A Big (and Maybe Bad) Week for SCOTUS

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) announced its immigration decision on Monday, pretty much gutting the Arizona law of the ability of charging those that they discover to be in country illegally and enforcing 'their' and the nation's border with Mexico.  Incongruously, it did so while simultaneously allowing State and Local law officials to check for proper immigration status while arresting people on other non-related charges.  The federal government immediately followed that announcement with one of its own, basically telling AZ that they (or anyone else) catching someone who's in the country illegally and not a wanted felon is not going find the Feds coming to get them or do anything about it.  

Now bank robbery is a federal and not a state crime, so one cannot but wonder if under SCOTUS legal logic, local police shouldn't bother much about it either.  (Besides, with the true value of money continuing to decline, the line between felony and misdemeanor bank theft is increasingly fuzzy.)  Kidnapping is also mostly escalated to a federal crime, so this may provide another rather gray area for local law enforcement's relationship with its federal brethren.  For those of you who capitalize both United and States when writing it, this can be read as nothing less than casting aside the Tenth Amendment, which should probably now read:

"Those powers not delegated to the United States (and of no real interest to them) nor prohibited by it to the States (or by Executive order, federal regulation, or the whim of the resident in the White House or his minions in Homeland Security or the DOJ) , are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (until such time as the federal government shall take notice of them and decide otherwise)."

It's been a long time since State sovereignty has been dealt such a crushing blow, with the courts telling States in effect not to attempt to enforce federal laws created for their protection which were passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President (even if the Federal law enforcement  doesn't) and those Feds thumbing their noses and telling States "Nyah, Nyah, Nyah".  

Now I know that the President is in full campaign mode these days, and that perhaps making up percentage points in Hispanic districts might bolster the support that he's apparently lost from other groups in recent months.  I find it difficult to understand however that such a savvy campaigner as the President doesn't remember that Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California have about 104 electoral votes and might not be happy to see their States remain open battlegrounds (and not just for votes). 

Now coming from Chicago, it's possible that the President has likewise forgotten that dead people (which the DOJ is simultaneously attempting to block being removed from voter rolls in Florida) and those here illegally are not allowed to vote (at least in theory); and so cannot help him, except perhaps with improperly documented campaign contributions. (Anybody checked lately to see what La Raza has kicked into the coffers?)

______________

SCOTUS will likewise be releasing its decision on the Patients Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act on Thursday this week, with those on both sides of the issue salivating over the potential of demonizing a 'political court' and their political opposition.  While this may be a harder case to make for the federal government after getting their way in Arizona and regardless of the decision; the repercussions of this yet-to-be-released decision will begin and not end the process of what will come later.   No matter which way the decision falls, the fight will go on.  Few if any are talking about the fact that what has become known as Obamacare has a couple of provisions worth keeping if it's struck down, or a few that demand dismantling if it's retained.

That's the damn problem with these omnibus bills like PPAHA however.  Political parties get so wrapped up in having scored 'the big win' that they too forget the impact of their actions.  Bills with thousands of pages will never be fully read or understood until long after they've been signed into law.  By the time SCOTUS gets around to them (if they ever do), they have become like a diagnosed but untreated cancer, and have infected so much around them that their damage can never truly be reversed. 

Unfortunately, many of the same positive results of this unfortunate law could have been achieved if they had been sought through reform legislation specifically designed to address the most egregious issues only; and it's likely that they might have been accomplished with bi-partisan support.  That wouldn't have achieved the 'in your face' political victory for whichever political party is in power over their opponents however.  Besides, as they tell themselves by way of disingenuous apology, it's OK to throw all this shit onto the wall and see what eventually sticks.  After all, there's always SCOTUS to sort it all out. 

I don't know about you, but that kind of thinking is not only cowardly and a disgrace to the oath of office that each legislator took upon election, but is a shirking of their responsibilities on a scale that can only be responded to by chasing them out of office at the first available opportunity.

While we're at it ....  

Call me cynical, but it also seems almost cowardly of the nine Justices, all of whom sit with a lifetime appointment, to release such monumental decisions (decisions whose legal precedent will impact generations to come) only days before skulking out of town for their summer break.  I'm not saying that these decisions would likely have been more palatable if they had not come out until August or September, but I might have felt better about the Supreme Robes if I knew that they were sweating them out (literally and figuratively) in the heat and humidity of a Washington DC summer.  Considering the pain that's being handed out by this court of last resorts, I for one would feel better if I knew that they had suffered over the conclusions that they've come to.

