Obama vs. Arizona: Administrative, Not Constitutional | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
Obama vs. Arizona: Administrative, Not Constitutional
by

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.

Sign Up to receive Our Latest Updates! Register

Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.

Be a Free Market Loving Patriot. Subscribe Today!