federal laws that fall within constitutional authority.

The Constitution addresses immigration four times in its text. In Article I, Section 8 the Congress is given the authority to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." That one is about what happens after they are here, not before.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution was designed to stop the importation of new slaves, and to prohibit the immigration of people of the federal government's choosing. Too many immigrants not interested in fulfilling the American legacy were deemed as being dangerous, and could even be considered an invasion. And, after all, was it not also Constitutionally mandated that the Federal Government protect the States from invasion? (Article 4, Section 4). Sealing the border, after all, has not been just about keeping the typical illegal aliens from entering the country illegally, but also to stop those that would come into this nation from places like the Middle East to harm us.

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment demands full allegiance to the United States.

What is coming next, especially when this ruling immediately follows Obama's amnesty by fiat, will be a myriad of lawsuits.

The only sanity from the case came from Antonin Scalia's dissenting opinion in the Arizona case. He said, "If securing its territory is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent."

I agree.

I wonder if the States would have originally joined the union if they knew that down the road their sovereignty would be treated like this.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Scalia Slams Obama In His Arizona Immigration Dissent - Business Insider

No comments:

Post a Comment