[/caption]The Washington Post is reporting on the opening litigation arguments over Arizona’s immigration law before the courts – lawyers for the Justice Department and those for the state of Arizona pleaded their respective positions.
The Justice Department’s position is that the State of Arizona is basically usurping an area of authority (immigration) that is the purview of the Federal government, specifically spelled out in our Constitution.
Arizona, on the other hand, will argue that its' immigration law simply mirrors the Federal law, but allows it to have concurrent jurisdiction over immigration matters. The state law is predicated on the Tenth Amendment, which spells out state rights under a concept known as federalism.
It must be noted that the Justice Department is initially seeking an injunction to prevent the Arizona immigration law from taking effect shortly
Take it from me, as an attorney, I can say that constitutional law is a subject matter many avoid in law school, unless it is mandatory, and the concept of Federalism is especially tricky because it is basically laws governing a sovereign within a sovereign.
Think of the state of Arizona as a country within a country, with the later being the United States. The United States law governing a specific area of law – immigration - trumps any laws written by any state that covers the same law.
There is a simple example to explain the above rule: take the laws governing our speed limit. Let’s say that in your particular state the speed limit is 60 miles per hour, but the Feds law is 65. The 60 miles an hour speed limit by your state is within the law because it adheres to the Feds’ threshold, just as long as it doesn’t exceed the 65 miles an hour as mandated by the Federal law. In essence, you can always have laws that meet the Federal law threshold, but not to exceed them.
I am not going to handicap how the courts are going to rule on the Arizona immigration law, because both sides have valid, salient points. The Justice Department will be arguing that its' purview is superior to that of Arizona, as culled from our Constitution, but Arizona has an equally valid argument by deeming the money it allocate to policing the manifold problems caused by illegal immigrants is tantamount to an “unfunded mandate.”
This is so because the Obama administration is actually saying to Arizona: follow the Fed rule, which is mandated by the Constitution, but you must bear the cost. Tell me how fair is this to Arizona?
0 التعليقات:
إرسال تعليق