Current Events vs. Founding Documents

Federal Government against Arizona

Posted by Mark Musselman on Sept. 6, 2010 | 5 comments

Constitution, Presidential power, Federalist Papers

Entry 52     

Current Event

According to the New York Times; July 6, 2010 (full article available on-line)

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against Arizona to challenge a new state law intended to combat illegal immigration, arguing that it would undermine the federal government’s pursuit of terrorists, gang members and other criminal immigrants.

……

White House officials said Mr. Obama was not involved in the Justice Department’s decision to sue. But the suit came after steps by Mr. Obama in an effort to frame the immigration debate in terms that will favor Democrats in advance of midterm elections in November, including a speech on Thursday when he restated his commitment to overhaul legislation that would give legal status to millions of illegal immigrants.

……

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 According to the Washington Post, July 6, 2010

 The Justice Departmenthas decided to file suit against Arizona on the grounds that the state's new immigration law illegally intrudes on federal prerogatives, law enforcement sources said Monday.

 The lawsuit, which three sources said could be filed as early as Tuesday, will invoke for its main argument the legal doctrine of "preemption," which is based on the Constitution's supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes. Justice Department officials believe that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility, the sources said.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

According to FoxNews; September 4, 2010 (full article available on-line)

 PHOENIX -- Nearly a dozen states have filed a legal brief in support of Arizona's controversial immigration law.

 A"friend of the court" brief filed with the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday argues that a federal judge was wrong to block implementation of key provisions of the law.

 The brief submitted by Michigan Attorney General Michael Cox argues that the judge used the wrong legal standard to rule on the U.S. Justice Department's request for a preliminary injunction.

It also says the judge erred in ruling that the law interferes with the executive branch's immigration enforcement priorities.

 Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia joined in the filing.

…..

 VS

 The executive branch vs. several states

 Founding Document

 US Constitution, second paragraph of Article VI – (Supremacy Clause)

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 Federalist number 27, Alexander Hamilton quote: 
"It merits particular attention in this place, that the laws of the confederacy, as to the enumerated and legitimate objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land; to the observance of, all officers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in each state, will be bound by the sanctity of an oath. Thus the legislatures, courts and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operations of the national government, as far as its just constitutional authority extends; and will be rendered auxiliary to the enforcement of its laws. Any man, who will pursue, by his own reflections, the consequences of the situation, will perceive, that if its powers are administered with a common prudence, there is good ground to calculate upon a regular and peaceable execution of the laws of the union."

 We the People:

According the US Immigration Support website, aliens must carry their “green card” at all times. The Arizona law apparently mirrors the pertinent federal immigration law.  If there is no difference, Arizona is not violating the supremacy clause of the US Constitution.

Notice how our president concentrates on race. This diverts attention, presumes bias and therefore the guilt of Arizona law enforcement officials, and divides us for political gain. Since the executive branch is responsible for law enforcement, I would prefer that he focus on the word “illegal”.