Yes it's a big week indeed for the Supreme Court of the United States.  How bad a one it is for the citizens of this nation, we have yet to understand.

TFP Column: The Arizona Solution

Frustration with the constant discussion of the attempt to build an Islamic Cultural Center (or mosque if you will) within the shadow of where the towers of the World Trade Center fell as the result of an attack on this country by Islamic terrorists led to this week's offering in the Toledo Free Press. At some point, I realized that much of the discussion was not only off point, but pointless; as this situation is going to be decided, not based on the thoughts and feelings of those across the country, but by politicians and bureaucrats in New York City.

That doesn't mean that people around the country should not have strong feelings or opinions on the subject however, or that they should not feel free to voice them. Thinking about how best to utilize that voice to influence the ultimate decision led me to "The Arizona Solution". I hope that it leaves you with a different perspective on the subject and points to a way to make it count.

I suspect however that even if my poor effort fails to garner your interest, that you will find more than enough to pique your curiosity or your enthusiasm in this weekend's edition of the TFP. Then again, there's always something in Toledo's largest Sunday circulation newspaper to do that.

The Rules of Laws

The courts are attempting to rule on the Department of Justice lawsuit against the Arizona immigration law in the days leading up to its implementation on July 29th. This is but the first of many challenges that have been filed against this state legislation by both the government and by interested parties around the country, and one would expect that state lawyers will not soon see relief from their labors for some time to come. 


What seems to have become lost in the debate on this particular piece of legislation however is the concept that this country is one which follows "The Rule of Law". Now this concept, for those who have never bothered to consider its implications, simply means that neither the position of individuals or of governments shall be held to be above the laws of the land. The concept was posited at least as early as the days of the Greeks, and by no lesser an individual than Aristotle. 


During Medieval times, the concept was identified with the Code of Justinian from the Holy Roman Empire and the signing of the English Magna Carta in 1215. And even though the latter at least, did not provide the protections to the common man that many seem to think, it did at least provide some relief to barons from the abuses of a monarch. 


Later still, James Madison, the father of our Constitution spoke of the rule in Federalist 57, saying that a legislature can, "can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society". Nowhere is any mitigation for this concept seen either in the writings of the Founding Fathers, or in the Constitution itself. In fact, specific provision was made in this founding document which limits and defines the government methods to change improper or onerous laws, up to and including changing the Constitution itself (by making Amendments). 


I therefore fail to understand how the current discussion of the immigration law seems to justify the attempt to make a certain group of people exempt from such law. We are asked to forgive the violation of such laws because violators have been here so long. Yet many laws already have a "statute of limitations" which prevents the state from prosecuting a person from legal violation after a certain period of time has passed, and immigration law is not one of them. We are asked to forgive the violation of such laws because those doing so only seek a better life for their families. What other laws should we forgive for such benevolent reasons: bank robbing, kidnapping, petty theft? We are asked to forgive such violations because they are after all, only misdemeanors and require no punishment. What other misdemeanors will also be forgivable without further punishment: drug possession, drunk driving, spousal abuse? 


Of course when viewed through the window of such cold logic and using reason as a basis for discussion, such comparisons seem ludicrous. In fact, many of those same compassionate people are calling for increasing enforcement of many of the offenses that I list. Additionally, mandatory minimum sentences have now been made part of law for many such violations in order to remove from the judge the potential for compassion or leniency for violators. 


Also seemingly forgotten in the discussion is the fact that two previous opportunities were provided (in federal law) for legal immigration mechanisms for those in this country illegally. It was promised by Congress that each of these opportunities would solve the problem and would begin the process of stricter enforcement. Yet only the most foolish would believe that they were successful or that stricter enforcement did in fact follow, and those making any claim of belief have no good answer as to why if they were a success, further relief is now required. 


If we are a remain a nation living under the rule of law, we do not get to pick and choose those that we will ignore. While there are stupid laws out there that cannot be enforced, they are still laws until changed. While there are probably more laws on the books at every level of government than can be enforced by all of the enforcement officers in the country, there are mechanisms that can be used to add enforcement or eliminate laws. 


If we are to abandon the principles of governance in this country however, if we are allow selective enforcement for compassionate reasons, if we are to allow the demeaning of one of the principles by which the government functions by that government itself, can we not allow the government and the people of Arizona to similarly choose which laws they will enforce and ask that the federal government not interfere with such choice and drop the frivolous suits?