The Justice Department today filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Arizona over the new state law with regard to how Arizona will deal with illegal immigrants.  Now that the bait has been swallowed what happens next?

Yes the bait has been swallowed.  Congrats to the state of Arizona though, the law is well written, well thought out and is probably succeeding in forcing some illegal immigrants to leave the state and as such is having at least its perceived desired effect.  I suspect that the true reason though is to force the federal government to truly deal with the issue, something no one has been able to do in 40 years.  It also has the side benefit of making the administration look weak on the issue of border security, which it is.

This was a brilliant move because all the State law does is restate the current federal law and allow the states police officers to inquire if someone is in the US legally and if not then take that person into custody.  Something the justice department in 2002 noted in a memo stating that state police have “inherent power” to arrest undocumented immigrants.

Now the Obama Justice Department seeks to hide behind the Supremacy Clause in the constitution which states that federal laws take precedence over state laws, however this only applies when laws conflict, these laws don’t conflict.  Nothing in the Supremacy Clause has any bearing on enforcement.  Just because the federal government chooses to not enforce federal law doesn’t mean that states can’t enforce their laws when they are the same.

So a couple of things will likely happen with this lawsuit, the first happened today and the federal government took the bait and filed suit.  We knew the libs couldn’t take this lying down and by doing this they now set in motion the rest of the sequence of events.  We’ll have this play out in the courts for the next couple of years, maybe sooner, setting up a probable review by the Supreme Court in 2012.

The Supreme Court will most likely uphold what Arizona has done, again probably by a 5-4 vote with all of Obama’s favorite socialists voting for him and falling one vote short to the five men in black who stand between the liberal socialists and the constitution.

Then by allowing Arizona’s law to stand the floodgates will open and you will see many other states follow suit.  It will be smaller states at first like Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, and others probably in the South.  This will exacerbate the problem in states like California, Texas, and Florida because those states will be automatic safe havens for illegals.  This of course makes the problems worse in those states because the crime and expense will double or triple at least.

This may finally force the federal government to take this problem seriously and work to secure the border.  Yes that means fences, walls, border patrol agents, and better electronic surveillance.

So we thank the Obama Administration for putting their politics first and the people second.  In this instance it works to the people’s advantage…

As a member of the NRA and someone who is generally opposed to most of the gun laws oppressing the law abiding citizen I have to reach out and say thank you to Mayor Daley and his band of 45 rubberstamp aldermen.  With them forcing a new law down the throats of Chicago residents that is clearly unconstitutional we’ll get the Supreme Court to clarify a few other issues.

First off the one gun per month portion of the law.  Several cities and states have limits on the number of firearms one can purchase in a month.  This is clearly a violation of the “shall not be infringed” part of the 2nd Amendment.

Next is the portion that states that people can have only one loaded firearm in the house and that any others must have trigger locks or be disassembled.  I think much of this was addressed with the Heller case but clearly the court needs to state that jurisdictions can’t limit the number of firearms that a person may own and cannot tell the people how many may be loaded at a given time.  This clearly infringes on the 2nd amendment rights of Chicagoans.

Next we have the provision that says you can’t have it on your porch, garage, or anywhere outside the home.  This is an interesting provision of the law and it will be interesting to see if the justices throw this out from the perspective of 2nd amendments rights or private property rights as it clearly violates both.

Another area of interest will be the portions that deal with fees and registration.  Now having registration is nothing new and many states do that already.  That said this notion that you have to pay fees to exercise your rights under the constitution shouldn’t stand.  Now on the subject of registration for those convicted of a gun related offense.  This one is somewhat sticky, if you’re talking about those convicted of armed robbery, rape, murder, or other violent felony then it would probably pass constitutional muster.  However this law doesn’t limit it to those offenses, it also includes non violent misdemeanors like carrying a concealed weapon that don’t prevent the person convicted from purchasing firearms in the future but would prevent them from keeping it loaded in their home.  While most of the concealed carry restrictions at the state and local level are violations of the 2nd amendment it will be interesting to see how the court comes down on this one.

Clearly Chicago’s new restrictions violate the 2nd amendment and some elements probably violate the 14th amendment as well.  While it will be another opportunity for the rights granted by the 2nd amendment to be more clearly defined via the court it is unfortunate that many more Chicagoans will die because their City government places a higher value on their power than the constitutional rights of its citizens.

We knew it wouldn’t take long for Al Franken to embarrass himself and the half of Minnesotan’s that voted for him and we haven’t been disappointed…

 

From Breitbart.com

Franken told Sotomayor that she was "the most experienced Supreme Court nominee in 100 years." He said her story is inspirational and one in which "all Americans should take great pride in."

The stupidity of such a statement is beyond the bounds of rational thought.  Granted she has a very inspirational story but last time I checked that wasn’t a qualification for Supreme Court Justice or course neither is race or gender and both of those seem to be qualifications in the Obama administration.  As for qualifications for the actual job, no.  She isn’t even as qualified as the last 10 nominees to have the nomination pulled or rejected.  Given the way the current court smacked down her latest decision one could make the case that she isn’t qualified for the job she has now.

 

Unfortunately she will probably be confirmed and that is a shame.  It is clear from her record that she allows race to enter into her decision making.  It’s clear that she allows her liberal ideology to enter the decision making more than she does the law, more than she does the constitution.

With President Obama’s selection of Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court Justice has shown what we can expect over the next four years in terms of Judicial appointments.  It’s all about race, it’s all about style over substance.  I had no idea that being overturned by the Supreme Court was a glowing example of the qualifications needed to sit on the highest court in the land.

 

Reading some of the media’s reaction though you would think she was a great jurist rather than someone who has been on the wrong side of constitution most of her career.  I love the headline by the Wall Street Journal “Record Shows Rulings Within Liberal Mainstream” excuse me?  Liberal and Mainstream are two words that very rarely should be used in the same story let alone in the same sentence.  Liberalism by it’s defined ideals is outside the mainstream.  The media is running around stating that she has had a pro business ruling, one, big deal.  If you dig deep into Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s record you can probably find one instance when she made a ruling that was pro business.  Doesn’t make her mainstream.

 

Republicans predictably don’t know what to do yet other than say that they will be fair but are going to ask tough questions.  Yeah right, forgive me if I am not a believer, Senate Republican’s likely do what they do best, roll over and play dead.  It will be up to the grass roots to get this nomination killed and it won’t be done with republicans only because let’s be real.  In the end we know that Obama can depend on McCain, Lindsay Graham, Susan Collins, etc to give in.  No if America has any hope of killing this it will be Democrats in largely conservative states that have a reelection coming in 2010.  Harry Reid being at the top of the list.