I thought I was hallucinating. California’s local governments of left-leaning Liberal denomination are considering commercial boycott of Arizona for its alleged violation of presumed federal monopoly on immigration enforcement. But I wasn’t hallucinating. They, apparently, are really going to do so.

It’s like as if a thief were crying “Catch the thief!”

Their (flawed) reasoning goes like this. According to Article 2 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution (excerpts at the end of this article), the U.S. has power to establish uniform rule of naturalization. Never mind that this Constitutional mandate has virtually nothing to do with illegal “immigration” or state’s self-defensive measures against it. Never mind that the Constitution contains the provision that allows states to repeal invasions (that mass illegal “immigration” is an instance of) when “actually invaded”. The staunch defenders of the federal supremacy doctrine argue that if the federal government is given power to enforce something, no state is legally allowed to enforce anything (like naturalization rule) even remotely similar to that thing (like illegal “immigration”), even though the federal government derelicts its enforcement duty and flatly refuses to fulfill its Constitutional obligations.

So, California liberals will not stand for what they consider Arizona’s usurpation of power in the area of illegal “immigration” enforcement that, according to these Liberals, rests with the federal government and not with states, so that the State of Arizona has no business of messing up with.

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, California Liberals have chosen to actually violate the federal supremacy clause so dear, ostensibly, to their bleeding hearts in order to show their disapproval of alleged violation of the federal supremacy clause by the State of Arizona. In particular that have passed or are considering passing, laws that would de facto ban commerce with State of Arizona. And they don’t seem to care that the Article 3 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution not only authorizes the U.S. Congress to regulate interstate commerce, which using the California Liberals’’ logic should prohibit states and locals from interfering with it, but also it expressly bars states from entering any compacts that said prohibitive local laws are clear cases of.

In other words, any interstate commercial boycott of Arizona, be it actual or intended, is clearly illegal from Constitutional standpoint, while there is literally nothing in the Constitution that would make it illegal for Arizona to pass their illegal “immigration” law. But I doubt if California Liberals are able to understand this. Also, please, don’t hold your breath waiting for the federals to step in and prevent this violation of federal authority to regulate interstate commerce; although Obama administration and his Atty General Holder have been quick to stick its nose where it doesn’t belong, it is about as likely to prevent California’s entering the interstate commerce regulation area about as to enforce the American border and the federal immigration laws. (Not at all, that is.) And you may expect the same inaction from the Liberal-controlled U.S. Congress who in the past used the interstate commerce clause as an excuse to infringe upon the state rights but is not likely to restrain fellow Liberals from California from obstructing Arizona’s self-defense efforts against invasion of illegal “immigrants” from Mexico.

At this point I am not sure what is more mind boggling: California Liberals’ self-contradictory rhetoric or naïveté of those who elect incoherent morons to public offices. When one looks at predominantly Liberal California governments bankrupting in high speed what once was acclaimed world’s sixth strongest economy, one can only speculate that California voters got the rulers that they deserve. Now these incompetent rulers are trying to expand their area of “authority” over “immigration” matters in Arizona.

Yeah, by all means, Californians, keep electing the morons to your governments while you are trying to figure why your “Golden State” that taxes its residents to their teeth turns from economic powerhouse into insolvent banana republic. It must be a painful exercise for you to think, I suppose.

My utmost respect goes to Arizona governor and legislature for passing the illegal “immigration” law. I hope they challenge in the Supreme Court of the United States each and every one anti-Arizona anti-commerce bill passed in California, as these hostile measures are clearly unconstitutional.

Here are the relevant excerpts from the U.S. Constitution:
Article I – The Legislative Branch

Section 8 – Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To [...] regulate Commerce [...] among the several States, [...] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization [...].

Section 10 – Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; [...] pass any [...] Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts [...].

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts [...] Imports or Exports [...].

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, [...] enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

~ The Author ~
Mr. Dwyer has been a continuing contributor to the Federal Observer. Mark Andrew Dwyer’s commentaries (updated frequently) can be found here. Send your comments to readerswrite@yahoo.com.