- Pope Francis meets Meriam Ibrahim, a Sudanese woman sentenced to death
- Detroit porch shooting trial: Suspect says he didn’t know gun was loaded
- U.S. Navy admiral ‘receptive’ to giving Chinese counterpart a tour of carrier
- Islamic State orders female genital mutilation for Mosul girls, U.N. says
- Israeli fire hits U.N. facility in Gaza, killing 15
- Obama encourages ICE to stand down, say former border agents
- Pro-Palestinian protesters attack Israeli soccer team in Austria match
- Virginia police: 2 dead after storm at campground
- Ukrainian prime minister announces resignation
- House members question $17 billion VA request
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Federal suit against Arizona is full of holes
Question of the Day
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
The subsidies are a hit with patients who don't exist
- Democrats’ ‘war on women’ election tactic may be blowing up in their faces
- Obama’s empty tough-talk: Gun prosecutions plummet on his watch
New head coach Jay Gruden, RG3 and the Redskins prepare for the upcoming NFL season with training camp underway in Richmond.
Get Breaking Alerts
- Hamas rejects Kerry's call for cease-fire; Fears grow others could join fight against Israel
- Algerian plane diverted due to storms, second aircraft: 116 missing
- Whistleblowers flood VA with lawsuits despite apology
- Obama's empty tough-talk: Gun prosecutions plummet on his watch
- 'We're coming for you, Barack Obama': Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL terrorists
- Obama says public not familiar enough with issues
- Conservative groups decry Democrats' 'war on women' tactic
- NAPOLITANO: What if our democracy is a fraud?
- Astronaut shares 'saddest photo' from space: Bombs bursting over Israel, Gaza
- EDITORIAL: Obamacare enrollees faking for freebies