STATES' WRONGS (Part 1)

(See Part 2 above, 9/16/12.  The following is an e-mail response to a lawyer friend of mine in Toronto who said that Arizona's effort to control "illicit" Mexican immigration could be properly protected from Federal interference by a revival of the doctrine of "states' rights."  Many Canadians have obviously been drinking some bad liquor and listening to knuckle-dragging idiots down South!  They need to get out the "Crown Royal" and go to bed with the bottle!)

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "STATES' RIGHTS"!!!

As a life-long Southerner, I have heard that phrase ALL MY LIFE, and it is total nonsense!

There is no such phrase as "states' rights" in the US Constitution. It is a fabrication of the worm-eaten mind of John C. Calhoun, a Federalist turncoat who brazenly flipped his political philosophy when he moved from New England to South Carolina in the early 1800's and started drinking whiskey out of those prissy lead-crystal decanters!  Calhoun based his states'-rights "thinking" on the twin pillars of "nullification" and "interposition," further fabricated by the enfeebled elderly minds of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively, who foolishly suggested in their age-addled dotages that the states were individually empowered to disregard the legislation and powers of the Congress, as had arguably been the case under the thoroughly discredited and discarded "Articles of Confederation," which almost cost Washington and the nascent United States victory in the Revolutionary War, BECAUSE Washington had a lot of trouble getting the former colonies to (1) fully fund that war and (2) provide enough soldiers to fight in it!

One should note that there is NO preservation or savings clause in the US Constitution for the worthless, silly "Articles of Confederation," and that was no accident!  George Washington, presiding over the Constitutional Convention, would not have stood for it!  (Jefferson was nowhere to be found at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. He was minister to France.)

Most so-called "states' rightists" will cite the 10th Amendment as authority for their wet-brained thinking, but the 10th Amendment says NOTHING about "rights."  What it basically provides is a strict limitation on the POWERS of Congress, but too many wishful thinkers and other assorted twits read into that a "blank check" for states' POWERS, and that is simply not so. It DOES say that the POWERS not granted to Congress ARE reserved (not "granted") to the States and the People, but one may not, therefore, infer that "the People" have thereby given carte blanche to the states!   NO! After the Revolution, "the People" did not give carte blanche to ANYTHING!  They were not that stupid!

One must, instead, refer to each state's own constitution for whatever "the People" have empowered that particular state to do.  The widely-held notion that, somehow, unlimited POWERS are implicitly granted is just nonsense. A state may have ONLY those powers that are (further) specifically granted by "the People" to that state, within that state's own constitution!  How hard is that to grasp, given the history of our Revolution and the People's shared desire to get out from under the thumbs of indifferent/remote/ detached autocrats and monarchs?  (It was a bad time for autocrats all over back in those days!)

It is the NINTH AMENDMENT that deals with RIGHTS, and rights belong ONLY to "the People," NOT to states!  A government may have only POWERS, or the absence thereof in the face of RIGHTS enjoyed by "the People."  Individual rights are paramount--they ALWAYS "trump" powers.  Rights are implicit and presumed and expansive, but powers are not. Only "the People" may subordinate their individual RIGHTS to specific POWERS granted by them to governments.  There can be no other legitimate empowerment of any government, federal or state!  (And, there are no "group" rights--only individual rights that may be exercised by groups of people collectively.)

Admittedly, MY philosophy is not shared by very many people, but I am RIGHT!  To Hell with everybody else!  Neither Arizona nor any other STATE has any business trying to regulate immigration.  It is about POWER; that's all.  If a STATE is deemed to have the POWER to regulate who may cross its borders in any way, then it might eventually try to enforce some sort of prohibition or restriction against persons coming in from other US states.  That is simply unacceptable.  The remedy for unwise or improper or inadequate FEDERAL immigration enforcement is political only--throw the bastards out at the next election!  The states are not legitimately empowered to regulate any sort of immigration, and for damned good reasons.  Power is a very corrupting influence and is easily misused by imperfect people who have no business using it.

And, I'd be willing to bet a steak dinner that "immigration regulation" is a power NOT specifically granted in the Arizona constitution to that state!  I'd further bet another steak dinner that Arizona is not worried about Canadians crossing the border, either.  They seem concerned only with those pesky brown Mexicans who "talk funny" and breed like flies!

Y'all come back now, heah?