The Supreme Court will have heard two of the most contentious cases that have been heard in the Obama administration by the end of this week. The first, of course, was the case of Obamacare and now the second, the Arizona immigration bill.
I find it fascinating that people are looking at how the court will or should act not based on the legal standing or constitutionality of the laws in question but rather on the policy of the law.
For example, there is a nation full of people who think that it’s a good idea to contribute to the medical needs of people who might otherwise not be able to. Sadly, there are people who think that idea is a bad one. I think valid arguments could be made on both sides.
Then, however, you can take that population of people who think we SHOULD contribute to the relief of folks who need care and split them into two general groups:
- Those who think this should be done through personal charity.
- Those who think this should be done by the state.
Again, valid arguments around. However, there are constraints as to what a government, in this case FEDERAL government, can do. No matter how good an idea might be, or how bad, it still may not be constitutional.
Same can be said for the Arizona law. No matter how bad an idea you may think such a law is, the question before the court is this:
Can Arizona pass a law that makes illegal immigration status a state crime?
I think that we’re gonna find out that indeed, a federal government may NOT mandate the purchase of a good. AND that states may pass laws defining federal crimes as state crimes as well.
I don’t think that this should surprise anyone.