In response to:

Restraining Arizona, Unleashing the President

JRB1013! Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 1:40 AM
That the President has responded, childishly and possibly illegally by refusing to enforce an entire section of federal code is regrettable, and as the Judge notes, ultimately accountable on election day. But with all respect to his experience, I disagree, with the premise that Congress' exclusive domain over immigration prevents state enforcement. Congress has exclusive Constitutional jurisdiction over money as well, and one of the oldest Federal police agencies, The Secret Service, is designated to enforce laws against counterfeiting. Local police are free to detain counterfeiters, and it is hard to imagine any controversy over a state law that required police to detain suspected counterfeiters.
michigander4 Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 7:32 AM
The counterfeiting example is an excellent analogy. Another would be the federal kidnapping law (Lindburg Law). It would be preposterous for local cops not to enforce the law against kidnapping just because it's a law enacted by congress.
JRB1013! Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 12:45 PM
Yes, drug laws too. I picked counterfeiting, because like immigration, the Constitution specifically delegates this power to Congress. And because Napolitano claims that preempts any state enforcement, which is clearly false.

The legislation created two conflicts that rose to the national stage. The first is whether any government may morally and legally interfere with freedom of association based on the birthplace of the person with whom one chooses to associate. The second is whether the states can enforce federal law in a manner different from that of the feds.

Regrettably, in addressing all of this earlier in the week, the Supreme Court overlooked the natural and fundamental freedom to associate. It is a natural right because it stems from the better nature of our humanity, and it is a fundamental...