Time for Another Constitutional Discussion

Amid all the talk of racial profiling and unfairness over the Arizona illegal immigration bill, I don’t think anyone I’ve read has brought up the other—real—racial profiling and unfairness that emanates from it. It took a couple of cartoonists to make the point very well.

A nice twist, right? Here’s another one:

Who are the real lawbreakers? Some would have us believe they are the law enforcement officers rather than those who are knowingly violating the immigration laws.

Then there’s this from the U.S. Constitution, something else I hadn’t stopped to consider until I read it recently in an article. Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction.

Now, if I understand that correctly, any case that involves a state cannot be tried in a lower federal court; rather, it must go directly to the Supreme Court. Yet Attorney General Holder didn’t take his lawsuit to the Supreme Court. Therefore, what he is doing appears to be unconstitutional.

And what about Article I, Section 10 of that same Constitution, where we find these words:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, … engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Couldn’t we say that a state such as Arizona has been invaded? There are sections along the border where citizens are warned not to go because it is too dangerous due to the drug “industry” associated with illegal immigration. If invasion is too strong a term for some, why not refer to it as an imminent danger that requires immediate action?

I haven’t heard yet a discussion of these two constitutional provisions with respect to this issue, but it’s time to have that discussion. The biggest problem, of course, is that we’re dealing with an administration that has no respect or concern for constitutional provisions.

Getting that discussion started, though, would be highly beneficial.