THE RULE OF LAW & POLITICS.

It may be true; and it can be false.

What is wrong in America is for the United States Supreme Court to dabble in politics; and what is serious about that is that members of the court can do so in privacy or even in secrecy, without anyone ever knowing about their thoughts.

From the look so obvious in the the ruling of the Arizona immigration law, the court has one foot in Arizona and the other in Washington D.C.; and if the governor of the state, Gov. Jan Brewer, is reacting adversely in any way to yesterday's ruling by the court, then she is completely out of her mind. She has plenty to be "thankful for" all the same.

The defendant, which is the Federal government in the Arizona case, already has the provisions that the court ruled in its favor on the the law books, and so there is no real argument about the decision, except a part that permits local law enforcement to assist in immigration laws. The government still holds the ace card.

The look that is being discussed here is making both sides of a dispute to have the idea that victory in a case is not the only option; but that one can lose part of a litigation and still be able to claim as winning a portion that matters. The end result becomes a "tie" for both sides.

On one hand, the action of the court is seen as true refereeing, which is the basic responsibility of judges to draw a clear line between two contestants; but they can also split a decision for both sides to have very little or nothing to say about it.

Such a decision is not portraying that Arizona's case is a waste of time; but that the state can somehow indulge in a federal jurisdiction, such as immigration, if necessary. While, on the other hand, the government has to wait and see how the state handles that portion; and perhaps raise an objection in court, if it (government) finds the state to be overstepping its bounds.

Justices are people too, and they have their political leanings; and to separate those sentiments from their work will be extremely difficult; however, that is what they have been appointed to do, to resolve difficult problems without personal feelings.

Yet, one cannot say that the Arizona ruling is not a just one; but the justices can rightly throw out the case and lambaste the governor for infiltrating federal autonomy. Instead, she is being dealt not with a blow, but a server to do federal work.

The decision smacks of an appeasement by the justices for the two sides; something which the Attorney General Eric Holder representing the federal government, has been least expecting during the whole process.

Like many people, his view is one that will prompt the court to inform the governor that her rights are limited to her state, when it comes to Federal immigration laws; but that will not happen; and that tends to embolden the governor to continue in her rhetoric against the government and about her controversial immigration laws.

That is what the ruling does, by allowing a governor of a state to belittle the federal government; and if that is not playing pure politics by some of the justices to arrive at their combined and final decision, nothing thereof does.

Comments 10 comments

American Romance profile image

American Romance 4 years ago from America

Wow, I take this case as being one hundred percent OPPOSITE of how you portrayed it! I see Obama belittling Arizonians. Arizona is simply enforcing laws that are on the books. The Feds are the ones not keeping up their end of the bargain. If I were Brewer I would have had my highway patrol escort all federal law enforement to the border yesterday.


American View profile image

American View 4 years ago from Plano, Texas

First, Arizona is the defendant as the US government was trying to strike down the AZ law. AR is also correct and now Obama administration has come out and siad it will no honor the agreements in place with AZ and will ignore all calls on immigration that come from AZ law enforcement. What was that Oath Obama took?


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

American Romance & American View,

Whatever the case, the U.S. Government has the authority to enforce the immigration laws on the books, and not individual states.

For any state to opt out and formulate its own by-laws on immigration is not permissible.

In other words, AZ cannot legislate its own provisional statutes to replace or override federal laws. That was what Gov. Jan Brewer did.

In all history, the states would coax the federal government to enforce those laws that appertain to them.

They never forced the federal government's hand to do anything. If they did, it would be against the U.S. Constitution.

In as much as you two guys would not admit, Brewer was breaking the law; no matter what.


American View profile image

American View 4 years ago from Plano, Texas

You misunderstand the AZ law. It did not opt out of anything, in fact it was word for word the immigration policy the federal government claims to enforce which we know they do not.

Brewer did not break the law, read the constitution about what states can and cannot do, what the federal government can and cannot do as it pertains to states.

Obama has broken the law by not enforcing the law, by telling DHS to not take calls from AZ. I feel some lawsuits coming on.


callisthenes profile image

callisthenes 4 years ago from United States Of America

The fact of the matter here is that the States grant the federal government the power to regulate immigration since it is a matter that extends across all state borders. But the federal government has largely failed to enforce the immigration laws on the books, thus adversely impacting several states.

The country deserves to have it's appropriate federal agencies enforce the laws on the books, and if the citizens of this country have issues with these laws (specifically U.S immigration law) then they can petition their congressional representatives to reform these laws.

I think most of us would agree that this is a complex issue, and probably does deserve reforms. But by the federal government choosing to not follow these laws, do they fundamentally return this responsibility to the states that have charged them with enforcing these policies?


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

The United State Constitution is firm and solid. Nothing can change it, except by an amendment, which can be added to a list of such amendments.

Every new amendment has to be approved by both chambers of the U.S. Congress.

The states will have their input for any such amendment to become permanent by their vote.

However, the Federal Government has the sole and overall authority to legislate and enforce immigration laws.

In other words, no individual state has the right to do the same.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has to know that to assume the governorship of that state.

So, despite all circumstances, she knew that she was breaking the law; but she went ahead and did so; and therefore, she was deserving of punishment.

Instead, she was rewarded by the Supreme Court, with her state's local law enforcement being permitted to administer an immigration law.

The key issue was whether Attorney General Eric Holder was right to oppose the governor's action or not.

To many (U.S.) Americans, he was right. He was doing his sworn and assigned work as the protector of the Constitution.

(P.S. The President of the United States is the main or chief protector of the Constitution).


American View profile image

American View 4 years ago from Plano, Texas

"The United State Constitution is firm and solid. Nothing can change it, except by an amendment, which can be added to a list of such amendments."

Please cite where in the constitution it specifically says the Federal government is in charge of immigration.

Then read the 10th amendment.


callisthenes profile image

callisthenes 4 years ago from United States Of America

I would believe that the responsibility would fall under Article IV Section 4, that is contained in the Constitution before the amendments. just my 2ยข


American View profile image

American View 4 years ago from Plano, Texas

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

This is about protecting the states from an invasion like Pearl Harbor, 911 and such.


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

Dear American View,

The United States Constitution, regarding it's meaning and content, has not changed.

It's bill of rights or amendments have increased over the years into what they were today; however, the fact remained that Congress, on behalf of the Federal government (representing the people), has the sole authority to legislate laws....

Therefore, any legislation passed by both chambers and signed by the president (whoever that might be) was in all respects part thereof; such as statutes that dealt with immigration.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working