A year and a half ago, I published an article on this blog called, “Arizona Law will be found unconstitutional?” The article is about the immigration-type law, S.B. 1070, signed by Gov. Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010 which was intended to curb the influx of undocumented aliens coming into Arizona or as Gov. Brewer put it, to protect Arizonans from the “murderous greed of drug cartels” and “destruction happening south of our international border that creeps its way north.” (more…)
Maybe upon reading my post Arizona Immigration Law will be ruled unconstitutional Arizona’s legal and legislative teams decided to reconsider, rather revise SB 1070 in an effort to strengthen its constitutionality. Wishful thinking! Nevertheless the effort to clean up SB 1070 falls short of constitutionality leaving an opening for the Justice Department to deliver a case-ending one-two punch in court.
Gov. Jan Brewer’s signing of SB 1070 into law has one more obstacle to overcome before it can be permanently placed on the books. It has to pass the scrutiny of the courts. In our system of government there are three equal branches of government: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Although lawmaking is constrained to the legislative and executive branches of government, the courts can overturn law and rule it unconstitutional. However, it is common practice for the legislative and executive bodies to vet the constitutionality of their proposed laws before they are placed on the legislative agenda. Given that SB 1070 was appropriately vetted, it begs to question: why so many conclusively label Arizona’s SB 1070 as unconstitutional? Has politics blinded the eyes of Arizona’s legal analysts or do the masses have it wrong?
On April, 23, 2010, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed that state’s and the nation’s toughest bill on illegal immigration into law (SB1070). Those who oppose the law say that the law (SB 1070) is unconstitutional because it is as a recipe for racial and ethnic profiling. President Obama called the law “misguided” and said it “threaten[s] to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.” Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles said the authorities’ ability to demand documents was like “Nazism.”