Fish Wrap Of Record Goes All Constitutiony Over Arizona Lawsuit

How much do you want to bet the NY Times editorial board would not be quite so charitable were it the Bush DoJ suing a state over a Constitutional issue – The Constitution Trumps Arizona

The Obama administration has not always been completely clear about its immigration agenda, but it was forthright Tuesday when it challenged the pernicious Arizona law that allows the police to question the immigration status of people they detain for local violations. Only the federal government can set or enforce immigration policy, the government said in its lawsuit against the state, and “Arizona has crossed this constitutional line.”

There is nothing terribly complicated about this principle, which is based on several aspects of the Constitution, acts of Congress, and Supreme Court decisions over the years. A patchwork of state and local immigration policies would cause havoc.

I wonder if someone from the Fish Wrap could explain the 9th and 10th Amendments, then? I’ll wait while they frantically search for a copy of the US Constitution. Oh, and while they are at it, perhaps they could look at this paragraph in Article VI, which I have mentioned a few times previously

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Hmm, funny how the Times fails to mention that all these folks must follow the laws, and that the Federal government is not fully upholding its job to “repel Invasions” as set forth in another section of that pesky Constitution, not to mention barely following federal immigration law as it is.

As the Justice Department points out in its complaint, the Arizona law will divert resources from the government’s pursuit of dangerous aliens, including terrorists, spies and violent criminals. It will harass authorized immigrants, visitors and citizens who might not be carrying their papers when stopped by the police. It will ignore the country’s cherished protections of asylum and will interfere with national foreign policy interests. (Already several Mexican governors are refusing to meet with their American counterparts in Arizona, a sign of the diplomatic disarray produced by the law.)

No one ever said the job of government and law enforcement was easy. Hey, the Times is failing to mention that Rhode Island has had this exact same law for years. I wonder why? Oh, BTW, Fish Wrap? Federal law requires legal visitors to our country to have their “papers” on them at all times. Shocker!

Though private lawsuits have done so, the government’s suit does not allege any discrimination or civil rights violations in the law, in part because that case is difficult to make until the law goes into effect on July 29.

So, Obama, Holder, and all sorts of other Democrats were full of mule fritters with their talking points about discrimination? Who knew?

Anyhow, it is good to see the NY Times step up to defend the Constitution, even if there defense is somewhat misguided. I wonder if they will step up for the Constitution regarding the ObamaCare insurance mandate?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “Fish Wrap Of Record Goes All Constitutiony Over Arizona Lawsuit”

  1. Lee Thomas says:

    Its all spin. By both sides of the debate.

    The problem is that the immigration problem plays out worse for the GOP then it does the Democrats.

    The Dems love the poor and downtrodden Hispanics sneaking over the border to just try and feed little Juan, while the GOP is seen as Minutemen standing on the border wearing white sheets and manning machine gun posts just daring poor little JUAN to try and drink some bonafide US MILK.

    I believe the GOP has cast themselves as the party of irrelevance as the Hispanic voter block becomes larger and larger in this country and turn to the Dems for support because the GOP only seems to care about White, Sheet wearing, Gun waving Rednecks.

    THATS NOT TRUE OF THE GOP…but its perceptions that count and thats exactly how the GOP is being played out by the Dems and La Raza to the Hispanic populace across America and south of the border.

  2. John Ryan says:

    The Wall Street Journal has opined somewhat differentlyhttp://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/07/06/expert-on-arizona-case-not-a-slam-dunk-for-either-side/
    And looks like Teach’s fav gov AZ’s Brewer has gotten caught making up stories of multiple beheadings along the border. http://www.arizonaguardian.com/azg/index.php?catid=937:campaigns-a-elections-fp&id=2201:county-coroners-cant-back-brewer-beheadings-claim&option=com_content&view=article
    Why does she have to tell these lies ?????

  3. gitarcarver says:

    Why does she have to tell these lies ?????

    Yet the coroners do say that police had found skulls with no bodies attached. Technically, that may not mean that a person has been beheaded, but it does not mean they have not, as the coroners all say.

    As for your question of “why does she have to tell these lies?” that is fairly rich coming from you. If you are going to ask why other people lie, why not give us the answer as to why you lie?

  4. gitarcarver says:

    Oh, and by the way, Ryan, if the White House wants to argue “pre-emption” (which SB1070 is not) clearly Holder forgot to read Obama’s own memorandum published back in 2009:
    Preemption Memorandum

    From our Nation’s founding, the American constitutional order has been a Federal system, ensuring a strong role for both the national Government and the States. The Federal Government’s role in promoting the general welfare and guarding individual liberties is critical, but State law and national law often operate concurrently to provide independent safeguards for the public. Throughout our history, State and local governments have frequently protected health, safety, and the environment more aggressively than has the national Government.

    An understanding of the important role of State governments in our Federal system is reflected in longstanding practices by executive departments and agencies, which have shown respect for the traditional prerogatives of the States. In recent years, however, notwithstanding Executive Order 13132 of August 4, 1999 (Federalism), executive departments and agencies have sometimes announced that their regulations preempt State law, including State common law, without explicit preemption by the Congress or an otherwise sufficient basis under applicable legal principles.

    The purpose of this memorandum is to state the general policy of my Administration that preemption of State law by executive departments and agencies should be undertaken only with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the States and with a sufficient legal basis for preemption. Executive departments and agencies should be mindful that in our Federal system, the citizens of the several States have distinctive circumstances and values, and that in many instances it is appropriate for them to apply to themselves rules and principles that reflect these circumstances and values. As Justice Brandeis explained more than 70 years ago, “[i]t is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”

  5. […] the 7th of July, the NY Times loved the Constitution, at least as far as Obama and Co. suing Arizona over their immigration law (which mirrors federal […]

Bad Behavior has blocked 12799 access attempts in the last 7 days.