Wednesday’s federal court decision on Arizona’s immigration law is being rightly criticized for a number of reasons. But there are three silver linings to this situation, which may result in the rule of law prevailing in the end.

On July 28, Judge Susan Bolton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona issued a preliminary injunction—meaning she stopped from going into effect—most of the key provisions in Arizona’s new law. As I’ve written previously, this law should be held constitutional because it’s not an immigration law; it doesn’t determine who can become a citizen or who can be on American soil. Instead it’s a police-power law, where Arizona says that if you’re not permitted to be in this country, then you’re trespassing if you enter Arizona, and if you have a run-in with the cops for some other reason, then those cops can ask if you’re in this country illegally.

This is not an immigration law. It’s also not racist. It’s not racial profiling. And it’s not usurping the role of the federal government (which has abysmally failed here).

Instead, it’s an employment law and property law. That authority arises from Arizona’s police power to make laws for public safety, health, and societal welfare—which the Constitution reserves to the states through the Tenth Amendment.

But as bad as the federal court’s decision is, there are three silver linings to it that could see the rule of law prevail in the end, to the benefit of everyone—including foreigners who want to work here.

(more…)

The Constitution and the Second Amendment are in the spotlight this week on two fronts.  First is that oral arguments are being held in the McDonald v Chicago case to possibly apply the holding in Heller to the states.

In addition, Senators are beginning their evaluation of the judicial nomination of Berkeley professor Goodwin Liu to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a vote that will tell a great deal about Senator Reid’s adherence to Constitutional principles such as those specified in the Second Amendment.

Senator Reid has a terrible record on judicial nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court.  In DC v Heller, there were four dissenters from the holding that the right to bear arms is an individual right.  Harry Reid had a chance to vote on three and he voted for each one – Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg.  Harry Reid has a chance to vote on four of the majority justices, and he voted against three of them – Thomas, Alito and Roberts.  If Harry Reid had been successful in defeating any of these three, Heller would have been in jeopardy.  That’s six out of seven bad votes on the Supreme Court.

Four of those bad votes were cast in his very first term, when my primary opponent Sue Lowden was his loyal contributor.

There will be hearings on professor Liu, but I am specifically interested in a particular book he co-authored on jurisprudence entitled “Keeping Faith with the Constitution.”

(more…)