Thursday, June 17, 2010

When strict constructionism becomes selective as a motherfucker…

Shall we?

A bitch read about a certain Arizona lawmaker who wants to deny citizenship to children born in America to undocumented parents and I couldn’t decide whether to laugh or cry.

On one hand, it is laughable.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees citizenship to any body born in the United States.

That’s the United States Constitution, not the Arizona State Constitution…so, um…yeah, no way in hell a law passed in the Arizona state legislature is gonna undo that shit.

On the other hand, I found the very thought beyond sad even as it is extremely illuminating. State Senator Russell Pearce isn’t trying to be slick or subtle…and the fact that he isn’t and doesn’t think he has to says a lot about his confidence that his constituents won’t get ill as he launches a full out attack on families and children. 

Beyond the meanness of this latest public display of legislative bigotry, there is the curious issue of a conservative Republican calling for a change in a constitutionally guaranteed right because circumstances have change in his home state.

Gawd, I remember when Republicans were all having the words “strict constructionist” tattooed to their right ass cheek!

But I guess that their adoration of strict constructionism only applies to certain sections of the Constitution…

…kind of like how the Arizona immigration law only targets certain people.

Blink.

7 comments:

Courtney said...

I think Pearce thinks he's going to get away with it because the language of the bill denies a birth certificate. I just know that the argument will go that they aren't denying actual citizenship...just the ability to prove it.

It's disgusting.

Anonymous said...

Their "strict" anything has always been a slippery slope that they apply or ignore when they need to.

If you can't prove your birth then how can you comply with the law?

These people are grasping at straws and are going to be sued big time. Where are the Latino lawyers? Where are any lawyers? A case like this is going to make some lawyer's career.

Anonymous said...

"Gawd, I remember when Republicans were all having the words “strict constructionist” tattooed to their right ass cheek!"

Ha! Their stance boggles the mind.

I wonder if we should bring up their Constitutional elasticity when they start thumping on about protecting the 2nd amendment.

Anonymous said...

I'm glad to see something being done in AZ. The feds (our employees) have been taking their pay for decades and the border leaks like a sieve. The AZ law is less intrusive than both federal and Mexico's laws on immigration. It's about time.

Shark-fu said...

Anonymous...
If Arizona wanted to reduce the number of undocumented workers it would have passed a law making it a felony to employ an undocumented worker with a mandatory sentence of 10 years and massive fines.

Put the Kool-Aid down, son.

There are multiple ways to address issues at the state level, but throwing poo at the wall and then applauding the effort isn't one of them.

ChristopherM said...

Justices like Scalia want a strict constructionist reading of every part of the Constitution, except for the 2nd Amendment, which they will interpret and extrapolate the fuck out of to get the result they want from clear language about a well-maintained militia. Oh, and they want a strict reading of the Commerce Clause, unless it allows medical marijuana that does not move in the stream of intrastate commerce. And now you have these nutbags in Arizona who ignore Article 1 of the Constitution that clearly says the FEDERAL government has authority over immigration. They also ignored the Constitution by passing a bill requiring a candidate for federal office to show a birth certificate, as if they have any authority in determining eligibility for federal office. And now this. These motherfuckers have lost their damn minds!!!

Anonymous said...

The employers are obeying the law in AZ - as well as generating the tax revenue to pay the feds to enforce the border - which they are not, and have not been, doing. Should the gulf oil leak be capped at the source (think BORDER) or gathered up once it hits the shores/beaches in 5 states (think EMPLOYERS)? Secure the border before doing anything else.