Editor says, what if the Federal Government overruled the State of Arizona's new immigration law? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s).

Share this Article on:

Facebook

Twitter

Bruce Johnson commented on 2010-07-29 18:43:40 ~
Not even close. Fixed - thanks. Ed It is in a sense the polar opposite of the nullification crisis, since it amounts to the executive branch telling a state - "We refuse to actually enforce federal law. Therefore, you may not try to do so either!" More specifically: In the nullification crisis, South Carolina actually declared a federal LAW invalid or null (announcing that the state would refuse to support payment of federal tariffs it disagreed with). But ironically, in this instance, the Arizona law simply seeks to IMPLEMENT federal law, and is being told that, because the current administration's policy is NOT to enforce federal law, any state attempting to do so is interfering with federal prerogatives . That is, Arizona is acting against the executive branch's policy, but it is the executive NOT the state of Arizona that is acting to "nullify" federal law. The state, if interfering (or planing to), would be interfering with the administration NON-enforcement of the law. At the same time, consistent with its own policy but again contrary to federal law, the administration has taken no action against those (esp. "sanctuary cities") who have adopted explicit policies of PREVENTING the enforcement of federal immigration law.

Bruce Johnson commented on 2010-07-29 18:59:42 ~
Sorry, I didn't read the question at the very top. From that perspective, yes this IS an attempt at "federal nullification". But with some odd wists. The nullification here is ultimately by one branch - the executive - and it is not simply against a state law, but against the law passed by another branch of the federal government itself. In fact, the executive not actively enforcing a particular law is not so very unusual. It is, however, quite unusual (unprecedented? I'd like to see if we can find other examples), to move from the executive's ordinarily passive disregard for certain laws to taking action against states that actually DO try to follow the law.

Eric Oppen commented on 2010-07-29 19:04:52 ~
This would mean, at the very least, Arizona going against the Democrats for a long time. I've friends there, and one and all, they're very much in favor of the new law. Arizona's sick of illegal immigrants.

Jeff Provine commented on 2010-07-29 19:27:11 ~
Civil War 2: This Time It's Immigration. At least, a stand of states' rights would cause the pendulum to swing back from two centuries of increasing federalism.

Chris Oakley commented on 2010-07-30 02:26:30 ~
There may be a Civil War 2 anyway.... :(