Illegal immigration brings out the strangests things among the radical left. A recent story from Arizona regarding their own law against alien smuggling highlights this, especially with regard to the recent events in San Francisco brought to the City by the Bay by their very metrosexual Mayor, Gavin Newsom. For details of that see previous posts. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2008/07/18/20080718smuggling0718.html
Recently, a state appellate court upheld the state immigration smuggling law. Radical leftist lawyers, employed by the state at the unconstitutional order of the Supreme Court argued for the illegal alien defendant that the state law was unconstitutional because it interferred with federal immigration law and was pre-empted by the supremacy clause of the Constitution. But aside from the amusing fact that a leftist attorney supports a Constitution created by white male slave owners, apparently that attorney hasn't read the Supreme Court decisions that states have an inherent authority to enforce federal law and that the Supreme Court has repeately stated that Federal government and State governments are sovereign, there is nothing in the Arizona alien smuggling law that interfers with Federal law. In fact, the law, and the enforcement of the law, complement and assist Federal law and the enforcement of Federal law.
The interesting thing is that those same radical leftist attorney's on the tax payer dole at the order of the Supreme Court turn about and argue that the Very Metrosexual Mayor and others can openly and actively aid, abet, and assist aliens to violate federal law. Even worse, even after the Supreme Court upheld Federal drug laws and allowed enforcement against persons claiming they use marijuana for "medical purposes", without a prescription mind you, the Very Metrosexual Mayor continues to argue that San Francisco is exempt from Federal law. Worse, the Very Metrosexual Mayor and the bolshie lawyers argue that while Federal law and the Constitution, along with the supremacy clause, do not apply to Baghdad By The Bay, they do apply to the soveriegn territory of the Republic of Cuba.
In reality, liberal lawyers, like the attorneys in Arizona or the attorneys for San Francisco, are just dishonest. They never seek truth, but like Bolsheviks, they only seek whatever advantage they receive politically from any legal question. There is no law to them other than what best works for their ideology.
They tell us the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law of the land and the Constitution, but when they get a decision not alligned with a living constititution, they go ballistic, claiming the right to ignore any law they disagree with, a la MLK. Let's see if stare decisis is upheld by any future Obama court. Perhaps we can use Heller for that stare decisis check. Or better yet let's see if the once condemned resistance to Supreme Court decisions as in the South regarding segregation, is so condemned in Washington DC resistance to Heller or the medical marijuana decision.