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?

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!