Thursday, May 13, 2010
I will preface this by saying I have no knowledge of legal matters and Supreme Court shizz beyond what I read on Wikipedia while bored at work. So, I'll be procrastinating again, going on random Wiki-surfing trips and doing some "tab-jumping" that will lead me on a voyage that hops from Tidal Acceleration to Rutherford B. Hayes and I'll walk away from that with a spotty, incomplete knowledge of something I can barely even describe. So keep that in the back...no. Keep that in the front of your mind while reading anything that I write.
Anyway, I was thinking...all of the Jort-party members and Facebook philosophers were all up in arms about the Unconstitutionality of the Commiecare bill last month, right? The Constitution doesn't give the government the right to make people buy healthcare! The Constitution also doesn't say that you can't rape your dog, but I digress. The Constitutional argument, as I'm told, is that this could be argued as an example of the government infringing all up on state's rights. Which, I guess, seems like it could be a reasonable argument. I'm thinking it would also strike down social security and medicare, but that's another argument for another time.
BUT, these same people are defending the Arizona law in a newly energized frenzy of SPEAK ENGLISH! However, isn't this the same thing but in reverse? Isn't this a state attempting to regulate a national matter? This isn't between Mexico and Arizona. This is between Mexico and the U.S. Does Arizona have the right to...do whatever it is they are doing to immigrants? I don't even know what they do when they find illegals under this law. Do they send them back to Mexico? Do they kick them out of Arizona? Do they force them to teach Arizonan children how to turn double plays? I'm not sure. Whatever.
I do think that this Arizona law will be overturned, and I don't think it's exactly like the Federal law. It may be close. But...wouldn't they have to ask everyone for their "papers" to make it Constitutional? If a legal U.S. citizen with a tan goes to Vons supermarket and gets in a fight but cannot produce an ID, he is charged with a misdemeanor, I believe. If Jim from Accounts Payable does the same thing, he likely will not be asked for his ID. So he doesn't get the misdemeanor. That seems like some profiling. AND, the law requiring "reasonable suspicion" of Mexican-ness is quite vague, as a friend has pointed out to me, and is somewhat similar to Kolender v. Lawson, which set a precedent for all matters involving liquid strainers. And this is all ignoring the retarded clause that actually gives citizens a vehicle with which to SUE THE FUCKING POLICE if they don't think they are doing a comprehensive job adhering to the policy.
BUT...f that. I love trainwrecks. And if the right wangers were smart, wouldn't they want this to go to the Supreme Court and hope that their Justices can get it overturned on the state/national matters aspect? Couldn't this then trick the court into having to declare Obamacare as Unconstitutional when it inevitably comes in front of the Court? Would this cause complete anarchy? WOULD MICHELLE BACHMAN FINGERBLAST HERSELF ON THE HOUSE FLOOR?!?!?!
I'd certainly watch some CSPAN to find out.