In his Best of the Web column today, James Taranto takes up the subject of the Obama administration's lawsuit against Arizona. Citing cases in which the federal government sued to pre-empt state law that conflicted with federal law, Taranto arrives at a startling conclusion.
Some of the distinctions Brennan makes cut against the Arizona law. Brennan expressly cited "the predominance of federal interest" in immigration (as opposed to employment law), and the federal government's complaint against Arizona alleges, plausibly, that the state law will impose burdens on legal aliens.
But he also makes clear that the power to pre-empt or sanction state laws in an area of federal interest rests with Congress, not the president. This would seem to suggest that if the Arizona law is consistent with federal law and Congress has not expressly barred action by states, the Arizona law should stand.
A large part of the administration's argument, by contrast, is that the Arizona law is inconsistent with federal immigration policy--i.e., with the executive branch's decisions about how to enforce laws passed by Congress. An important question for the court, then, will be whether Congress has delegated its authority to pre-empt state laws by granting discretion over law enforcement to the president.
In other words, this is a case about the balance of power within the federal government, with the Obama administration on the side of expanding the authority of the executive branch. [My emphasis.]
Which is the more important to our radically left wing congress? Both the administration and congressional Democrats see their political best interests served best by maintaining an unrestricted flow of illegal aliens into this country. So will congressional Democrats stand still for what could be a permanent encroachment on congressional prerogatives with the prospect of a huge demographic swing in their favor?
Comments