Arizona Immigration: the Audio Version

 

ricochetpodcast

Here’s a quick (10 minutes or so) audio summary of today’s Supreme Court ruling in Arizona v United States — and why it is such bad news for federalism. My comments are, of course, consistent with my post from earlier today; my views of the Constitution don’t “evolve” as quickly as some people’s.

There are 8 comments.

  1. Brasidas Member
    Adam Freedman: My comments are, of course, consistent with my post from earlier today; my views of the Constitution don’t “evolve” as quickly as some people’s. · · 12 minutes ago

    Like the way you put that, Adam.

    • #1
    • June 26, 2012, at 5:54 AM PDT
    • Like
  2. Daniel Sattelberger Inactive

    Excellent. When is this going to evolve into a full-blown podcast as promised?

    • #2
    • June 26, 2012, at 6:26 AM PDT
    • Like
  3. Brasidas Member

    Thanks, Adam, for the concise and cogent analysis. As I understand it, the federal government must now act as a sort of centralized customer service for foreign governments as they seek to aid their citizens who have committed crimes here. This strikes me as an unusual, almost absurd, level of bending-over-backwards on our part. We are saying, I think, that the federal government is obligated to make it easy and uncomplicated for foreign governments to deal with their citizens who get in trouble here.

    • #3
    • June 26, 2012, at 6:29 AM PDT
    • Like
  4. James Gawron Thatcher

    Adam,

    Justice Scalia based his opinion on rock solid American Constitutional logic. The majority opinion is a repulsive grasping after mindless Federal power at the expense of the Health and Welfare of American Citizens.

    My read here is simple. Obama/Holder’s refusal to enforce the Law is impeachable. The Court aka Kennedy has manufactured a fig leaf of an argument to cover this. 

    For whatever reason Gd seems to be chosing which victories we obtain and when. If you are religious (and a little older) this is not so surprising.

    Thursday. I like the sound of that day for some reason.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #4
    • June 26, 2012, at 6:33 AM PDT
    • Like
  5. tabula rasa Member

    Excellent summary. This whole propensity to find precedent in international law is deeply troubling.

    You’ve got to love Scalia.

    • #5
    • June 26, 2012, at 6:40 AM PDT
    • Like
  6. DutchTex Inactive

    So, minus a new SCOTUS decision that some how, miraculously overturns this one, the states have lost yet more power to the federal government? 

    • #6
    • June 26, 2012, at 7:43 AM PDT
    • Like
  7. Douglas Inactive

    On the one side, we’ve got leftists and RINO-squishes arguing that it’s inhumane to not throw our borders wide open. On the other side, we have libertarians arguing that it violates their economic rights if we don’t throw the borders wide open. Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right…

    • #7
    • June 26, 2012, at 9:36 AM PDT
    • Like
  8. Astonishing Inactive

    Freedman’s analysis hardly does justice to the majority arguments. Notwithstanding his alluringly beautiful sotto voce, he appeals more to emotion than to reason.

    For example, knowing it’s a hot button, Freedman treats accommodation of foreign governments’ “perceptions” in a way that both overstates the extent and mischaracterizes the nature of its significance in the majority opinion. For a better analysis of how such perceptions should best be managed within a federal scheme, with Art. I, §8, cl. 3 &4 firmly in mind consider the whole of Federalist 3, wherein Jay observed:

    It is of high importance to the peace of America that she observe the laws of nations towards all these powers, . . . this will be more perfectly and punctually done by one national government than it could be . . . by . . . separate States.

    See also Federalist 4: in matters affecting borders, “jealousies and uneasinesses may gradually slide into the minds and cabinets of other nations.”)

    Similarly inapposite and unconvincing is Scalia’s and Freedman’s cite to the 1837 case upholding NY immigration law: unlike now, little federal immigration law existed in 1837 to preempt state law.

    You might still disagree, but please consider reading the opinions for yourself.

    • #8
    • June 26, 2012, at 11:47 AM PDT
    • Like