Was the Supreme Court's Decision on Arizona's Immigration Law Appropriate or Unjust?

First of all, as per Article 1, Section 8 {Powers of Congress}: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” means exactly that, CONGRESS alone has the powers to establish a UNIFORM RULE (no exceptions) of Naturalization – NOT simply Immigration law, and not the supreme court, not the POTUS, but the CONGRESS with a majority 2/3rds of the House VOTE. And that is ALSO permitting ONLY that the majority of American Citizens approves, as it is CONGRESS’ unanimous DUTY to adhere to the will of We The People and to SERVE/REPRESENT us (not against us “for the greater good” as many seem to believe)!

Further, “we have to follow our Constitution”… you mean like this?:

Article 4, Section 4 {Republican Government} “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, AND SHALL PROTECT EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” [Emphasis mine]

Or how about this?:

Amendment 10 {Powers of the States and People}: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Face it, the Supreme Court has just ruled AGAINST (IN CONTEMPT OF) Article 4, Section 4 and Amendment 10. And the Federal Government itself as a whole has been ENTIRELY disregarding these (and many other) provisions for a very long time – far, far, far too long of a time. Not to mention 0bama’s latest stunt with backdoor Amnesty, outside of Congress, outside of the LIMITED powers granted to him through this very same Constitution.

It is, collectively, DELIBERATE TREASON!


So wonderful, Arizona police can still require the proof of legal citizenship status - but they still can't do anything about them because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WON'T do their jobs and enforce their own laws on the books (especially Amendment 10, because THIS IS AN INVASION)! That's the problem here.

If I am in a 'Foreign' country of which I am NOT a LEGAL citizen, I would expect to be required to show my identification, including any papers which grant me legal entry into that country, at the request of ANY government official. I also WOULD show such documentation, with pleasure, to ANY official at ANY time while my stay was still valid, and until I left that country. It would be NO problem for ME to show these papers and documents even every 15 minutes if needed, because I would be there 'LEGALLY'. This is the reason that the 'ILLEGALS', and those who support them, protest this law - Because 'ILLEGAL' means 'NOT LEGAL', and they want to be able to violate the law through THEIR extenuating circumstances for which they feel that they deserve preferential treatment.

I could kill someone and then say, "Oh, officer, I had to shoot him because he wouldn't give me a job so that I could support my family." I would be in violation of a law for the murder. Does anyone really believe that an excuse like that would would hold up in court and allow me to go free? Just think of the lawlessness that would happen if people were allowed to break laws for ANY reason that they feel is justifiable, knowing that they would be set free.

When a law is broken, you have done something 'ILLEGAL' and should be penalized in some fashion. It should not matter that you have to be caught in the act of another violated law before you are detected as an illegal alien, since that is a violation in its self. If doing something 'ILLEGAL' is not to be punished no matter how you are found out or how the discovery of your violation is made, why even have the law in the first place? We should just open our borders and let anyone come in for any reason, including people who can't make a living in their own country, terrorists, drug dealers, and killers from all foreign lands, then deal with the thousands of extra violations that will occur from this heavy immigration as well!!!!

A crime is a crime and a violation of law is a violation of law. No matter how nice you are, or how much you care about your family, if you expect special consideration for one person (yourself or another) who is in violation, then all other violators will 'REQUIRE' that same consideration as well, and this will NEVER work.

Lastly, Justice Anthony Kennedy may have written, "The national government has significant power to regulate immigration...." and this may be true. But obviously Arizona feels that the National Government is not doing the job it needs to do to protect one of 'These United States' which it should protect, since they want the program. There is an old saying, "If you want a job done right, do it yourself". In this case, Arizona must feel that the job is being neglected by "the National Government" so they are taking measures to protect themselves. I don't blame them, I would do the same thing!!!

As far as the 'rest' of Arizona's immigration law being struck down, if it was in line with the National Law, there was really no need to strike it down. I think Arizona is just totally unhappy with Federal immigration action, and feel that they MUST do something.