I just read Antonin Scalia’s dissenting opinion on the
Arizona illegal immigration ruling, which confirmed that yes, it is
unconstitutional to demand to see someone’s proof of citizenship based on the
color of their skin.
This should serve as proof (and I’m looking at you North
Carolina) that when a state tries to do something unconstitutional, the Supreme
Court will (or should) strike it down.
So if you get yourself confused and think that a vote on an
amendment to limit civil liberty is a referendum on public opinion, you will
wind up wasting your time. Therefore it’s best not to get confused. Listen to
me instead.
But back to Antonin Scalia. Here’s an excerpt from his
opinion:
“Arizona bears the brunt of the
country's illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege
by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their
social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have
been unable to remedy the problem,and indeed have recently shown that they are
unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona's estimated 400,000 illegal
immigrants—including not just children but men and women under 30—are now
assured immunity from enforcement, and will be able to compete openly with
Arizona citizens for employment.”
Well friends, it’s sad testament to the state of the legal
system but it appears that Antonin Scalia - a Supreme Court Justice since the
1980s; is just as confused about the nature of law as the majority of North
Carolina voters were with amendment 1.
He is making the mistake of thinking that Arizona’s law is
ABOUT illegal immigration, the same way North Carolina voters thought amendment
1 was ABOUT gay marriage.
His minority opinion is therefore underpinned by his
feelings about the issue of illegal immigration and NOT whether or not
Arizona’s law is CONSTITUTIONAL!!!!
His dissent above is a diatribe about the evils of illegal
immigration and how hard it is for Arizona and what a rotten situation it is, all
of which may be 100% true, but that’s not the issue before the court.
I made the point in my first blog entry, that it does not
matter what your personal feelings on gay marriage are. You can be FOR IT or
you can be AGAINST IT, it is simply not relevant.
Amendment 1 was disguised as a referendum. A simple,
straight talkin’, good ol’ common sense question. So people just put their
pencil on that ballot based on what their opinion was. Sounds simple enough,
right?
Wrong!
Our opinions are not supposed to be expressed by legislation
just because they're our opinions, even if a majority of us share the same opinion. Laws have to pursue liberty in order to be
good. If they don’t, they belong in the garbage can, regardless of how noble or holy or moral they’re dressed up to be.
Here’s another example:
Apparently the good, decent, God fearin’ folks of
Middleborough, Massachusetts were asked to vote on an ordinance making it
illegal to swear in public.
This should be really simple y’all.
The Constitution of the United States of America protects
all speech that does not harass, threaten or incite lawlessness. This is not
new. We’ve been around the block on this one, it should be cut and dry.
Well . . . a majority of the people of Middleborough got
confused, and thought their vote was a simple demonstration of their opinion on
the topic of profanity.
“Gee, I don’t like
profanity. I think profanity is bad. If I vote “no” that means I’m condoning
profanity and I don’t condone profanity, therefore I vote “yes”!!! –
Majority of Middleborough
Sound familiar?
“Gee, I don’t like gay
marriage. I think gay marriage is bad. If I vote “disagree” that means I’m
condoning gay marriage and I don’t condone gay marriage, therefore I vote
“agree”!!! – Majority of North Carolina
And now . . .
“Gee, I don’t like
illegal immigration. I think illegal immigration is bad. If I vote “strike”
that means I’m condoning illegal immigration and I don’t condone illegal
immigration, therefore I vote “uphold”!!! – Antonin Scalia
Friends!!!!!
Fellow Americans!!!!!
Wake up!!!!!!!!
These questions are not simple referendums asking you to
share your feelings.
No one . . . regardless of how strongly they oppose foul
language, should support a fundamentally UN-AMERICAN law that restricts
Constitutionally protected speech.
No one . . . regardless of how strongly they oppose gay
marriage, should support a fundamentally UN-AMERICAN law that impedes civil
liberties and disregards the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S.
Constitution.
No one . . . regardless of how strongly they oppose illegal
immigration, should support a fundamentally UN-AMERICAN law that violates the
Constitutionally guaranteed right to equal protection under the law (i.e. you can’t ask brown skinned Spanish
speakers to carry documents and produce them at will if you don’t require the
same of white skinned English speakers).
Stop getting confused by what you think is the issue in
these cases. What you think is the “big question” or the “hot topic” is
absolutely 100% irrelevant!!!
The only important question you need to be asking yourself
is:
‘Do I condone truth, justice and the American way?’
If the answer is “yes”, I have two things to say to you.
1
- Congratulations!
- You may actually have to vote in favor of something that you don’t support once in a while.
I know how hard it is to imagine doing that. It feels
internally dissonant, I hear you. But it’s okay!!!!
You can continue to oppose profanity . . .
You can continue to oppose gay marriage . . .
You can continue to oppose illegal immigration . . .
You just have to make sure you’re not misusing the rule of
law in the process. Oppose whatever you want, but do so within the confines of
Constitutionality. If you can check that box first, by all means vote exactly
as your opinion dictates.
The same goes for you Justice Antonin Scalia!!!
“Who the heck do you
think you are?!?!” Scalia shouts at his computer screen. “I’m a Supreme Court Justice! I was
appointed by the President and confirmed by the legislature after a long and
admirable legal career! You aren’t even a lawyer! You’re just a blogger! Who
are you to lecture me on the nature of law?”
I’m nobody you fat, greasy Italian!
I’m just some dude spouting an opinion.
The difference between my opinion and yours is that mine is
the MAJORITY opinion of the Supreme Court and yours AIN’T!!!!
So bite me.
No comments:
Post a Comment