What is lost in most of the discussion of the Arizona immigration law is the Constitution itself. The controversy offers an opportunity to return to the first principles of constitutionally-limited government. Is the law constitutional and, if not, why?
The larger question--and lesson--is why we defer to the constitution when settling these controversies. It is because there is a limit to the power of governments, both state and federal.
Jon Nichols writes an interesting piece on the issue, in which he reminds us of the clear text of the Constitution concerning naturalization. This power is delegated to the federal government. As such, Arizona's law is unconstitutional. Click here full article.
This line jumped out me: "Frustration with the federal government does not justify states grabbing powers that the Constitution rests with Congress."
True and fair enough. Now let's apply that principle to acts of the federal government. Perceived frustrations with the state of private health care does not justify the federal government assuming powers the Constitution does not afford it. Nor do frustrations with the economy, the free market in general, the housing market in particular, the personal retirement of individuals, gun rights of citizens, etc., etc., etc.
There powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution, such as authority over naturalization. There are also a lot of etc., etc., etc., not included in the Constitution. Assuming that a power not listed is a power government may assume is the same as arguing there are no restrictions on the power of government at all. Why else would powers be written down and enumerated? To limit the power of government. That why it is a written constitution!
Nichols makes a remark about conservatives clutching their "unread copies of the U.S. Constitution." He is correct, this does happen when people scrounge around the document to support policies they like and dismiss policies they dislike. But if he is implying leftists actually read their copies of the Constitution, it should be stressed it is to get around the limitations placed on the power of the government over our lives and liberties.
I wish everyone perused the document uniformly, out of principle, and acknowledged the limitations placed on state and federal government.
Otherwise, government will assume power over the etc., etc., etc. that is our lives and liberties.
