Posts Tagged ‘Arizona’

DC’s Legalized Anarchy

Monday, June 17th, 2013

Lawful Lawlessness

Jeb Bush tells Americans by implication that we’re not fertile enough, either as breeders or as business creators.  Meanwhile, Marco Rubio’s aide argues on behalf of bringing in more immigrants because American workers “just can’t cut it.”  In truth, they likely agree with Barack Obama’s sentiment that we “didn’t build it,” though as a matter of good politics, they couldn’t admit it at the time.  Imagine what it must be like to hang out among this band of brigands, who on the one hand seeks to impose their notions of compassion upon us, permitting millions of otherwise able-bodied Americans to languish as dependents on the welfare-state, who if challenged, might well be found to “cut it” very nicely.  What Bush really means is that those of you who get up and go to work every day aren’t fertile enough, and that since they wish to continue growing the welfare-state, they need more workers who can be slaves to their system.  After all, as Marco Rubio’s aide reminds us, the American worker just “can’t cut it.” These people are building a perfect anarchy, in which Americans struggle simply to make it through another day, and all the while, the elite subsist on the backs of our efforts.

The revelations of such a mindset should be all we need to understand why we’re losing the country, but as if all this is not bad enough, the Supreme Court has now ruled that Arizona can’t require voters to verify eligibility to vote.  These people are stealing our country, right alongside the liberals, in league with them, and all we do is sit around watching it happen.  Maybe they’re right… Maybe we don’t “cut it.” So let us consider this as we consider the fact that not only are we forbidden from verifying the eligibility of somebody who appears on a Federal election ballot, but we must also ignore the eligibility of those who seek to complete one.  There is no effective border, and no effective restraint on anything except the American people, who are told they may not choose their own doctors, their own healthcare plans, or even their own address.  Slowly but surely, and it’s quickening now, the entire American experiment in liberty is crashing down because we’ve had a century of organized, planned, anarchical plotting by those who would lead us.  Our question, and indeed our demand must be: “Lead us where?”  The answer may be as Joe Hakos suggests over at the Dryerreport.

A nation cannot exist without borders. A nation cannot last if its laws are not enforced.  A nation will not stand that verifies neither the eligibility of its candidates nor the eligibility of its voters.  The United States has been a nation built by immigrants, and always will be so long as we remember that immigration without restraint leads to anarchy.  This is the singular aspect the DC establishment class has chosen to ignore, and it is at our great peril that we permit them to do so any longer.  This is still our country, and we have every reason to defend its institutions, its legitimacy, and its ethos as established over the last two centuries.  We cannot permit the insiders whose interests are best served in other ways to prevail upon us to yield our liberties, our standard of living, the rule of law that has acted as a brake on tyranny and violence, or any of the other facets of American life we have come to take for granted.

Of course, this may be the problem:  For too long, too many Americans have take it for granted.  For too long, too many of us thought it was all automatic, and if only we trusted the people in Washington DC, it would all work out for the best.  It hasn’t worked out, at least not for us, and surely not for our children and theirs.  This monstrous, decaying system in which the people who bear all the burdens matter least is the most despicable of all.  Where else in the world can one go that the citizens of a country get the last crumbs on a table of plenty they have set?  I don’t care if you’re a union laborer, or a white-collar, middle-management employee, but if this is permitted to continue, we will all be eating the table scraps at the feet of the anointed.  No country can survive a collapse of law and lawfulness from the top downward, no matter how great and courageous its people may have been or may remain.

