Federal Government Is Doing Nothing--So What Could Arizona Be Infringing Upon?

Check Out  The Latest Episode Of The Jake Stern Show

The Supreme Court decision on Arizona's immigration law is a travesty. The very fact that the increasingly radical Obama administration had the brazenness to actually sue Arizona after doing nothing to help their cause and thus forcing them to pass this law to begin with is a travesty. But let's analyze the constitutional arguments here.

The assertion that states may not go further than Federal regulations to protect themselves doesn't sit well with me, but I can accept it. The notion that the states cannot even make laws that literally mirror the federal government's is much more difficult to swallow. I'm a big believer in the constitution and the necessity to uphold its integrity at all costs. But I fail to comprehend the threat posed by a state merely rewriting an existing federal law at the state level. The argument can be made that in actually upholds the sovereignty of the federal government, but it certainly doesn't diminish it. But let's concede that for some reason our founding fathers wanted certain issues to remain exclusively federal at all costs. I would still contend that it was never their intent that this concept should apply to the current immigration problem.

My reasoning is simple. It never dawned on the founders that the federal government would be so backward and inept that its goal would be antithetical to its laws, and that they'd have no interest in enforcing the laws on the books and would actually prefer that they not be enforced by anyone. Sure, the founders believed in the federal government's exclusive rights to protect its borders. They figured that the government would fulfill its responsibility. Therefore, the states interference would actually infringe on their territory.

But the current predicament is unprecedented, and untenable. The founders would've considered it a mockery of the constitution. The federal government's inaction is damaging its citizens, forcing them to take action, and when they do, they're under attack. (All for political purposes, by the way—to win Florida.) This was not remotely the founders' intent. When they protected the federal government from states' interference, they didn't mean laws on the books that were ignored. They meant those areas the federal government actually takes seriously and makes an effort to enforce. The Arizona law in no way infringes on federal jurisdiction, and Chief Justice Roberts (whom I still like) and his leftist colleagues got it wrong.

Justice Scalia in his dissent said it all:

“The Government complains that state officials might not heed "federal priorities." Indeed they might not, particularly if those priorities include willful blindness or deliberate inattention to the presence of removable aliens in Arizona. The State's whole complaint--the reason this law was passed and this case has arisen--is that the citizens of Arizona believe federal priorities are too lax. The State has the sovereign power to protect its borders more rigorously if it wishes, absent any valid federal prohibition. The Executive's policy choice of lax federal enforcement does not constitute such a prohibition.”

To the people of Arzizona: our thoughts and prayers are with you.