- White House: Obamacare didn’t matter in Florida special election
- Last laugh: Marine vet fires off jokes from the grave with own obituary
- Gas blast destroys 2 N.Y. buildings; 6 people dead
- 2 dead after driver hits them at Texas festival
- Student protester shot, killed amid Venezuela unrest
- ‘Between Two Ferns’ director rushes to Obama’s defense, blasts O’Reilly
- Marine springs into action, runs down and tackles alleged Boston purse snatcher
- Education Department botching loan-amnesty program: GAO review
- Snowden: NSA uses fake Facebook to hack into users’ computers
- Tearin’ up my tweet: ‘N Sync’s Lance Bass promotes wrong Obamacare website
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Federal suit against Arizona is full of holes
The article on the Department of Justice suit against Arizona does not adequately cover the legal issues involved in the case (“Justice files lawsuit against Arizona immigration law,” Web, News, July 6). As a result, readers probably do not have an adequate idea of which side is likely to prevail. Accordingly, I offer the following comments.
To start, the Justice Department’s foundation position appears to be that the Arizona immigration law is unconstitutional under the supremacy clause (Article 1, Section 8) of the Constitution because the federal government has pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters. Thus, the argument follows that no state may enact laws dealing with illegal aliens. That argument, however, is not likely to prevail.
Under Supreme Court case law, a state may enact laws affecting illegal immigration so long as they are not in actual conflict with any valid federal statute (see Edgar v. Mite Corp., 1982). Under this law of the land, a state may enact laws about immigration matters, and those state laws are constitutional if the state law is not in actual conflict with a valid federal statute under the test set forth in the Supreme Court Edgar case. Thus, the question becomes whether the Arizona immigration law is in “actual conflict” with one or more valid federal statutes.
In the present case, the Arizona law mirrors federal statutory law. In substance, it is nearly the same as the applicable federal law in that it aids in the enforcement of the federal law. Accordingly, one would be hard-pressed to assert that the Arizona law is in conflict with federal law.
Furthermore, the Arizona law does not appear to run afoul of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution because it involves a reasonable exercise of the state’s police power. It is hardly a burden to the enforcement of federal immigration law when it aids, rather than hinders, the federal law.
All things considered, the Department of Justice’s case against Arizona appears to be slim, but one can never fully predict how the presiding judge will rule.
HARRISON E. MCCANDLISH
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
TWT Video Picks
By Emily Miller
Obama is losing the debate on gun ownership, concealed-carry permits
Get Breaking Alerts
- Oil rig worker says he saw missing plane go down: report
- GOP bill tries to pull courts into fight with Obama on executive power, enforcing laws
- Kim Jong-un calls for execution of 33 Christians
- Bill Clinton poses for photo with Bunny Ranch prostitutes
- Military families would take a $5,000 hit in benefits with Obama budget
- Inside the Beltway: A new interest in Rahm Emanuel for 2016?
- John Kerry says any resumption of aid to Egypt would depend on reforms in Cairo
- NRA shirt gets N.Y. high school student suspended
- Brennan: Russia 'absolutely' could invade eastern Ukraine
- Dog left in car blasts horn for 15 minutes
Recent Letters to the Editor
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Wind power less harmful to wildlife
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Constitutional rights are God-given
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Clinton still too inexperienced for presidency
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: The recipe for Asia-Pacific stability
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Obama delivering on 'flexibility' vow to Moscow