Notice that our nation suffers not from a lack of laws, but from the will to enforce them.  Notice that in a country of 320 million souls, the twenty million of them who are here illegally are being served by a class of people who intend to profit from the efforts and exertions of another million-score of suckers.  Even if our economy were booming, and it’s far from that, we shouldn’t permit people to come into this country in order to be exploited any more than we should permit them to be exploited for their votes.  That isn’t what America is about, because done right, immigration can provide a nation with an influx of new ideas, renewed dedication to purpose, and fresh eyes on a whole universe of old problems, but this immigration bill, crafted by and for the lobbyists does nothing but undermine the republic that had made their existence possible.  Let us not delay the matter for another day.  Let us say it now, and with the conviction of the ages:  This immigration bill must not be permitted to become law because it is the death of us all, and all we have labored to build.  It is the diminution of a nation by inflation.  It is the death-knell of a republic.  This “Gang of Eight” bill gives Barack Obama precisely what he wants: Legalized anarchy. This is the death of nations, and ours is not exempt from that inflexible rule.

Friday, Mark Levin captured it well here(H/T Daily Caller):

Kennedy and Roberts Join Jihad on States’ Sovereignty

Wednesday, June 27th, 2012

The Last Sane Men?

Reading through the tortured legal arguments of the majority of the Supreme Court, in the case of Arizona v. United States, it’s clear to me that the court is now stacked to a majority with dullards.  This ruling is unconscionable, and makes no constitutional sense whatever.  This is the inevitable result of our cultural rejection of the rule of law.  The absolutely dictatorial claim of prosecutorial discretion on the part of the Obama administration in enforcing the immigration laws of the United States is just the beginning.  Now enters a Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue in such a manner as to confound the will of the people, subvert the rule of law, and turn aside long standing precedents, or to misapply them in a manner that defies all logic.  With this as our backdrop, we must wonder why we bother with a constitution at all.

Among the eight justices ruling(Kagan having recused from the case due to her participation in it while serving as  Solicitor General,) only three seemed to have even the vaguest idea what is at stake in the case, or to bear in mind any context of what our constitution actually provides.  If it were not for the minority opinion of Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joining him in dissent, there would be no indication whatever that this had been the ruling of an American court.  If this is any indication of the nature of our court as currently comprised, I suggest we get rid of the lot, keeping the three dissenters in this ruling, but otherwise starting from scratch.

Anthony Kennedy has always been a quirky, flaky, and vacuous, but to see Chief Justice John Roberts rule in a fashion befitting a leftist ideologue is incomprehensible, and signifies the worst decision since the abomination that was the Kelo decision. Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor are incompetent leftist hacks, and they ruled precisely as one would expect.  At stake in the case had been whether the State of Arizona could act to enforce federal immigration law, even when the Federal Government fails in that duty, or determines not to do its duty.  Apparently, according to these five justices, there is no distinction among the fifty states, and there is no sovereignty among them.  According to these five justices, the individual states are merely servants of the Federal Government, whomever may run it at any particular time.  Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion nails every issue, and we should take a moment to consider what it is that Scalia has said.  His arguments are clear-headed and succinct, if lengthy and thoroughly considered.  You can read the decision in its entirety here.  Scalia’s opinion begins on page 30 of the PDF.

He begins this way:

The United States is an indivisible “Union of sovereign States.” Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U. S. 92, 104 (1938). Today’s opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law, deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there. Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result. I dissent.

There is no way around this basic issue Scalia raises, and yet five of his colleagues on the court seem to have been oblivious to reason.

As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress. That power to exclude has long been recognized as inherent in sovereignty. Emer de Vattel’s seminal 1758 treatise on the Law of Nations stated: “The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory either to foreigners in general, or in particular cases,or to certain persons, or for certain particular purposes, according as he may think it advantageous to the state. There is nothing in all this, that does not flow from the rights of domain and sovereignty: every one is obliged to pay respect to the prohibition; and whoever dares violate it, incurs the penalty decreed to render it effectual.” The Law of Nations, bk. II, ch. VII, §94, p. 309 (B. Kapossy & R. Whatmore eds. 2008).

