About This Blog
In June, the Supreme Court rejected Arizona's new immigration law as unconstitutional. The Court allowed, at least until state courts decide, the "papers please" racial profiling portion of the Arizona law....but struck down all the other provisions as encroachments on federal authority to dictate immigration law.
Kansas Sec. of State, Kris Kobach, is the author of the now-unconstitutional Arizona immigration bill. As such, he introduced the immigration platform plank of the GOP for 2012 a couple of days ago.
The official party position now reads that "State efforts to reduce illegal immigration must be encouraged, not attacked," and says the Department of Justice should immediately drop its lawsuits against controversial state immigration laws in Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina and Utah.
"I think it's an expression of support for Arizona-style laws," Kobach said. "The platform also encourages states to create laws in this area."
Although the Arizona immigration law was gutted by the Supreme Court, the same guy who authored it authored the 2012 GOP immigration platform plank. Having your law thrown out by the Court in 2012 means that you get to reintroduce that illegal law into the GOP policy platform for 2012.
"Of the amendments that Chris (Kobach) either made or spoke in favor of, each and every one was adopted," Indiana RNC Committeeman James Bopp, a constitutional scholar who chaired one of the party's platform subcommittees. "He had a significant impact on the formulation of the platform. People respect his views and listen to him carefully on these issues."
My question on Kobach's policy plank for Republicans is this: If a law has been ruled unconstitutional, why would a political party encourage other states to pass similarly unconstitutional immigration laws in defiance of the Supreme Court?
And, why would that not be considered encouraging lawlessness by the states? Tell me, how can the Kobach-written 2012 GOP Convention immigration policy be interpreted any other way than as a call to the states to openly rebel against the federal government?
Rephrasing Kobach's statement above....isn't this what he, and the GOP, are now saying....
'Even though the Arizona immigration law was gutted as unconstitutional by the highest Court in the land, Republicans still support it, legal or not. Not only that, but we openly and defiantly encourage other states to create similarly-illegal immigration laws in their respective states.'
Or in street language, often described by the faint -of-heart as "uncivil" language.....'Supreme Court....go smuck yourselves.'
This is not some disagreement over details. Kobach, and now the GOP itself, have adopted the same attitude the Confederate states did before the Civil War. The nullificationists of the 19th century weren't interested in a collective United States of America any longer, just as the Republicans of the 21st century are no longer interested in a collective U.S. of A. The terrorist states of the Confederacy defiantly dismissed any rulings from D.C. which they didn't want to obey....just like red states of the 21st century are now openly, and defiantly, encouraging other states to disobey any rulings from D.C. that they don't like.
The larger, and more serious, question then becomes this: Have red states....GOP-controlled states who regularly lean Republican....become enemies of the Union? If the 2012 GOP policy platform includes declarations of open defiance of settled law on immigration.....with encouragement to other states to follow suit.....could it not be deduced that the GOP has become an enemy of the United States? Could it be argued that people like Kris Kobach, and states like Arizona, Kansas and Georgia, .....are already agitating for insurrection against the Union?
First fighting to stop Obamacare, a democratically passed law upheld by the Supreme Court, and now promising to repeal it wholesale. Then, rejecting the Court's rejection of Jan Brewer's Confederate nullification of federal immigration law.
Is today's Republican Party trying to tell us something? Aren't they telling us they no longer want to have anything to do with the United States of America unless only GOP policies are accepted as valid? And if so, is today's party of "no compromise", today's Republican Party....for us, or against us?
- 2013 (115)
- 2012 (265)
- 2011 (254)
- 2010 (274)
- 2009 (302)
- 2008 (331)
- 2007 (305)