If you were surprised that NBC edited the George Zimmerman 911 call to make it appear that he was a raging racist, just looking for an innoncent black kid to shoot, then you might want to get your smelling salts ready.
The media is at it again…..
Despite giving a 28 page long dissent in the Arizona immigration case and citing dozens and dozens of prescedent cases upon which he based his dissent, some “unbiased” media outlets have “selectively” edited Justice Scalia’s dissent and are reporting that he is.....a racist. This is based on two sentences:
In the first 100 years of the Republic, the States enacted numerous laws restricting the immigration of certain classes of aliens, including convicted criminals, indigents, persons with contagious diseases, and (in Southern States) freed blacks. State laws not only provided for the removal of unwanted immigrants but also imposed penalties on unlawfully present aliens and those who aided their immigration.OMG! Someone mentioned the words “freed blacks” without a groveling apology? He MUST be racist to even mention such a thing. And so blogs and quasi-media outlets across the country are raging against the racist Scalia.
Here is a little inconvenient truth…..those two sentences….they were a part of an entire paragraph, which was part of a passage concerning state sovereignty. Paragraphs discussing the state's position in a previous states rights case back in 1883.
Here is the actual entire passage:
Two other provisions of the Constitution are an acknowledgment of the States’ sovereign interest in protecting their borders. Article I provides that “[n]o State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws.” Art. I, §10, cl. 2 (emphasis added). This assumed what everyone assumed: that the States could exclude from their territory dangerous or unwholesome goods. A later portion of the same section provides that “[n]o State shall, without the Consent of Congress, . . . engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” Art. I, §10, cl. 3 (emphasis added). This limits the States’ sovereignty (in a way not relevant here) but leaves intact their inherent power to protect their territory.The above passage was a small part of the 28 page long dissent that was summed up thusly by Justice Scalia:
Notwithstanding “[t]he myth of an era of unrestricted immigration” in the first 100 years of the Republic, the States enacted numerous laws restricting the immigration of certain classes of aliens, including convicted criminals, indigents, persons with contagious diseases, and (in Southern States) freed blacks. Neuman, The Lost Century of American Immigration (1776–1875), 93 Colum. L. Rev. 1833, 1835, 1841–1880 (1993). State laws not only provided for the removal of unwanted immigrants but also imposed penalties on unlawfully present aliens and those who aided their immigration.2 Id., at 1883.
In fact, the controversy surrounding the Alien and Sedition Acts involved a debate over whether, under the Constitution, the States had exclusive authority to enact such immigration laws. Criticism of the Sedition Act has become a prominent feature of our First Amendment jurisprudence, see, e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 273–276 (1964)
Today’s opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law, deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there. Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result.Wouldn’t it be great if journalists actually did their job….reporting the facts…instead of manipulating the news for rating, power, and fame?
If you have interest in reading the entire dissent and not just the media's clip job version you can find it here: