Obama Vs. Arizona – Immigration – Not specifically treated in the U.S. Constitution – Interpretation by Presiding Justice Will Herald Win or Loss

The Federal Suit Against Arizona is Joined by Mexico

The Obama Administrating filed a law suit this week against the State of Arizona, specifically to stop enforcement of a State Law which mirrors a Federal Law governing Immigration. The Federal Suit has been Joined by a Suit filed by the Mexican Government. (See references to Article 10)

The Brief (download here PDF via Washington Post) contains the following:

(i)
“In this action, the United States seeks to declare invalid and preliminarily and
permanently enjoin the enforcement of S.B. 1070, as amended and enacted by the State of Arizona, because S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal law and therefore violates the
Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.”

and

(ii)
“ In our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to
regulate immigration matters. This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress. The nation’s immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests. Congress has assigned to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and Department of State, along with other federal agencies, the task of enforcing and administering these immigration-related laws…”

Regardless of the content of the suit, the Federal Government, by first naming the Supremacy Clause, hopes to end any challenge from Arizona based solely on this particular clause – which, according to the original verbiage used in the US constitution may not apply. The Clause, so named, refers to Article IV, which states (FindLaw):

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

As far as any one is aware, the State of Arizona has not entered into any treaties – strictly construed.

The Supremacy Clause referred to in Obama’s (Holder’s) Brief:
(Find Law on Marshals interpretation of the Supremacy Clause as it applies to States) – the findings regarded the imposition of taxes, trade, terrifs and finally treaties:

The Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States are as much a part of the law of every State as its own local laws and constitution. Their obligation ''is imperative upon the state judges, in their official and not merely in their private capacities. From the very nature of their judicial duties, they would be called upon to pronounce the law applicable to the case in judgment. They were not to decide merely according to the laws or Constitution of the State, but according to the laws and treaties of the United States--'the supreme law of the land'.'' 18 State courts are bound then to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to disregard state law when there is a conflict; federal law includes, of course, not only the Constitution and congressional enactments and treaties but as well the interpretations of their meanings by the United States Supreme Court.

The preceding opinion by Justice Marshal was based upon Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, specifically as applies to tariffs, treaties, and the like. The so called “Supremacy Clause (i.e. The Federal Government Always Wins), has not, to date, addressed immigration.

Perhaps this is because Illegal Immigration is not specifically addressed in the Constitution – The Argument: found at US Constitution. Net, entitled “Things Not Found in the Constitution”

Immigration
The Constitution never mentions immigration, so how is it that the rules for immigrants, and quotas from countries, are set by the federal government and not by the state governments? After all, as the 10th Amendment states, are the powers not delegated to the United States held by the states, or the people?
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, in Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how that immigrant can come into the country in the first place.
There is also an argument that immigration is an implied power of any sovereign nation, and as such, the federal government has the power to regulate immigration because the United States is a sovereign nation. While it is true that the United States is a sovereign nation, and it may be true that all sovereign nations have some powers inherent in that status, it is not necessary to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power.

Therefore, as it appears the State of Arizona has not entered in to any Treaties, and it by strict interpretation of the Article 8, which states nothing specific regarding immigration being the federal domain - strictly speaking – the Federal Government may be about to trample on the Kicker:

The 10th Amendment: (Or Powers prohibited to the States)


The State of Arizona, embattled on their borders

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Taking the 10th Amendment regarding the limitations of States right, there is no mention made of anything other than Congress and its ability to hold the national purse strings. However, it does give Arizona the right to protect itself, implicitly.

As Arizona has been invaded by criminals from another country, it has every right to assemble its own army and enter into war, as it has been invaded and the citizens (according to several news accounts) have been murdered – delay, to the Citizens of Arizona, is not an option.

Therefore, although loosely interpreted as broad powers granted to the Federal Government in the Supremacy Clause, the argument can validly be made that illegal immigration and enforcement is not addressed specifically in the U.S. Constitution (rather naturalization of foreign citizens as outlined by Marshall’s Court so long ago.)

Arizona, therefore, is within its Constitutional rights as regards the enforcement of criminal laws within its borders, and, as the Arizona Law mirrors the Federal law, it does not attempt to usurp Federal Power. Should Jan Brewer decide to call a militia together, arm them, and enter into a war on the border, she’s within her rights as the Governor of the State, under the 10th Amendment.

Whichever Justice hears this case; they may stop at the Supremacy Clause, and rule in Favor of the Administration, (extremely loose interpretation). At that point, one would hope Jan Brewer takes this all the way to the Roberts Court.