Here, Scalia points back to the philosophical principles under-girding not only immigration law, but indeed all law insofar as it is to be implemented and enforced by a sovereign.  Here, a sovereign is defined, and it is clear that Scalia recognizes the assault on the very concept underlying the majority opinion.  He immediately delved into the constitutional justifications for siding with the Arizona statute, and he pointed out the distinctions one must consider in ruling on such a matter.  Clearly, Scalia lives and breathes the Constitution, while the majority in this opinion are shallow, tinkering fools.  As usual, Scalia offers tremendous logic to the matter, explaining that the Federal jurisdiction over the matter does not exclude the States’ jurisdiction, except perhaps in such case as there is a conflict between the two. Fortunately, as Scalia notes, there is no conflict between the Federal statute and the Arizona statute:

In light of the predominance of federal immigration restrictions in modern times, it is easy to lose sight of the States’ traditional role in regulating immigration — and to overlook their sovereign prerogative to do so. I accept as a given that State regulation is excluded by the Constitution when (1) it has been prohibited by a valid federal law, or (2) it conflicts with federal regulation—when, for example, it admits those whom federal regulation would exclude, or excludes those whom federal regulation would admit.

Possibility (1) need not be considered here: there is no federal law prohibiting the States’ sovereign power to exclude (assuming federal authority to enact such a law). The mere existence of federal action in the immigration area—and the so-called field preemption arising from that action, upon which the Court’s opinion so heavily relies, ante, at 9–11—cannot be regarded as such a prohibition. We are not talking here about a federal law prohibiting the States from regulating bubble-gum advertising, or even the construction of nuclear plants. We are talking about a federal law going to the core of state sovereignty: the power to exclude. Like elimination of the States’ other inherent sovereign power, immunity from suit, elimination of the States’ sovereign power to exclude requires that “Congress . . . unequivocally expres[s] its intent to abrogate,” Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 55 (1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).Implicit “field preemption” will not do.

Scalia makes it plain that Arizona also should have the right to make their law more restrictive in certain respects:

But that is not the most important point. The most important point is that, as we have discussed, Arizona is entitled to have “its own immigration policy”—including a more rigorous enforcement policy—so long as that does not conflict with federal law. The Court says, as though the point is utterly dispositive, that “it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States,” ante, at 15. It is not a federal crime, to be sure. But there is no reason Arizona cannot make it a state crime for a removable alien (or any illegal alien, for that matter) to remain present in Arizona.

Perhaps the most scathing portion of his dissent arrives in this paragraph:

Of course on this pre-enforcement record there is no reason to assume that Arizona officials will ignore federal immigration policy (unless it be the questionable policy of not wanting to identify illegal aliens who have committed offenses that make them removable). As Arizona points out, federal law expressly provides that state officers may “cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States,” 8 U. S. C. §1357(g)(10)(B);and “cooperation” requires neither identical efforts nor prior federal approval. It is consistent with the Arizona statute, and with the “cooperat[ive]” system that Congress has created, for state officials to arrest a removable alien, contact federal immigration authorities, and follow their lead on what to do next. And it is an assault on logic to say that identifying a removable alien and holding him for federal determination of whether he should be removed “violates the principle that the removal process is entrusted to the discretion of the Federal Government,” ante, at 18. The State’s detention does not represent commencement of the removal process unless the Federal Government makes it so.(emphasis added)

This should serve as a rebuke to the other justices, if any of them gave a damn, but it’s clear that Chief Justice Roberts isn’t interested in logic.  Has he too become a DC  cocktail party gadfly, or has he simply slipped a mental gear?  Is he seeking favor with the “in” crowd?  I’ve lost all hope that Justice Kennedy will ever be a philosophically consistent jurist, and in fact, I don’t believe he observes any particular philosophy apart from whatever may suit him at the moment, but I hadn’t expected the Chief Justice Roberts would ever join that crowd.

