By Richard D. Fry
Let us weep for the Republic
It is very sad when we are at such a state that a Supreme Court holding we should be enraged about is lauded as a “big victory”. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. WHITING, which was decided today, is just such a case. It upheld Arizona’s mandatory e-verify law and penalties for unlawful business practices.
Why should we be enraged? Because:
1. It was a violation of Article III. §3 cl.2 of the U.S. Constitution and is an affront to the sovereignty of the states:
a. the Chamber filed the case in the federal District Court which has not Constitutional authority to her the case as a state is a party,
b. The federal District Court in violation of its oath of office and the Constitution accepted the case against a state,
c. The State of Arizona’s officers in violation of their oath of office and the Constitution responded to the case,
d. The federal Court of appeals in violation of its oath of office and the Constitution took the case on appeal although it had no Constitutional authority to do so,
e. The Supreme Court in violation of its oath of office and the Constitution allowed all these Constitutional violations to occur.
2. The Chamber of Commerce serving special interest groups filed this law suit although it is:
a. Contrary to the good of the country,
b. Was Unconstitutional,
c. Was largely put forth to delay the implementation of the law,
d. To intimidate the state(s) from pushing laws the Chamber is against for fear of being drug into an expensive lawsuit, (Not unlike the ACLU’s strategy)
e. Was frivolous in large part if not in its entirety :
Frivolous – A pleading is frivolous when it is clearly insufficient on its face, and does not controvert the material points of the opposite pleading, and is presumably interposed for mere purposes of delay or to embarrass the opposition
Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Ed.
Here is what the Supreme Court said about one of the Chamber’s legal theories.
“The Chamber and the United States as amicus argue that the Arizona law is not a “licensing” law because it operates only to suspend and revoke licenses rather than to grant them. Again, this construction of the term runs contrary to the definition that Congress itself has codified. See 5 U. S. C. §551(9) (“‘licensing’ includes agency process respecting the grant, renewal, denial, revocation , suspension , annulment , withdrawal , limitation, amendment, modification, or conditioning of a license” (emphasis added)). It is also contrary to common sense. There is no basis in law, fact, or logic for deeming a law that grants licenses a licensing law, but a law that suspends or revokes those very licenses something else altogether….”
A frivolous law suit or legal argument is often defined as a law suit without any “basis in law, fact, or logic…”
The Chamber and its attorneys should be sued for filing a frivolous action / theory and for abuse of process.
3. Small and medium Businesses continue to support the COC on a local, state and national level although it continues to take positions which are contrary to the majority of its members, is contrary to the best interest of the country and which supports lawlessness in our country and degrades our culture and sovereignty.
4. We citizens patronize businesses that support this kind of conduct by the COC by supporting the COC. Of course to be fair most people either support the Republican Party or the Democratic Party although they are jointly responsible for 99% of our current (and likely final) problems.
The vote was 5 to 3 in favor of the Arizona law. Justice Kagan set this one out. If she had voted it would certainly have been a 5 to 4 vote. That is how precariously our most fundamental liberties are hanging.
Kagan is the one that in her confirmation hearing told Senator Coburn that she was not aware of any “natural rights” outside the Constitution and if there were such she would not be able to apply them to cases. It is her opinion any rights we citizens have or that the states have come from the Constitution.
This position makes the ninth and Tenth Amendments absurdities and completely ignores the fact the Constitution was to limit the federal government it was not to limit the rights of the people and states which were for the most part not even mentioned in the Constitution. 50 years ago she would have been impeached but now she is confirmed and placed on the Supreme Court.
Yes it is good that the Supreme Court gave a nod to Arizona that it was doing what it should but this case should have been a no starter to begin with and it is likely Arizona and we citizens would have sheepishly accepted a contrary opinion even thought such could not be supported under the law.
I fear it is time to start weeping over the loss of our Grand Republic.