Let us ponder for a moment the hypocrisy of the Department of Justice, and inherently the Obama Administration, in their pursuit of the Arizona immigration law. Attorney General Eric Holder, along with multiple officials in the Administration and left-wing pundits in the media, claimed that the law would specifically lead to racial profiling and racial harassment in general. However, when the DOJ finally filed suit against AZ SB 1070, they did it on the Supremacy Clause and didn’t mention profiling at all.

The Supremacy Clause says:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2

Under the Supremacy Clause, everyone must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law. It has long been established that “a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute” and that a conflict will be found either where compliance with both federal and state law is impossible or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 631 (1982). Similarly, we have held that “otherwise valid state laws or court orders cannot stand in the way of a federal court’s remedial scheme if the action is essential to enforce the scheme.” Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 862 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1050 (1993).

What makes this important is that AZ SB 1070 does not conflict with the Federal government. In fact, it states that State and Local authorities must comply with federal law. The law doesn’t create State immigration statutes; it simply authorizes the State and Local law enforcement to enforce federal statutes. So it is really beyond comprehension why the Administration, through the DOJ, would target this law, UNLESS, there was a specific interest on the part of the Administration to not enforce immigration statutes.

So why is this hypocritical? Sanctuary.

Oregon legislation:

181.850 Enforcement of federal immigration laws. (1) No law enforcement agency of the State of Oregon or of any political subdivision of the state shall use agency moneys, equipment or personnel for the purpose of detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is that they are persons of foreign citizenship present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.

Why not go after Oregon with the argument of federal supremacy? Why not assert federal authority by demanding that State and Local law enforcement enforce federal law?

And how about medical marijuana?

If the Administration, vis a vis the DOJ, is really concerned with the Supremacy of federal law, then why not enforce all federal law? It isn’t like they’ll have to blaze a trail through the courts establishing their superiority, that has already been done in US v. Oakland Canabisbuyer’s Cooperative in which the Supreme Court found that the medical premise for marijuana doesn’t hold and that the supremacy of Controlled Substances Act is well and good.

Do we selectively pick what statutes we will enforce? Is it a slippery slope to selectively pick what statutes to enforce? Might be, considering that the DOJ is apparently not interested in voter intimidation, well, at least against voter intimidation perpetrated by blacks.

Here’s the bottom line- the Executive Branch is there to enforce the law, all of them. Justice is suppose to be blind, it is suppose to be there for folks regardless of their skin color, their socio-economic class, their education, their sex, their physical handicaps, their mental handicaps- justice is there for everyone. The selective enforcement of the law, based on political ideology, is an insult to the law and to the overall premise of democracy in general.

Advertisements