Another Day, Another Federal Assault on Liberty

· Friday, July 30, 2010

Yesterday's federal court decision to enjoin enforcement of the Arizona immigration law is the latest example of a virtually unchecked renegade federal government waging war against the states and against the liberties of its citizens.

We've seen that Obama will exercise any power he can get away with, from strong-arming secured creditors and favoring unions as he gobbled up automakers to making a mockery of due process with his Oval Office shakedown of BP. But he might have reached a new low with his assaults on the sovereignty of the people of Arizona.

Indeed, Judge Susan Bolton's disgraceful decision to grant an injunction against Arizona's new immigration law is, in the words of Mark Levin, "abominable," but let's not forget that this case wouldn't have been before Judge Bolton if Obama's Justice Department hadn't initiated it.

And let's not pretend that Obama's motives are anything other than political, the law and the rule of law be damned. He told Sen. Jon Kyl in a private meeting that he was unwilling to secure our borders because it would decrease his chances to pass "comprehensive immigration reform."

So when Arizona attempted to exercise a little self-help and work on securing its own border by passing a law carefully crafted to mirror the federal immigration law and encourage its enforcement, the all-powerful Obama feds came down on it like a furious king against his disobedient subjects.

In a saner world, freedom lovers could have rested easy, knowing that an impartial, Constitution-respecting judge would summarily reject the administration's unlawful scheme to thwart Arizona's sovereignty by superimposing its own nonenforcement policy.

But in her decision, Clinton appointee Bolton demonstrated how dangerous judicial activism can be to our individual liberties and democratic processes. It's one thing for a court to invalidate a law because it doesn't pass constitutional muster; it's quite another for it to misstate the facts, the legislation and the Constitution to reach a preordained decision.

Just consider three outrages of this decision highlighted by other commentators, any of which, individually, makes a mockery of justice. Andy McCarthy properly observes that Judge Bolton stretched the federal pre-emption doctrine to absurd limits. Under Bolton's specious reasoning, state law must be struck down not only if it is inconsistent with federal law, which the Arizona law is not, but also if it somehow contradicts federal law enforcement practices. Because the Obama feds refused, as a matter of policy, to enforce their own law against illegal immigration, the state could not be allowed to pass a law promoting enforcement. Note that nothing in the actual Constitution or case law justifies such an extrapolation of pre-emption doctrine. But such trifles don't impede an administration and court determined to keep the immigration floodgates open at any cost.

Mark Levin notes that Judge Bolton correctly enunciated the rigorous legal standard required for a plaintiff to succeed in a "facial challenge" to a law's constitutionality but then proceeded to ignore the rules she had just affirmed. She acknowledged that for the federal government to have prevailed, it would have had to show the law could never be applied in a constitutional fashion. That is, "a facial challenge must fail where a statute has a 'plainly legitimate sweep.'" But she ignored that limitation on her authority, just as she violated another principle she paid lip service to in her opinion: that the court was not to speculate about hypothetical cases.

Heather Mac Donald exposes Judge Bolton's acquiescence to the Obama administration's "carefully cultivated fiction" that the administration's primary motive with the lawsuit was to prevent the application of the law to legal aliens. The judge ignored uncontroverted testimony and legal briefs from Arizona officials stating that only people who were reasonably suspected to be illegally in the country would be required to prove their legal status. So to protect legal aliens from a law that doesn't apply to them, she refuses to apply the law to illegals.

Cynical observers of the political scene lazily dismiss each unfolding Obama outrage as merely Washington politics as usual. But with this administration, we're witnessing power grabs that are different in kind rather than degree.

Our liberties depend on our preserving the integrity of the Constitution and the mechanisms it established to deter tyranny. To the extent we dismantle those safeguards, we imperil our freedoms.

When the political class is filled with those who are ideologically committed to certain political ends irrespective of the legality of the means used to achieve them, our system of checks and balances breaks down, which is one reason John Adams warned, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

November's elections cannot come fast enough.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM


Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.


Comments

Hard Thought

White is Black, day is night, up is down and this judge followed the law.

Because the feds won't enforce its' own laws the states are prevented from enforcing the law that mirrors the feds because the feds are too lazy????

Let's prosecute the sanctuary cities and withhold federal dollars until they are in compliance with federal law.

Oh, wait. That doesn't suit this administration's hopes of millions of more Democrat voters after amnesty. They can't can't win on the strength of their ideas so they hope to pad the ballot box.

Vote early, vote often, vote Democrat. That means you Mickey and Minnie, Donald and Daisy, Goofy and Pluto.

Our country and the rule of law has been stolen by the progressive/socialist/Democrat ideology.

Posted July 30, 2010 at 4:48:01 AM


H. D. Schmidt

Mr. Limbaugh why don't you also admit that the likes like you, made it possible that Mr. Obama now sits in the Oval Office instead of Ron Paul? Question to you: Do you balieve that George W. and his cronies were better on the issue in question? Yes, the Republican Party is now doing any and everything under the sun that Obama hands back America to it, in an even worse shape than George W. handed to Obama. That is real old fahion patriotism making the Founding Fathers shake in their graves.

Posted July 30, 2010 at 7:37:41 AM


Bruce R Pierce

How about Arizona enforces the Federal Law that says Aliens must carry their Documents with them? Even the "Green Card" has the words "Must be carried at all times" on it. I wonder what could have been said if Arizona had just made a Law that said ALL Federal Laws are in force within the State of Arizona and it is the responsibility of ALL Law Enforcement Agencies to carry out the Law.