Addendum: As noted in his inaugural address, President Obama’s favorite President remains Abraham Lincoln, which one would think odd, as Lincoln was a member (or founder some say) of the Republican Party, and/or it may have been looked upon due to his role in the Civil War and Slavery – However, what is not often mentioned is that, of all the Presidents, Abraham Lincoln suspended the Constitution, used the Constitution to increase the powers of the Executive Branch, imprisoned journalist and editors, ad nasuem. It was that aspect of the historical nature of Lincoln that made one shudder when Obama declared him “his favorite”. Here’s to Arizona, who is in need of a strict constructionist.

Anti-Incumbent Fever Catches On – the Long Hot Summer of Discontent - Tea Party Expansion

What began as small pockets of individuals meeting in groups and venting their frustrations over high taxes and Congressional Representatives that either failed to listen, or disparaged those who dared to question the wisdom of deficit spending of historical proportions has morphed into a viable political force – the Tea Party. The Tea Party has fielded and supported candidates for both the House and the Senate across the country, and those candidates are not recessing for the summer. One will hear about a group of “angry white men”, yet when looking at the Tea Party on a local basis, one finds that the opposite is true – not only are tea party groups inclusive of all ethnicity's and races, they are also inclusive on all political affiliations - the most prominent being those “unenrolled” or “independents” who previously felt neither major political party had what the individual was seeking.
What is it that Tea Party members are seeking in a candidate? The seek a candidate who offers strict adherence to the Constitution, someone who has worked for a living and understands the needs of the average American, someone who is fiscally responsible and believes in a balanced budget and, most importantly, tax cuts. Those members are specifically interested in someone who has not set foot in Washington DC. Yet, they are not exclusive to members of their own Party, they will support candidates who echo their core principals, which most often are registered Republicans.


The wisdom that has, for generations, pervaded the political class, is that of “experience”. For example, ads will run in Congressional races touting the 3, 4, or 10 terms a Congressional Representative and/or Senator has served; noting that they hold the keys to more benefits for their respective states due to their appointments to high profile committees. Candidates that ran against incumbents in the past, faced grilling from Editorial Boards and journalists, (and still do), about their “lack of experience”. Today, however, that lack of experience is particularly appealing to a growing block of voters, many of which have never attended a Tea Party meet-up and/or know all that much about the party.
The new wisdom is, simply put, if someone cannot get a house in order in a specific amount of time, or has consistently voted against the wishes of their constituents, or has voted for spending measures, then they are no longer considered a viable candidate and therefore, should be replaced, preferably by someone who has never served in the Congress. A true citizen legislature is what is sought by a growing body of voters – Tea Party or Democrat, or Green Party or Libertarian or Republican.
The dissatisfaction with the current two-party system did not begin, as one would be led to believe, as a response to the election of Barak Obama, and his policies which mirror those of former President Jimmy Carter, it began when the individual noticed they had no choice at the ballot box in each and every election – by that – most incumbents ran unopposed, and or opposition candidates were so few and far between with little funding, no media attention and a lack of cohesive support. Massachusetts, for example, has for years been considered the “Bluest State” simply because Democrats dominated all aspects of politics in the state, from the local and state level to the few Federal seats available - the logic followed, that no Republican could get elected in the State. Massachusetts was not an anomaly, other states followed suit, and the entire Northeast looked to be a sea of Blue with each election cycle.


This change began to evidence itself in 2006 and 2008, when additional candidates began to appear on the ballots, where none had appeared before – from California’s 8th District to the 4th District of Massachusetts – these individuals ran against deeply entrenched politicians and were immediately dismissed by both the media and the electorate – however, the later did not dismiss them entirely, with the candidate receiving at the least a percentage of the votes – giving those who were tired of seeing the same name on the ballot an option, which gave them hope for the future.


In Massachusetts, in 2008 and 2009, individuals began to look at public service, doctors, landscapers, and those who served in the military. In January of 2010, one Scott Brown became the first Republican elected to the Senate from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and it shocked the political establishment – who immediately dismissed his election as a “fluke” – blaming Martha Coakley, the Democrat who ran as opposition, for running a shoddy campaign. “They” didn’t get it. Had the media done its research they would have found established anti-incumbent candidates who had formed committees and were ready to run for Congress, the State Senate and the State Legislature.


