By Douglas V. Gibbs
One of the greatest miracles of history is the fact that the United States was able to remain united. The colonies united to defeat the British Empire, but united only for that reason. The union was a fragile one. The states did not get along as this nation was forged, and Britain even believed the union would not last; hence one of the reasons for the War of 1812. In fact, at the start of the Revolutionary War, when those first shots were fired at Lexington Green, many of the states called it "Massachusetts' War," and were not planning to get involved.
George Washington's army was a rag-tag group. There was no uniformity. Some of his troops had no shoes, some carried weapons Washington did not have the right size ammunition for. The training was varied. The success of these citizen soldiers was doubted.
During the writing of the Constitution, the word "uniformity" was used often. The goal was to ensure the union was protected, preserved, and promoted. After all, the whole reason for the writing of that document was "to form a more perfect union."
The states, however, were to also remain individual entities, with their rights to be individual republics, taking care of their own affairs, intact. The federal government was created by the states for the purpose of the union, therefore the authorities given to the federal government were few, and limited to the preservation of the union.
Just to make sure it was understood, the 10th Amendment was added, proclaiming that if something is not an authority of the federal government, and not prohibited to the states, the authority belongs to the states.
The Obama administration is attacking the union, and the sovereignty of the states. This administration is doing exactly the opposite of what the federal government was tasked with by the framers of this nation. The Democrats are attacking the union with a lawsuit against Arizona for trying to enforce immigration, and the whole reason Arizona feels they must do such is because the federal government dropped the ball regarding Article 4, Section 4 of the United States Constitution where it requires the U.S. Government to protect the states from invasion.
To add insult to injury, the federal government, through its court system, struck down parts of the Arizona immigration law (SB 1070) when Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 indicates that if a state is a party in a case the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction (meaning the Supreme Court can't take it as an appellate case, the case must bypass all inferior federal courts, and go straight to the Supreme Court). Holder filed the federal government's attack in the U.S. District Court that Susan Bolton is a part of, so either Holder (and Bolton, for that matter) does not understand what the U.S. Constitution says and therefore accidentally filed the case unconstitutionally, or he does know what it says and doesn't care. Either answer is unacceptable.
But the attacks upon the states goes further. After all of this against Arizona, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked the United Nations to review the Arizona law as a Human Rights violation.
The most interesting part of all of this is the federal government doesn't even have enforcement authority.
Remember that thing about the 10th Amendment? Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the federal government the authority to "enforce" immigration laws. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 gives the federal government the authority to "establish" an uniform rule of naturalization, Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 gives the federal government the authority to pass legislation to prohibit immigration (note that it does not say the federal government can tell the states who they have to let in), and Article 4, Section 4 tasks the federal government to protect the states from invasion (one way of doing that would be by sealing the border), but nowhere does the Constitution say anything about enforcement. Therefore, as per the 10th Amendment, enforcement authority belongs to the states.
It is not only constitutional for Arizona to have their immigration laws, it is their constitutional responsibility.
Therefore, since the lawsuits, and attacks by the federal government are unconstitutional, Jan Brewer has every right to stand up to Washington and say, "No, you have no authority."
Nullification is a wonderful thing, if states are willing to follow through, and I believe Arizona is.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment