Obama’s Supremacy Argument A Contradiction In Application

My real job has been keeping me busy lately, thus I haven’t been able to post much. However, a story appeared from out of nowhere about 30 minutes ago and I feel compelled to make note of it.

In a rare, recent posting, I called into question the Obama Administration’s sincerity regarding its position on the Supremacy Clause and its decision to take Arizona to court over the tough immigration law the Grand Canyon State passed and signed into law. Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ), in its decision to sue Arizona using the Supremacy argument, seemed to be looking the other way when it came to other issues, such as sanctuary cities and medical marijuana on California.

With regards to sanctuary cities, I asked:

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?

Well, now we have an answer. According to an article over at The Washington Times by Stephen Dinan and Kara Rowland, the “Obama Administration said this week that there is no reason to sue so-called sanctuary cities for refusing to cooperate with federal authorities.”

The reason Obama’s DOJ won’t take sanctuary cities to court? Sanctuary cities do not “actively” interfere with the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration laws.

“‘There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law,’ Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times.”  (Stephen Dinan and Kara Rowland, “Justice: Sanctuary Cities Are No Arizona,” The Washington Times, 7/14/10)

So, a city that refuses to cooperate with the federal government's efforts to enforce immigration laws is completely different from a state that passes an immigration law to bolster the federal government’s efforts (or lackthereof)?

Not only has the Obama Administration just admitted that their Supremacy argument is a farce, but that they have also taken a contradictory, unequal approach to its application.