Saturday, July 10, 2010

Arizona's Constitutional War Powers

From American Thinker :

July 09, 2010

Arizona's Constitutional War Powers

By James Carender

Given the levels of illegal migration and narco-trafficking across its southern border, the State of Arizona deserves America's commendation for the remarkable restraint it has exhibited in dealing with what has become a most serious international and domestic problem.

Arizona Senate Bill 1070, signed into law by Governor Janice K. Brewer on April 23, 2010, is a tiptoe exercise through an immigration minefield. In its essence, however, the law demands roughly no more of an individual than is required to open an account at the local video store. Indeed, the law presumes that one is not an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if a valid Arizona driver license, non-operating identification license, tribal enrollment or identification card, or U.S. federal- or state- or local government-issued identification is presented, and if that issuing entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance of the identification card (Arizona Senate Bill 1070, Section 2). The bill appears intended to work hand in glove with federal immigration statutes and to "discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States" (Section 1).

The route taken by the State of Arizona, enactment of Senate Bill 1070, is far less severe than it could have been if the route taken had been war, as granted to the states by the U.S. Constitution.

Article 1, Section 10, Cl. 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America provides that "[n]o state shall, without the consent of Congress ... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

This section of the U.S. Constitution gives to the State of Arizona (or any other State) the right to engage in war if "actually invaded" or if there is "such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." This right is reserved to the states to be exercised without the necessity of obtaining the consent of Congress in the described exigent circumstances. Without question, the debate, should Arizona have chosen this road not heretofore taken, would have centered on the meaning of the terms "invaded" and "imminent danger." Those are, in fact, arguable issues. But if drug lords are posting sentries with AK-47s on hilltops inside the State of Arizona to protect drug transport routes, and if "coyotes" are ravaging the fragile Arizona desert with their never-ending human chains, then the debate is settled. ...

"The debate is settled...." Somebody, ANYbody please tell BHO that the time for debate is long past. While BHO and his cohorts continue to flap their jaws, and fight Arizona's anti ILlegal immigration law - wasting more taxpayers' money, I might add - Jan Brewer and Arizona are taking care of (American) business.

Read the rest of this column here.

No comments: