As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress.Huh?
Arizona can keep anybody out it damn well wants to, unless and until Congress "constitutionally imposes" a different requirement -- what's that mean? No Democrats? No Jews? No Catholics? Ready to go back to the days of the lynch mob, perhaps?
And the Great Legal Mind quotes "Emer de Vattel’s seminal 1758 treatise on the Law of Nations":
The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory either to foreigners in general, or in particular cases,or to certain persons, or for certain particular pur- poses, according as he may think it advantageous to the state. There is nothing in all this, that does not flow from the rights of domain and sovereignty: every one is obliged to pay respect to the prohibition; and whoever dares violate it, incurs the penalty decreed to render it effectual.”The astute among you may have noticed that the learned de Vattel (who died in 1767), was talking about independent countries, not parts of countries. D'oh! Who could possibly imagine there'd be any difference.
Scalia goes on to auditioning for a job as Rush Limbaugh's replacement:
But leave that aside. It has become clear that federal enforcement priorities—in the sense of priorities based on the need to allocate “scarce enforcement resources”—is not the problem here.Huh? Where'd that come from? Was there a trial, a record, some sort of reliable tested findings. Fuck no. Just a quick trip on Teh Google via the InterToobs.
... the Secretary of HomelandSecurity announced a program exempting from immi- gration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants under the age of 30. ...Hey, your Honor, with all due respect, may I ask: How the fuck did you figure that one out? Because, like I said, there wasn't no trial here or anything like that. Did you perhaps, oh, how shall one say this delicately ... out of your taxpayer-insured ass?
The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since the considerable administrative cost of conducting as many as 1.4 million background checks, and ruling on the biennial requests for dispensation that the nonenforcement program envisions, will necessarily be deducted from immigration enforcement.
The President said at a news conference that the new program is “the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.Huh? It's the President who's in charge of this, not you, your honor. Maybe you were just channelling your inner elected official ... let's see ... checking my files here ... oh yes, you've been elected to exactly JACK SQUAT.
Some folks may object to my calling Lord Scalia stupid. I take their point:
Yes, if Otto, having recovered from being crushed by Ken with a steamroller, went to law school, met a few Republicans, and got himself appointed to the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia would be just the kind of judge that Otto would model his judicial career after:
Wanda (questioning Otto's decision to assault Archie) ... was that smart? Was it shrewd? Was that good tactics? Or was it stupid?
Otto: Don't call me stupid.
Wanda: Oh, right, to call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. I've known sheep that could outwit you, but you think you're an intellectual don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes, they do Otto, they just don't understand it.