Raping Arizona: Obama’s DOJ files a suit that doesn’t pass the straight face test
For weeks the Obama Administration has ominously threatened legal action against Arizona. Claims were made that Arizona had passed a law, Senate Bill 1070, that would result in racial profiling. The president himself claimed Hispanic citizens would be pulled out of ice cream parlors and hauled off to Star Chambers where they would be forced to prove their immigration status. Obama’s sycophants, none of whom had even bothered to read the legislation, claimed it to be racist, bigoted, xenophobic, bad policy. What they didn’t mention–perhaps because they hadn’t read the law–was that it mirrored federal statutes and allowed police to ask about immigration status only after a stop based on reasonable suspicion of another crime.
Today, United States Attorney General (and New Black Panther Party supporter) Eric Holder filed a complaint and application for injunction in United States District Court in Phoenix. The legal action asks the District Court to block Arizona’s implementation of this horrible law because it….might make the feds actually do their jobs. There is no mention of racial profiling or anything of that nature.
No, Holder and Company have invoked a twisted and expansive view of the pre-emption doctrine that even left-wing legal analysts find laughable. Pre-emption doctrine usually but not always involves a state trying to usurp federal powers authorized by law. As best as can divined from the filings, the Obama DOJ has claimed what appears to be “field pre-emption.” This occurs whenever a state attempts to intrude into federal operations and functions to such a degree the central government’s authority is undermined.
In the event the Obama Administration doesn’t know it, nothing of the kind took place in the Arizona bill. Yes, police can detain an illegal alien stopped for another crime, but they can’t force the federal government to deport the person. Reading between the lines of the complaint and application, the Obama Administration’s gripe seems to be that Arizona wants the federal government to enforce laws it doesn’t particularly like. And that makes Obama look bad to the vast majority of Americans.
Things get worse the more the complaint and application are analyzed. As could be expected from this cabal, there is a lot of fast and loose play with facts. The term “immigration” is used interchangably with “illegal immigration,” an old ploy by those who want to gut this nation’s laws. Unfortunately, it is done in such a way as to mislead the court. This isn’t a good thing to do. The Interstate Commerce Clause is one claim raised but only briefly primarily because the issue isn’t here. Apparently, the Left has distorted the ICC so much it feels the mere mention of it can sway a court. At one point, the DOJ claims the State of Arizona has interfered with foreign policy. Apparently immigration now is a State Department function rather than a set of laws passed by our national legislature. The filings admit the Obama Administration doesn’t particularly care for what Congress has deemed the laws of the land.
The complaint and application for an injunction don’t even pass the “straight face test.” That’s an old legal cliche that means if you can claim it with a straight face, it is worth the try.
It is apparent that this isn’t a matter of law and the Obama Administration likely knows it will lose. This is pure partisan politics on the eve on an election in which the president’s party stands to be slaughtered. It is a sop to illegal immigrant “rights” lobbies like La Raza mad at Obama because he has failed to deliver massive amnesty. What it isn’t is a valid legal claim.
This Administration is beneath contempt, and every day it proves itself unfit to lead. This November, we need to stand with the people of Arizona and support the Rule of Law. Democrats must be shown the door.