Posts Tagged ‘constitution’

Abrogated Responsibility

29 April 2010 – 00:41 CDT

There is much hand-wringing and flapping of gums from the left over Arizona’s illegal immigration law which permits local and state law enforcement, in the course of a normal investigation such as a traffic stop, to inquire as to an individual’s legal status.

For the first time, President Obama seems to be worried about the Constitution, and has directed AG Holder to determine if the Arizona law is constitutional.  I’m not the first to point it out, but doesn’t it seem a little odd that the federal government and the left are angry about AZ asking for proof of legal presence in the United States, but the rest of us are now required to show proof of health insurance as a condition of our being citizens of the United States?

The federal government has completely and totally abrogated their responsibility to secure our borders.  But it gets worse than that, because the former governor of Arizona – from whom I might point out Arizona has inherited this disaster – says things are great!

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 27 that the Southwest border is “as secure as it has ever been,” while the Associated Press reported that the capital of the former Arizona governor’s home state has been dubbed the “kidnapping capital” of the U.S., due to cross-border human smuggling and drug trafficking.

The Department of Homeland Security’s Southwest Border Initiative is making “unparalleled progress in creating a safe and secure Southwest border,” the DHS Secretary told the committee… (h/t @rundeart)

Phoenix has the dubious distinction of being the kidnap capital of America, and second in the world.  So, the citizens of the state of Arizona decided they were fed up and tired begging the federal government to do their damn job and secure the border.  They crafted and passed a law giving local and state law enforcement authority to ask people their immigration status and turn them over to ICE.  They did not create any new police powers, and they will not be roaming the neighborhoods rounding up latinos.  The accusations from the open borders crowd that the cops will be going around shouting “PAPERS, PLEASE!” is bullshit, and they know it.

I can think of another very specific power the federal government has “exclusive” domain over: the printing and coining of money.  Suppose I start a counterfeit operation here in Ohio.  I just decide to print my own money.  I even pay my taxes in cash that is fresh off my own laser printer upstairs.  Of course, the fed would never let me get away with it, but suppose they ignored it.  Should Ohio have no jurisdiction or authority to prosecute me, or even ask me if my money is real or not?

That is patently ridiculous.  I make a purchase with my fake cash, and the merchant loses because there is no way the bank will accept it.  That hurts people, because the money I’m using is literally worthless.  That is why we have laws against counterfeiting and why the US Treasury Department enforces the laws.  But under no circumstances does it preclude the state of Ohio from arresting me for fraud and counterfeiting just because the fed says “meh”

So explain something to me, please.  Why is Arizona taking on the job the federal government just won’t do such an affront to justice?  Arizona did not change the requirements for obtaining a green card, or pass a law changing the process by which legal status could be revoked, or even claim that they can revoke legal status.

MSNBC even had the balls to run the banner “AZ law makes it a crime to be an illegal alien”Law makes it illegal to be an illegal alien(newsbusters)

Here is my position on illegal immigration, it is pretty simple:

1) Secure the damn border.

2) Now let’s talk about what to do with the people who are here illegally.

The federal government is an agent of the several states, including Arizona.  If the feds won’t do the job they’re supposed to, that does not prevent the state from acting in their own best interest and trying to fill the gap.

First official Kindle purchase: Constitution in Exile

3 April 2010 – 18:36 CDT

I have a few titles in my Kindle library for my iPhone, but I finally broke down and bought the actual Kindle. I wanted to read something by Judge Andrew Napolitano, so I picked up The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land, published in March of 2007.

I came across this review when I was buying the book:

“At a time when we are, in Benjamin Franklin’s words, sacrificing essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, here comes the judge with what should be mandatory reading for the executive branch cronies who are busy stealing power while they think we’re not watching. Thank goodness the judge is watching and speaking truth to power. More than a book, this is an emergency call to philosophical arms, one we must heed before it’s too late.”

The author of that salient commentary?  None other than Alan Colmes.  I wonder if he would be willing to put forth the same libertarian argument with the respect to the current administration?

Ohio AG: Constitution as a Document of Unlimited, Unenumerated Federal Authority

1 April 2010 – 23:52 CDT

The best thing about President Obama’s election and the recent passage of so-called “Health Care Reform” is that the elected representatives who believe there are no limits on government control, what government may tell us we must do, are opening their mouths and exposing themselves.

The Ohio attorney general, the highest law enforcement officer in my state, believes that because the Constitution does not explicitly protect us from government taking an action against us, they’re legally entitled to do so

I had to watch it twice to believe that I’d heard him say that the Bill of Rights does not give me the right NOT to purchase health insurance.  Therefore, according to his logic, the government may compel me by force to purchase anything it thinks I should have.  This is an incredible, nearly unbelievable assbackwards bastardization of the Constitution.  The whole point of the 9th and 10th amendments is that the states and we the people retain the power, and any rights we don’t explicitly loan to the federal government.

IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

These last two items in the Bill of Rights are there for a very specific reason: The Constitution spells out for the federal government specific (enumerated) powers.  The rest are retained by the people.  Mr. Cordray seems to believe exactly the opposite: if the Constitution does not specifically prohibit an action by the federal government, then the federal government has the power to enact and enforce legislation concerning the unenumerated area of human behavior.  In other words, all authority, rights, and power begin with the federal government, and are granted to the people as the government sees fit.  That is precisely the opposite of what the 9th and 10th amendments are crystal clear on.