The Tea Party, a response to the high taxes imposed on U.S. Citizens, began to throw support to these candidates, and has also begun to field candidates of its own.
Words of wisdom from an 86 year old unenrolled voter from the Bay State, who is not affiliated with the Tea Party – but understands the basics of economics gone astray – those currently in office do not deserve to be reelected, ordinary people can do a better job. The intent: to vote for anyone who is not an incumbent. That one older individual is not alone, younger voters, Hispanic voters, the individuals who have had enough, are looking forward to November and the opportunity to vote for the anti-incumbent. Democrats in Massachusetts specifically, are looking to voting for Republican’s for the first time since January 19th, 2010. One coined it, a Revolution, a Silent Revolution at the Ballot Box.


Therefore, when candidates who are either endorsed by or directly fielded by a Tea Party, hold a rally, they draw a crowd. One such that bears mentioning is one Allen West Allen West for Congress West, a candidate for the Florida 22nd, is one of the anti-incumbents to watch. According to the FEC West has to date, raised $2,065,855, while Ron Klein, the incumbent Democrat, has managed to raise $1,860,453 . The fact that West, in a District that leans Democrat, is doing so well with individual contributions at this stage of the game, speaks volumes. A 4th of July You Tube video of West is shown below. It is evident, by his speech, how the population in general views the 2010 election.


In fact, as the days progress, deeply entrenched politicians who were previously considered “untouchable” are now facing opposition – a newly released AP Article speaks to the problems faced by Russ Feingold this election cycle. This would not have been part of the political conversation two years ago.

As the Tea Party grows, and more importantly, the sentiment of the voters aligns with Tea Party principals, going into November on can envision a new Congress forming, one which will hold a few incumbents, and those who were voted in as anti-incumbents which will be in Washington to hold everyone accountable to this and future generations.

Adam West, Florida 22nd District Candidate, Speaking Before a Ft. Lauderdale Tea Party

Election 2010 Impact - Progressive Democrats Lose Ground – NYC Closes its Wallet to Democrats, Teachers Union Not Trusted in formerly Blue New Jersey

An article from Politico on Independence Day spoke to the fact that Democrats are finding it difficult to raise campaign funds from wealthy Donors in New York City, which is a first. Logic (according to what has been long reported and assumed) is that Republicans rather than Democrats have had strong ties to “big money” on Wall Street; however, the DNC has been going to the Wall Street trough, according to Politico, for decades. In fact, up until this year, certain donors would not even “take a meeting” with a Republican – stunned Democrats find that now, wallets are closing and Republican Candidates have been seen in the Big Apple.

The fact that Wall Street, which drives our nations businesses, in spite of corruption, displays of extravagance and the like, has virtually shut down donations to the DNC. More over logic also dictates that this news coming as a surprise to Democrats is either the product of outright arrogance or plain stupidity, perhaps a combination of both.

The New York money comes from several sources, including Wall Street, Jewish Organizations and the Hamptons – where Politico talks about the loss of the Clinton's fundraising in the Hamptons, as if it would make any difference at this point in our economy. Additionally, with the administration being less than friendly to the State of Israel, those going to the Jewish Organizations with hat in hand are finding the door shut. As the administration and members of Congress have set their hearts on demonizing Wall Street, (rule and regulation aside) in order to campaign against Big Business and Republicans (the usual), they are seeing a severe cut in the amount of the donations given.

It’s the economy that has affected both the haves and the have not’s to the extent that giving to a political party, under who’s watch the economy has continued to degrade is not considered a good investment. Therefore, finding the doors shut to DNC fundraisers, should come as no surprise. The article noted that Obama, however, raised money from individuals rather than larger donors – which is bunk - one of the largest contributors to Obama’s 2008 Presidential Campaign: Goldman Sachs - you can only bite the hand that feeds you so often.

What of those individual donors? Now, in the same position as Wall Street, and with a change in political ideology which goes towards the poor performance of the administration – those individual donors may be slowing a bit – as they are strapped for cash.
July 15th is the next filing for campaigns and PAC’s with the FEC, what to expect, a slowing in donations across the board, but more specifically the Democrats - due to less cash on hand and a whole lot of hurt feelings and mistrust.

Comparing 2008 to 2010 for the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi: Total raised in 2010: $2,856,945, compared to 2010 at $1,839, 722 – not much of a difference? Her campaign contributions come primarily from larger business concerns in California, and she faces a real challenger in Republican John Dennis. Should those who had donated to Dennis primary opponent, Walsh (who matched Pelosi in Fundraising in 2009-2010) turn to support Dennis, (which is more probable); his showing on the 15th should improve.

Of course, it’s not always about how much money a political organization or candidate has, that will determine a win or a loss – A recent poll by Quinnipiac on the governorship of one Chris Christie, New Jersey Republican, produced a startling by-product. The residents of the state of New Jersey no longer trust the Teacher’s Union - and by no narrow margin.

New Jersey voters like their teachers 56 – 26 percent, but by a 50 – 24 percent margin they have a negative opinion of the teachers’ union. Voters with children in public school like their teachers 65 – 23 percent, but dislike the teachers’ union 53 – 22 percent. While 45 percent trust the union more to make the right decisions about teacher contracts, 43 percent trust Christie more.
Teachers’ unions are doing the wrong thing in refusing to freeze wages or make other concessions, voters say 64 – 29 percent. Voters oppose 65 – 31 percent property tax increases to avoid cutting teachers and school programs in their district.
“Voters like their kids’ teachers but they sure don’t like the teachers’ union. Voters with kids in school like their teachers more and like the union even less,” Carroll said.

New Jersey Teachers Unions have spent, as of March, 2010, $6 million dollars on negative advertising aimed at the Governor. The fact that this was done, while the Unions refused to allow a wage freeze for teachers and union members for one year, did not set with those New Jersey Taxpayers. It should not sit well with those New Jersey Teachers, who pay $730 a month in Dues, which should go towards health care and pension – one would think. Instead, the bulk of union dues go towards supporting political causes and politicians directly (See Obama Donors link.)
In fact Christie has called on this same union to fore go charging the dues, in order to put into place the desire wage increases this union wants in this recession.

What is of interest is how well or not the DNC will do in total fundraising on July 15th, and if a nationwide survey on trust of unions were taken, how well they might fare in other parts of the country. One would hazard to guess that the poll taken in New Jersey, due to heavy concentration of Registered Democrats in the state, might have given them a few extra points. Therefore, advertisements run by the Teachers union (and other) might not be doing any initiatives or candidates any favors – it also remains to be seen how many teachers might actually end up buying out of their union, and going solo in order to save face and their jobs at the same time. (Yes, one must pay a fee not to belong to the Teaches union.)

As the nation readies for the 2010 and 2012 election cycle, Democrats will find themselves with less dollars for advertising, and if the unions continue to spend dues on negative advertising in a variety states, those watching may be less inclined to believe the union message. There are two basic lessons in this: one: know how thinly stretched the “masses” are before asking them for your trust, and tax dollars, two: don’t bite the hand that feeds you and most impotently: Progressive Politics don’t work in a Democratic Republic, the people balk, get disgusted and then go to the polls.

Speaker Pelosi C-SPAN Weekly Legislative Briefing - Unemployment Benefits Create Jobs – The Lunatic is Running the Asylum

During her Weekly legislative briefing Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, (between bouts of partisan rhetoric) spoke about the value of unemployment benefits. The video and unabridged transcript which follows speaks to the idiocy of Ms. Pelosi and her inability to understand basic economics. The basic premise: unemployment benefits were designed as a State, not Federal, benefit - one which would enable individuals who had lost employment to gain temporary relief. However, as individual States can no longer afford to pay out unemployment benefits for years, the Federal government now seeks to foot the bill. The problem: where is the money coming from? House Republicans suggest using money earmarked, but not spent, from the Stimulus package passed in 2009. Democrats say no, as that money is going to be used for “job creation”. Apparently, they are waiting for the tax cuts that affect every single working American to expire (See “Six Months to Go Until The Largest Tax Hikes in History” from American’s for Tax Reform) in order to begin to pay for the extravagance this Congresss, led by Speaker Pelosi, has displayed since taking power in 2006. In addition, new jobless claims due out today are expected to rise, leaving even fewer taxpayers available to fleece.

The administration has already noted they believe that there is no way to replace the eight million jobs lost, and V.P. Joe Biden has labeled the current economic state of the U.S. as the “Great Recession” (going on to blame former President George Bush. How long, therefore, does the Speaker believe benefits can be extended? (Note: the Congress holds the nations purse strings, and without that political body’s consent, a President cannot spend one dime.) Therefore, understanding that digging a deeper hole into debt might put our nation at greater peril, there is a bit of push back from those who understand that, yes, we should extend benefits (humane), but the nation needs to find a way to pay for it first. The argument follows: as Speaker Pelosi believes that unemployment benefits create jobs, why not use some of the stimulus that is unspent (allegedly for use to create jobs), and do something useful, while not incurring more debt (although in reality, the U.S. would be using debt already incurred, a self-made line of credit so to speak).

In reading the transcript below, understand that as Speaker, Ms. Pelosi is third in line to the Presidency of the United States. Should something happen to President Obama (see Blagojevich Trial), Vice President Biden would be the President, however, should something happen to Biden, Nancy Pelosi would be sitting in the oval office. That said, she is currently in a position that is more powerful, economically than that of either the President or the Vice President – it is chilling either way.

