UPHOLDING THE RULE OF LAW - Could Justice Scalia be wrong?

[Arizona Freedom Alliance]

We must stand up for the Rule of Law, for our citizens and our Republic. SB1070 was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. If federal, state and local officials do not uphold the law, they are complicit in the deaths, maimings, lost jobs, and the billions of dollars in costs: $2.6 billion per year just to educate, medicate and incarcerate illegal aliens. Grant Ronnebeck, Sergeant Brandon Mendoza, Kate Steinle, Rob Krentz, and many others deserve our vigilance. With Justice Brett Kavanaugh replacing the retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, we can restore the three sections that we lost in the 5-4 decision. Even though ten of the 13 sections were upheld, including the most critical ones, the lost three sections are nice and strongly enhance law enforcement's ability to enforce immigration laws.

 

Sanctuary policies are illegal in Arizona. It is illegal to impede the enforcement of immigration laws. It is time to demand strict enforcement of all immigration laws in our state.

Justice Antonin Scalia voted to uphold the three lost provisions in SB1070. In his dissent opinion, Justice “Scalia eviscerates Kennedy's explanation" for the majority. Justice Scalia wrote that Justice Kennedy's legal logic was faulty, and that Justice Kennedy misunderstood aspects of Arizona law, a failure which colored his opinion.

“While Scalia's dissent is a minority opinion, it will likely be embraced by patriots because it gives hope to those who love our country and want to protect it from the malicious efforts of those who consistently tear away at the Constitution.”

 

Here are a few of Justice Scalia's comments in his dissent:

[1] "There is no federal law prohibiting the States' sovereign power to exclude [illegal aliens]."

[2] "... the Federal Government must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a Union of independent States, who have their own sovereign powers.

"[3] "... the States have the right to protect their borders against foreign nationals, just as they have the right to execute foreign nationals for murder.

"[4] "Arizona is entitled to have 'its own immigration policy' ¬ including a more rigorous enforcement policy ¬so long as that does not conflict with federal law.

"[5] "... there is no reason Arizona cannot make it a state crime for ... any illegal alien ... to remain in Arizona.

"[6] "In my view, the State can go further ... and punish them for their unlawful entry and presence in Arizona.

"[7] "The Government complains that state officials might not heed 'federal priorities'. Indeed they might not, particularly if those priorities include willful blindness or deliberate inattention to the presence of removable aliens in Arizona.

"[8] "The State has the sovereign power to protect its borders more rigorously if it wishes ....

"[9] "It is beyond question that a State may make a violation of federal law a violation of state law as well.

[10] "But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of [federal law] that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind."

"[11] "What I do fear ¬ and what Arizona and the States that support it fear ¬ is that 'federal policies' of non-enforcement will leave the States helpless before those evil effects of illegal immigration that the Court's opinion dutifully recites in its prologue but leaves unremedied in its disposition.

"[12] (Scalia's scorn for the majority ruling condenses itself into a question about the Constitutional Convention in 1787:) "Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court's holding?

"[13] (His answer:) "The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits.

"[14] (Scalia exposes the main obstacle the states face in their struggle to contain illegal immigration:) "A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States' borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude.

"[15] (And he raises the question that needs to be faced by everyone who cares about our freedom:) "Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive's refusal to enforce the Nation's immigration laws?

"[16] "Our nation was built on the concept of a balance of power, with We the People under a Constitutional Republic built upon "popular sovereignty," with limited federal power and sovereign states meaning that power rests in individuals and the states respectfully, especially not the federal government other than its limited and enumerated powers given it by the states’ during the Constitutional Convention. We confer certain limited powers on government for the purpose of maintaining an orderly society, not for the purpose of stealing our freedom. The Founders recognized the dangers of an all-powerful, overbearing federal government. They did not leave the states or individual citizens at the mercy of the Executive Branch."

It is clear we have an out of control Washington DC. What is our remedy? The States' inherent authority to enforce the law, secure our borders?

 

Partly the answer is that part of the Constitution itself that our Founding Fathers put into that divinely inspired document: Article V, the amending process.

Washington DC will never fix itself. The States created the federal government and gave them limited and enumerated powers and specifically made it clear it could not go beyond those powers. The Courts and Congress continue to ignore their limitations and the States continue to allow it to happen. The States must put Article V into play. It is an amendment process, not a full convention. Two-thirds of the States must agree and it takes three-fourths of the states to ratify any amendment. It cannot go beyond the call on the specific amendment that the two thirds agreed on.

It's time.

Russell Pearce

Former Arizona Senate President and author of SB1070

American Post Gazette

NOTE: The answer to whether Justice Scalia was wrong in his desenting opinion is NO.

[John5319]

Remember that elections do have consequences to the Republic form of government. Trump will have an opportunity to appoint at least 2 more judges. Progressive liberalism is socialism, is collectivist thought, is a Marxist philosophy leading to a statist totalitarian tyranny of the centralized state. It is information which is dangerous to those who want to enslave us to them. The devil is in the details, always are, for it is the "transformation" of America, by the political class of self-interest agendas. They control us BY Debt, by spending, by manipulation of propaganda.

The swamp creatures who are the parasites living off the host are varied ... and will not let go of their power over the serfs in the kingdom of evil intent.  To think that the Article V will change that is preposterous.  "We the People" will have no say over the attendees to that "convention", Politicians do. This so-called convention in todays terms will only give the appearance of a "change that we can believe in" ... and will NOT do anything but make us the collateral damage to the Republic created by God.

[Patricia Gillenwater]

Thank you Russell Pearce.

[Barbara Blewster]

We know the Deep State cannot wait to dismantle our checks and balances. Do we think a Constitutional Convention, by whatever name, with all the division there is in our current body politic would remain structurally so sound? The Constitution limits the federal government now and has given more power to the 50 states, if they decide to use it. We, the people, need to demand of our state legislators and governor to stop taking federal funds and blackmail. We could start with education. Lets not touch an Art. V; but opt out of Common Core and hop into Latin early, like 2nd grade, and logic, our wonderful history. 

We simply must know, protect and follow the Constitution as is.  It is really pretty simple to memorize.

[Jaspersgoat]

This is an interesting reply.  "We simply must know, protect and follow the Constitution as is."  Agree 100%.  The  Constitution contains Art V.  The framers considered every word and its meaning before putting it in the document.  They must have known that future generations would subvert words and redefine them, which the leftist progressives do daily.  With great consideration, they included Art V in the original document, not an amendment added later but providing for amendments, knowing the country would change over time.  Not to be ignored or thrown out.  To be used when it became necessary.  Now, in my opinion, some of those  amendments, like the 14th (All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside) needs an overhaul.  Art V can amend that language because in 1866, the world was very different than it is now. (It also allows only "males" to vote!  That has been changed already)

[Larry Grafanakis]

George Soros is a major supporter of a States Convention.  If anyone thinks a Convention of the States would be a fair process, they are living in La-la land.  It would be flooded with money from powers seeking to destroy the Constitution of the United States.  And not enough good people like you and I would be able to stop the process once it began. 

The entire U.S. would be railroaded into a NWO supporting system, including Obama's Strong Cities Network (did you see that Tempe is instituting a No- Cars Zone as a pilot project for the entire U.S. .... and I don't see Gov. Hapless doing or even aware that it's an Agenda 2030 project). 

We don't need a new Constitution.  The one we got can do the job ... it just needs to be implemented ... which is exactly what Trump is trying to do. 

You're dying for real changes .... just wait till his second term ..... the gloves come off.

[Patricia Gillenwater]

That post of yours Larry is spot on.