In response to:

Restraining Arizona, Unleashing the President

TeaPartyPatriot4ever Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 1:51 AM
I find this hard to believe that US Supreme Court would not make any consideration of the fact that the Federal govt can tell the Individual States who can and cannot be in their States respectively, because the Federal govt refuses to enforce their own laws at great risk, peril, and detriment to the people in a Sovereign State. Isn't this America where the rule of law is supposed to apply, and be applied in and with common sense to the people and property of this Nation. This is about the US Supreme Court's decision in this case, it's consideration or lack of consideration of the law and the impact upon the individual Sovereign State and the people within that State, in their decision as it applies according to the US Constitution.

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...