In contempt

Other presidents had contempt for the law, but not to this extent

The federal government has gone out of its way not to enforce federal immigration law.

The president has used inflammatory rhetoric to try to scare Arizona from protecting itself.

The president, invited to see the border problems for himself, said he doesn't have time. Yet, it's getting difficult to keep up with his and his family's vacation schedule.

Now the administration has gone to a Clinton-appointed federal judge to temporarily block Arizona's efforts to protect itself.

We ask you: Exactly who should be sued?

We think it's the United States government and the Obama administration.

To be sure, the Obama administration is not unlike prior administrations in its negligence to secure the border and its open refusal to follow the Constitution and federal immigration law. But that doesn't make it right, legal or constitutional.

Yet, the Obama administration has gone light years beyond the negligence of its predecessors, by exhibiting repeated and willful hostility toward a sovereign state's efforts to peacefully and legally resolve this problem that is of the federal government's making.

There have been occasional outrages committed by the federal government against the people and their 50 states over our lifetimes, but the assault on Arizona ranks among the most contemptible.

One way or another, this will not stand.

We are encouraged that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is stalwart and determined in that state's legal battle with the Obama administration. The state will fight Judge Susan Bolton's overreaching temporary order to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, and then fight the rest of the lawsuit against it with fervor.

We should all hope Arizona prevails. If a federal government can use the courts to prevent a sovereign state from protecting itself from drug cartel violence and illegal immigrants and all the health care, educational, law enforcement and other societal costs imposed on it, then the fabric of this republic has been rended for all time.

Fact is, it's time to put the federal government on the defensive. Indeed, Brewer was talking this week like a governor going on the offense, suggesting the federal government ought to be forced to do its job rather than trying to stop states from doing it.

In the long-term, we hope this indescribable outrage against the people of Arizona and their elected leaders breathes additional life into the burgeoning states' rights movement. We would simply remind that overwhelming majorities of Arizonans and Americans support Arizona's law -- and that the law in all intents and purposes simply mirrors existing federal law.

The states' rights movement should reinvigorate the 10th Amendment -- which limits federal power and reserves all powers not expressly enumerated in the Constitution to the states or the people.

The Constitution also should be amended to limit the federal government's ability to spend our money beyond our capacity to pay for it -- and to limit congressional terms of office, without which we have seen the explosion of lifelong rulers and their fiefdoms in Washington.

The Declaration of Independence explains that our rights come from God, not any government, and that governments exist purely to secure those rights. It further says that "whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government ..."

Depending on how this Arizona case comes out, many Americans will wonder if that point has been reached.

More

Sat, 04/29/2017 - 00:28

One-hundred days later