Much has been made of Arizona’s immigration law. From San Francisco all the way to the White House, liberals have panned the state, its governor, its legislators, and its citizens for coming to grips with what the federal government refuses to recognize: the border between the United States and Mexico isn’t really a border at all and something must be done to curtail the drug runners, gang-bangers and human smugglers. As it stands today, there’s virtually no difference between going from South Dakota to North Dakota and going from Mexico to Arizona, California or Texas.
But this isn’t about debating whether or not Arizona took the appropriate steps to deal with illegal immigration or whether the federal government has abdicated its responsibility in controlling the border and properly dealing with illegal immigrants already here. The courts, public opinion and politics will take care of that debate (as for public opinion, “nearly six in 10” support Arizona’s immigration law).
What is worthy of discussion here is whether the Obama Administration is sincere in what it argues in the case of United States v. Arizona:
“In Their 25-Page Complaint, Justice Lawyers Cite The Legal Doctrine Of ‘Preemption,’ Which Is Based On The Constitution's Supremacy Clause And Says Federal Law Trumps State Statutes.” (Jerry Markon and Michael D. Shear, “Justice Department Sues Arizona Over Immigration Law,” The Washington Post, 7/7/10)
“Because The Federal Government Has ‘Preeminent Authority To Regulate Immigration Matters,’ The Lawsuit Argues, The Arizona Law Must Be Struck Down.” (Jerry Markon and Michael D. Shear, “Justice Department Sues Arizona Over Immigration Law,” The Washington Post, 7/7/10)
Outside of the politics at play, the case boils down to an old-fashioned knife fight over states rights and the supremacy of the federal government. This is a debate worth having, not just on illegal immigration, but likely a host of other topics as well, which brings us to the heart of the matter here in this post.
If the Obama Administration is going to take Arizona to court to prevent a “development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country” that undermine the supremacy of the federal government’s ability to contend with illegal immigration (the province of the federal government according to the Obama Administration), why hasn’t Obama directed the Department of Justice to take sanctuary cities to court?
If it is illegal to be in the U.S. without documentation, under federal law, why are sanctuary cities allowed to aid, abet, comfort and provide sanctuary to persons in the country unlawfully? Do sanctuary cities who refuse to abide by federal laws - by passing ordinances, decrees, laws and the like – constitute a “patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country” that undermine the government’s ability to deal with illegal immigration as the Obama Administration argues in its case to preempt Arizona’s law?
Beyond immigration, there are a number of issues the Obama Administration looks the other way on when it comes to state and local authorities creating a “patchwork” of laws that undermine the federal government’s supremacy.
For instance, how about marijuana? Marijuana is a Schedule 1 narcotic under the Controlled Substances Act, a federal law. Under federal guidelines, marijuana is a drug with no “accepted medical value in treatment.” It is against federal law to cultivate, distribute or use marijuana, even for medicinal purposes. Yet, California openly allows “medical” marijuana to be sold.
According to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency’s (DEA) website, “the assertion that all medical marijuana is headed for seriously ill patients is misleading.” The DEA also states the “DEA and its local and state counterparts routinely report that large-scale drug traffickers hide behind and invoke” the ballot initiative that legalized medical marijuana in California.
Yet even though marijuana is against federal law, even for medicinal purposes, California goes about its business of legitimizing marijuana cultivation, distribution and consumption, against federal law.
The Medical Board of California (MBC) goes out of its way to reassure “physicians who choose to recommend medical marijuana to their patients, as part of their regular practice of medicine, that they WILL NOT be subject to investigation or disciplinary action by the MBC.”
The California Department of Health’s Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) issues “voluntary medical marijuana identification” cards to “qualified patients and their caregivers.”
In 2008, the California Attorney General’s office issued “medical marijuana guidelines for law enforcement and patients.”
Of course we shouldn’t be surprised here that Obama’s DOJ has turned a blind eye to California’s flouting of federal marijuana laws. Obama campaigned on it and he appointed an Attorney General in Eric Holder that would carry out his decision to abdicate federal responsibility to uphold the supremacy of federal law.
“Attorney General Eric Holder Said At A Press Conference Wednesday That The Justice Department Will No Longer Raid Medical Marijuana Clubs That Are Established Legally Under State Law.” (Ryan Grim, “Holder Vows To End Raids On Medical Marijuana Clubs,” The Huffington Post, 3/29/05)
“His Declaration Is A Fulfillment Of A Campaign Promise By President Barack Obama, And Marks A Major Shift From The Previous Administration.” (Ryan Grim, “Holder Vows To End Raids On Medical Marijuana Clubs,” The Huffington Post, 3/29/05)
So what’s the moral of the story here? Well, I don’t think there is one, except that in Obama’s America, the federal government is only supreme when it sees fit, or politically advantageous… as one unnamed Democrat strategist noted (who of course spoke under the condition of anonymity to The Washington Post) there’s “a lot of upside” to fighting against Arizona in the name of federal supremacy for courting Latino voters in the future.
ThinkFY's full feed