Another Day At The Office, or a Watershed Moment?

I know my history… and wars have consequences.

The Judge in the Arizona immigration enforcement law case today enjoined key provisions of the law from being enforced tomorrow when the law goes into effect.  This was not entirely suprising, as Arizona is in the Ninth Federal Circuit, which ought to be renamed the FAIL! circuit.

To my conservative friends who are blustering and hyperventilating:  Relax. No matter the outcome of this hearing, it was going to be appealed. I’m more interested in the reaction of the average joe to this, because then we will better understand if the American public will understand that their consent is no longer required by the governing, who apparently have so little respect for the rule of law that they will openly display their disrespect for the concept.

Out of all the analyses I perused today, I think Legal Insurrection had one of the better ones.  I don’t know if the Professor was trying to be subtle, or if he came to the real nub of today’s decision without really noting its significance.

The result of this statutory interpretation was that the Court found the procedure — as written — to interfere with the federal immigration scheme:

“Thus, an increase in the number of requests for determinations of immigration status, such as is likely to result from the mandatory requirement that Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies check the immigration status of any person who is arrested, will divert resources from the federal government’s other responsibilities and priorities.”

Now one of the thrusts of the government’s case is that the Arizona law violates the Supremacy Clause, because immigration is a matter where Congress was explicitly given jurisdiction in the Constitution.  That’s all fine and dandy, but there are only two recognized situations that I am aware of where the Supremacy Clause becomes an issue:

1.  State law regulates the Federal government directly, or it discriminates against it; and

2.   State law interferes with a Congressional Policy.

Any argument that rests in any fashion on what amounts to a claim that “The state law will require the Federal government to do the job it reserved to itself as an exercise of its expressly granted power, which might mean that it could expend money and other resources that it would rather spend on other priorities.” meets neither of these standards.  What’s more, it demonstrates a unilateral revocation of a concept that has kept this nation from coup and overthrow for about 230 years:  The rule of law.

The rule of law, put simply, is the idea that the law rules men, not other men.  Because the law applies to everyone equally, everyone submits to its authority, with the belief that if it ever becomes necessary, aggrieved parties will have their day in court, and “self-help” remedies (like gunfights), which are destructive to social order, will not be necessary.  By this admission in her ruling, Judge Susan Bolton fails to comprehend that the Federal Government’s desire (or lack thereof) to enforce certain laws is a factor in whether or not a state may adopt a law that is the mirror of the corresponding Federal law does irreparable violence to this notion, as well as the notion of Federalism itself.  The states are supposed to be co-equal sovereigns with the Federal government, granting it authority to perform specifically enumerated tasks, the performance of which is necessary to the maintenance of a viable nation.

What happened today was that a state which is suffering from a co-equal sovereign’s utter failure to perform a task that was specifically assigned to it.  That assignment was originally made because of the expectation that the Federal government would secure the nation’s borders and protect its citizens from many of the ills that an enormous influx of illegal aliens would bring.  Arizona, and other border states have had an incredible burden placed on their resources as they have had to provide services for people who have no legal right to be here, and from the other associated effects such as wage depression, and the growing amount of narco-crime that has followed the influx of these criminals.  [Yes, I used the word “criminals”.  In my Black’s Law Dictionary, it still applies to people who break the law.]

If the Federal government can be so arbitrary and capricious with regard to enforcement of laws relating to a core duty it holds, then we all have reason to fear, because selective enforcement can be applied to any Federal law.  If this cannot motivate the average citizen to bring real change to Federal government, then not only are we lost, but we deserve to be.  If we accept lawlessness garbed in the authority and mantle of law, then we have surrendered any notion of being a free people.

Linked by Michelle Malkin, Doug Ross, Gulag Blog, and iOWNTHEWORLD.

Advertisements

How Can There Be 86,000 Racial Discrimination Claims In The Pigford vs Glickman Case When There Are Only 39,697 total Black farmers?

I wonder if Breitbart knew what a can of worms he was opening when he posted that edited Shirley Sherrod video? Because the more we look at her and her husband,  that 13 million settlement she got just prior to being hired by the USDA, and the multi-billion Pigford vs Glickman class action settlement, the more disgusted and suspicious we get. The settlement is starting to look more like a boondoggle, or worse yet, reparations.

Zombie, did a little  snooping and found more questions than answers:

Pigford v. Glickman

…on February 23 of this year, the USDA finally consented to pay $1.25 billion to those farmers whose claims had earlier been denied:

In the 1999 case Pigford v. Glickman, the USDA agreed to pay 16,000 black farmers $1 billion after a judge held the federal government responsible for the decline in black farmers. Critics argued that more than 70,000 farmers were shut out of the lawsuit. In 2008, then-Sen. Barack Obama and Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley got a law passed to reopen the case, and the settlement talks moved forward.

The $1.25 billion settlement, announced Thursday, comes on top of the money paid out a decade ago. The new agreement would provide cash payments and debt relief to farmers who applied too late to participate in the earlier settlement, The Washington Post reported. Authorities say they are not certain how many farmers might apply this time, but analysts say the number could be higher than 70,000.

Seventy-thousand+ applicants in addition to the 16,000 already compensated now means that over 86,000 people are slated to be paid.

What I want to know is: How can there be 86,000 legitimate
claimants?

The Census pinpoints the precise number of African-American
farmers

I ask this question because it didn’t take me very long to find the
latest census statistics released by the Department of Agriculture,
which can be found linked to from this official USDA page. There, you will find this direct link to a text version of the Census report,
and this recommended pdf version.

In the pdf version of the government’s official 2007 Agricultural
Census, Table 53 on page 646 shows that there are exactly 39,697
African-American farmers grand total in the entire nation.

Moreover, another Dept. of Agriculture census report gives the total number of black farmers in 1992, the time of the Pigford vs Glickman lawsuit:

and it reveals that there were far fewer back then than there were in 2007. According to the chart on page 20 of the USDA’s pdf 1998 “Status Report, Minority & Women Farmers In the U.S.”, there were only 18,816 black farmers in 1992.

Zombie has the full report at Pajamas Media, complete with charts and whatnot…

So what the bleep is going on, here? Inquiring minds want to know.

Related:

Dick Morris: RACIAL POLITICS BLOWS UP IN OBAMA’S FACE




Share

Congressman Brady Introduces “Your New Health Care System” Chart

Last year, TX Congressman, Kevin Brady’s Health Care Bill Chart was a  viral sensation. Today,  he  unveiled a special visual project highlighting how out of control the expansion of the federal government has become:

A little sunshine goes a long way”.

Kathryn Jean Lopez asks; Do You Trust Your Government to Be Competent to Run This?

PDF here, for a closer look.

Texas Republican Rep. Kevin Brady says in a release that committee analysts actually couldn’t fit everything in: “This portrays only about one-third of the complexity of the final bill. It’s actually worse than this.”

In a conference call with conservative bloggers, today, Brady made note of the high potential for rationed care, and the 13 different sections in the law that disallow challenges to health care decisions.

He says there will be an explosion of bureaucratic government jobs, and  IRS lawyers, while private sector jobs dwindle because the new taxes will cost thousands of jobs, making us uncompetitive with other countries.

Brady also assured us that Republican congressmen are dedicated to repealing the bill and replacing it with common sense reforms.

Look for this chart to make appearances at town halls all across the country, this August.

Plans are in the works for a similar chart on the Financial Reform Bill.

Congressman Brady is the Senior House Republican on the Joint Economic Committee and a ranking subcommittee Member for Ways and Means. You can visit his web site here.

Linked by Michelle Malkin, Buzzworthy, thanks!

Share

Republican Governors Association Releases Great New Ad: 14 Weeks

14 Weeks from Republican Governors Association:

14 Weeks from Republican Governors Association on Vimeo.

`I love their collection of soundbites…

No opposition research or GOTCHA politics needed when Dems are in charge. Just record what they say and play it back. The political ads write themselves.

Related:

Repub. Nat’l Committee Announces ‘November Starts Now’ Website

Hat tip: Gateway Pundit (who is in the hospital undergoing surgery, today. You can go wish him well, here).

Share