Posted July 30, 2010 at 7:56:06 AM


terry goodwin

I commented on this issue:Arizona's SR1070, when it first made headlines. I said that all Arizona did was spit in BO's face, rightly so, and it would bring the rath of this admin's force to destroy the state soverignity of the 9th and 10th amendments. I also warned he would begin a back door deal for blanket amnesty, and really show his contempt. I still beleive this will happen, as well as a way to change the Bill of Rights. So be prepared everyone, it's coming.

Posted July 30, 2010 at 9:38:57 AM


Shawn in NC

We're too far down this path. When we permit a president and the courts to dance together to go blatantly against the constitution in a power grab, the only solution is at the end of a gun. Really, the primaries are over and who knows the new candidates? Most people I question don't even vote the primaries, where the REAL CHANGE is supposed to begin taking shape.

Posted July 30, 2010 at 10:30:01 AM


Mac

The scariest thing about all of this is that the feather merchant in the white house doesn't care what the people of this country want or believe in. It's his arrogance and willingness to listen to and abide by the will of Soros to destroy this country. He hijacked the election in the same manner an abuser would seduce a child from a playground; promise something sweet.

Posted July 30, 2010 at 1:12:15 PM


JAC

This decision adds another example to the saying that everyone has their price. Bolton showed that she has a price, and someone paid it. There can't be any other logical explanation for her ridiculous ruling. It will be interesting in the future to see what Bolton ultimately gets from this decision. In the meantime, anyone who thinks the 9th Circuit Court will overturn this decision on Arizona's appeal is smoking dope. The 9th has been in Obozo's pocket and those like him forever.

Posted July 30, 2010 at 1:24:38 PM


Billy

It is time to start taking names of activist judges and when we get a responsible congress, begin impeachment proceedings. When Judges ignore the constitution, that is a CRIME! It is time Congress re-established their power. The president has committed crimes against the people, but our current congress lets it happen - we may not oust enough members of the senate to actually convict any of these criminals, but if the house will impeach a few, it might send a message to the rest of the activist!

At the federal level, Article Two of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that "The President, Vice President, and all other civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate.

Posted July 30, 2010 at 5:38:50 PM


Jody

It appears that the President and his administration are counting on the fact that America remain asleep.

WAKE UP, AMERICA ! ! !

Posted July 30, 2010 at 7:00:09 PM


Robert, USN, Ret

Couple of errors, Sir. Several actually.

a)This is not the lowest the half-black in charge will go.

b) Existing laws, on the books, provided all that AZ needed, if that is all they wished to do. SB 1070 was an opportunity for advertising Jan Brewer (for Gov)

c) In a charge by Fed against a State, the only Court of Jurisdiction is the Supreme Court. Bolton, and that Court had no jurisdiction and her promouncement is moot.

d)The entire controversy is misnamed. It has nothing to do with 'immigration'. It has everything to do with criminal trespass.

e) Those people in this Republic are entitled to all the protections of this Republic. If they are here properly, legally. Criminal intruders do not attach to those rights. They are criminals.

f)"undocumented immigrants" is an incorrect description. These people are, by and large, foot soldiers of the Mexican goverenment. La Raza, and the return of parts of the US to Mexico.

Those descendans of South Americans, now citizens of this Republic, enable this invasion!They openly brag about it!(I often wonder why those with a mother tongue not of English, assume that folks of lighter complexion do not understand the tongue of Mexico!)Otherwise, enjoyed the piece. Thank you.

Posted July 31, 2010 at 5:49:27 PM


pete

The only way to fully put an end, once and for all, to illegal Mexican immigration is to annex Mexico. They have oil, silver, and some of the most beautiful beaches in the world that can be exploited by gringo companies employing local nationals. If there were any real leader ship in Mexico they would be employing all those running off to the US improving the country. Instead the govenment takes billions of USD every year and distributes it to their cronies. That leaves the bottom of the population with no choice but to run drugs, sex, or jump the border.

Posted July 31, 2010 at 8:03:31 PM


Bruce

NOW THAT ILLEGAL ALIENS, VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW BY THEIR MERE PRESENCE ON US SOIL, ARE IMMIGRANTS, US CITIZENS HAVE NO RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY. THE REVOLUTION HAS BEGUN.

Posted August 1, 2010 at 9:43:25 PM


tjbbpgobIII

If the feds don't want the states to enforce any federal laws then what about bank robbery, that's a federal jurisdiction, what about kidnapping? I know it would be a hard thing for LE to do and they probably couldn't do so out of their desire to enforce laws, but if sheriffs and local LE would threaten this what could the feds do? They do not have the manpower to track and arrest all federal lawbreakers. I believe though, that LE is better than that and will continue to do their duty.

Posted August 2, 2010 at 5:12:43 PM


Pointer

Checks and Balances Amendment:

 

The House of Representatives has the power to immediately rescind any Executive Branch regulation on constitutional grounds.

 

The Supreme Court has the sole power to reinstate a regulation rescinded by the Senate.

(Fast-track approach to ending regulations that circumvent existing laws and the requirement for congressional authority to regulate)

The Senate has the power to immediately rescind any Executive Branch appointment.

 

For any individual whose appointment is rescinded or denied by the Senate, the Senate must specifically approve any future government employment of that individual.

 

(Tools to terminate czars, reconfirm recess appointments, upgrade the caliber and vetting of proposed appointees, and keep appointed officials on the side of the people, when their tyranny-by-regulation or failure to enforce the law instantly puts their jobs in jeopardy.)

Posted August 2, 2010 at 6:01:20 PM


Abu Nudnik

Calling the president "half black" is out of order. His color is not an issue: his character is.

Other than that the poster whose name I won't mention is right. They are criminal aliens, not illegal immigrants. Lies come in pairs.

Posted August 3, 2010 at 1:03:36 AM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund