-
BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity
May 24, 2013 | 13 comments
-
Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden
May 24, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Good Luck Quin
May 24, 2013 | 6 comments
-
One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born
May 23, 2013 | 9 comments
-
The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again
May 22, 2013 | 7 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Jim Antle draws our attention to the Supreme Court once again being less than impressed with the arguments advanced by Solicitor General Donald Verilli this time over Arizona’s immigration law.
There is a great deal to be unimpressed about. U.S. v. State of Arizona & Brewer argues that S.B. 1070 would “conflict with and undermine by the federal government’s careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and activities” by imposing “significant and counterproductive burdens on the federal agencies charged with enforcing the national immigration scheme, diverting resources and attention from the dangerous aliens who the federal government targets as its top enforcement priority.” But as I argued back in July 2010:
When the DOJ argues that S.B. 1070 “will impose significant and counterproductive burdens on federal agencies” what they mean is that the ICE operated Law Enforcement Support Center in Williston, Vermont could get a lot more phone calls from Arizona. So it could blow the overtime budget of DHS. The is an administrative issue, not a constitutional one. Perhaps it will cause some inconvenience for the feds. But let us never confuse inconvenience with unconstitutionality.
But then again what else can we expect of the Obama Administration? An administration whose Attorney General admitted under oath that he had not read the Arizona immigration law and had only glanced at it.
View all comments (11) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/04/25/obama-vs-arizona-administrativ
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Ed| 4.25.12 @ 5:27PM
Usually, the Administration will argue that the State can't set standards or regulate in federal spheres of influence in ways that contradict the federal law. Here, they are arguing that there are unwritten and unvoted on policies that actually contradict federal law which a State has to honor. Does that strike anyone as unlawful?
PattyMor| 4.25.12 @ 6:38PM
Why don't we just redirect some of the money wasted by GSA and the Secret Service to party on our dime, and give it to the HS for detention of illegal aliens? Voila! plenty of money.
C Bowen | 4.25.12 @ 6:46PM
Mr. Goldstein;
Will you be writing a column or blog post supporting the dismissal of Marine Gary Stein for Facebook posts criticism?
You wrote some months back that it is never acceptable for a member of the military to practice disobedience, so it would be a timely show of consistency on your part.
Mike 3/505| 4.25.12 @ 8:56PM
"...it is never acceptable for a member of the military to practice disobedience,..."
Actually, in some circumstances, not only is disobedience acceptable, it is required...for example, the case of an illegal order. We hanged several German and Japanese Officcers at the end of WWII based on this principle.
C Bowen| 4.26.12 @ 9:27AM
In, I believe, the Summer of 41, a military man leaked Colonel McCormick of illegal plans for war being conducted by the Roosevelt Administration.
The Rightwing of that Era and through-out the war years (and post war years for that matter) was quite supportive of this leak, and to this day, it's part of conservative lore regarding Roosevelt's "Backdoor to war."
I'd also point out, as I did to Goldstein a month after he made his point, that the troops who held a Christmas Eve truce on the Western Front, were committing a crime punishable by death.
Goldstein had no comment so I thought I would chase up on it here. One might get the sense he was just posturing.
albert constantine jr.| 4.25.12 @ 10:03PM
CB;
I don’t know the thoughts of Mr. Goldstein on the matter, but if a Marine Sgt. had posted classified documents online, or turned them over to someone not authorized to receive them, I would be highly critical of said NCO, and support an appropriate punishment meted out against them (such as I was when Sgt. Clayton Lonetree, USMC, was caught in the old honeytrap at the US Embassy in Moscow, and allowed her KGB “uncle” access to US secrets) that could include the death penalty, if the elements of treason and espionage are so defined in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and found through court martial.
On the other hand, posting unclassified opinions in violation of a directive might be contrary to the good order and discipline of the Marine Corps, and an individual Marine had admitted to such an act, non-judicial punishment or summary court martial is more than sufficient.
C Bowen| 4.26.12 @ 9:33AM
I was and am curious if Goldstein will even post on a topic that could prove he is consistent with his point.
The military is typically always leaking information to the press or the administration, but it occasionally comes down on this rogue or that rogue. When it was discovered that the Pentagon had more or less hired a set of reporters (the Pentagon's Pundit program as it was called), nothing was really done though the program was ceased--conservatives of the DC type were quiet because in some cases, like AmSpec, they had been part of the program (Babbin.)
Quite illegal--but no calls for the death penalty.
spike59| 4.26.12 @ 6:07AM
CB: your little rant relates to the topic at hand HOW?
Vince in AZ | 4.27.12 @ 5:33AM
It is pretty apparent that the entire issue is a conflict between state law and federal policy. Given that there is no Constitutional basis for federal policy being superior to state law, the Supremes should have an easy time finding for Arizona. What puzzles me is, how the hell did the 9th Circuit find for Holder??? Did they really expect the Supremes to roll over for them? Finding for Holder would re-write the Constitution! As the Obamacare decision would change the relationship between the federal government and all American citizens, the Arizona decision could change the relationship between the federal government and the states. In essence, states would need to get federal approval for every law they passed to ensure that there is no "significant and counterproductive burdens" in the opinion of any department, agency, or bureau.
jgo| 4.27.12 @ 2:19PM
"ICE operated Law Enforcement Support Center in Williston, Vermont"
So, which corrupt senator managed that bit of pork? Why isn't it at, oh, say, International Falls, MN; Antelope Wells, NM; or a more central location, like, oh, Bazine, KS?
jgo| 4.27.12 @ 2:20PM
It is pretty apparent that the entire issue is a conflict between state and federal law, OT1H, and federal policy, OTOH.