It’s clear to me that a narrow third of the court fully understands the implications of the questions of State sovereignty, and the divisions of power constructed within our federal system.  Justice Scalia properly frames this as a matter of Arizona’s sovereign power, and rightly calls into question the woeful lack of observance of that characteristic by the ruling majority in this case.  He also recognizes it might be proper for Arizona to repeatedly detain and arrest people who have not been given appropriate privilege to remain in the United States, and punish them accordingly:

The Court raises concerns about “unnecessary harassment of some aliens . . . whom federal officials determine should not be removed.” Ante, at 17. But we have no license to assume, without any support in the record, that  Arizona officials would use their arrest authority under §6 to harass anyone. And it makes no difference that federal officials might “determine [that some unlawfully present aliens] should not be removed,” ibid. They may well determine not to remove from the United States aliens who have no right to be here; but unless and until these aliens have been given the right to remain, Arizona is entitled to arrest them and at least bring them to federal officials’ attention, which is all that §6 necessarily entails. (In my view, the State can go further than this, and punish them for their unlawful entry and presence in Arizona.)

This should have been the majority opinion, and it punctuates the reasons why I have no confidence in Mitt Romney, should he become president.  There is little doubt that he will continue the work of his predecessors in appointing justices who will further undermine individual liberty and States’ sovereignty.  The majority opinion that will now hold forth as precedent is an act of nearly criminal absurdity.  If only we could clone Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas, we might have a chance to save the Republic, but it seems instead that the only thing to be duplicated in Washington is grotesque Federal government operating in absolute disregard and open contempt of the Constitution, a founding document that now seems on the verge of irrelevance.  If the best we can manage is a Supreme Court that will not stand in firm majority for the founding principles on which our constitution rests, what good is it anyway?  This cannot end well.  When you combine the effects of the ruling in this case with the Obama administration actions on immigration policy, it’s clear that we will not maintain our country much longer.  Thank Chief Justice Roberts and associate Justice Kennedy.  These are two who ought to have known better, as Justice Scalia’s dissent should make clear.

Romney and Santorum: Dead Heat in Michigan Polls

Monday, February 27th, 2012

Close in Michigan

This shouldn’t have been close.  In 2008, Mitt Romney won in Michigan by nearly double-digits.  The very idea that the son of a Michigan governor should happen to find himself in this position demonstrates how thoroughly many conservatives have tired of establishment candidates.  What should have been a walk-over won’t be, and instead we’re likely to see a terribly close contest that may come down to the wire.  If Romney loses in Michigan, he might as well go home, because if he can’t win here, and convincingly, I don’t know how you can argue he will ever beat Barack Obama.  There’s also an Arizona primary on Tuesday, and at the time of this writing, that contest is not nearly so tight, with polls indicating a big Romney lead.

After getting the endorsement of another Republican governor, with Jan Brewer endorsing him over the weekend, but she seems to have more pull with Arizonans than Nikki Haley demonstrated with South Carolinians.  There is also a healthy Mormon segment of the vote in Arizona, so taken together, Romney probably will maintain that edge.  Let us also remember he has the endorsement of US Senator and former Presidential candidate John McCain, who was able to stave off J.D. Hayworth in a primary challenge in 2010.  I expect that he will win there comfortably, but if it closes up significantly, it will hint at the continued weakness of Mitt Romney.

Romney needs to win Michigan on Tuesday, but conservatives need Rick Santorum to win.  There is certainly reason to believe Santorum could pull it off, not merely because of the closeness in the polls, but also because he’s doing particularly well among evangelical Christians in the state.  Naturally, Romney has a significant cash advantage, as he has had throughout this primary season, but as has been seen in some states, that advantage doesn’t necessarily equate to victory if the grass-roots activists in a state begin to push for somebody else.  If Romney can pull off an unexpectedly large victory in Michigan Tuesday, he’ll certainly retake the initiative, but if it’s very close, or worse, he loses entirely, it may be a show-stopped.  Tuesday’s  returns will offer us a good deal of insight into the rest of the primary season.  If it’s close, it’s not over by a long-shot in the run-up to Super Tuesday, and if it’s a blow-out, it may well signal a consolidation in favor of the victor.