Nancy Pelosi is up for re-election in 2010 and faces Republican John Dennis in the November election. Once thought to be a permanent fixture in the San Francisco district, Ms. Pelosi has lost political capitol in her home district; therefore, Dennis is in a good position to be the next Congressional Representative, replacing Ms. Pelosi. A Republican led House would, of course, effectively remove the Speaker from extreme power; however, one has to believe that to remove the Speaker permanently would be a far better course for both the San Francisco District and the nation – as political fortunes change with political winds and the real danger exists she might regain the seat at a later date.

Transcript:

“have stopped unemployment benefits from going to people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. It’s just cruel and we’re not gonna it’s it cannot stand and I believe uh that uh it - it will this will be passed when we come back. We have passed it over and over again and today we will pass it again to remove all doubt. Now let me say that unemployment insurance we talk about it as a safety net and the rest this is one of the biggest stimulus to our economy – economists will tell you this money is spent quickly it injects demand into the economy and its job creating it creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name. because again its money that is needed for families to survive and its spent so it has a double benefit it helps those who’ve lost their jobs but it’s also is a job creator and uh for for that reason for those two reasons at least it should be passed and I’m optimistic that it will. It’s impossible to think of a situation where we would have a country that would say we’re not going to have unemployment benefits and the only people who want them are the people who don’t want jobs it’s just so contrary to what our country is about and I reject that misrepresentation of the motivation for people to be on unemployment insurance.

C-Span Video



Best quote from comments left at Breitbart.tv, who was, in all likelihood, the first to publish the video : “I would give California back to Mexico just to get rid of her. “

Drastic to be sure, however, a better bet would be for those in opposition to Speaker Pelosi to visit: www.johndennis2010.com and either donate or volunteer or blog or email the link to family and friends. No matter what political ideology to which one subscribes, it is apparent from the continued lunacy of Ms. Pelosi, that a permanent replacement should be seriously considered and John Dennis offers the opportunity to finally do something to move our nation toward sanity.

As The Economy Reels, Obama’s Ability to Tell the Truth Questioned - Union Chief Testimony at Chicago Blagojevich Trial

Obama - Trouble in Chicago - image: nickwardscenarios.com

Economic forecasts for this week have been nothing short of dismal. CNBC reported that only 13,000 private sector jobs were created in June, well below the 100,000 jobs needed to reduce the unemployment rate. The Department of Labor unemployment figures will be released on July 2nd, and will include those temporary census workers who are now out of work. Last month the averaged unemployment rate rose from 9.7 to 9.8%.

In addition, the bill to extend unemployment benefits to an estimated 1.3 million individuals who have remained unemployed for an extended period of time remains stalled in the Senate. Democrats have been quibbling with Republicans over adding to the national debit (which has risen to levels not seen since World War II - Republicans argue monies not spent from the stimulus bills should be used for these extensions instead of incurring additional national debt. Ironically, Democrats argue that the monies are needed to encourage job growth – current economic indicators tend to disagree, as noted temporary census takers will be placed on the “doll” as of this month. Additionally, Democrats pointing fingers at Republicans for “killing the bill” should look to their Speaker, Harry Reid, who, once again, voted “Nay” by mistake.

The fact that spending one’s way out of a financial crisis has not worked, is lost on the President – perhaps his mind is elsewhere – like Chicago.

Times (CNN Partner) reports that Obama’s initial claims of having no knowledge of any dealings with Blagojevich may have been stretching the truth a bit. In 2008, the Presidents future council investigated claims regarding Blagojevich and within two weeks produced a report stating the President had no involvement in a Senate Seat for Sale. Apparently, this is not the case. On Tuesday of this week, SEIU’s Tom Balanoff testified that he did, indeed, have conversations regarding the Senate Seat and potential replacements with Obama. He also indicated he told the President he would relay Obama’s choice of Valerie Jarrett to then Governor Blagojevich.

To date, as noted by Times, the best reporting (or perhaps sole reporting) on the trial has come from the Chicago Sun Times – a daily feature: live blogging with trial transcripts offers new insight into the underside of the political machine that moved Obama to Pennsylvania Avenue. Reporting from the Tribune across town, appears more defensive and plays to the unsavory character of Blagojevich, rather than the implications that the President had a part in the entire process.

One door closes, another opens. It is appearing more likely by the day that that Hillary Clinton will run in 2012, which would, at the least be an attempt to restore some dignity to the Party.