Just What We Don't Want

By TIM KILLEEN

John Hudson wrote a good roundup piece about pundits' views on the White House's treatment of the AZ immigration law and what it might mean politically. The consensus seems to be that Democratic Governors feel like the White House has put them in a difficult spot by failing to take the lead on immigration, allowing AZ to set the tone for the issue and considering the fact that the majority of Americans in each state have responded to polls claiming that they'd support local legislation similar to the AZ law. Hudson asks whether it's politically expedient or advantageous for the Democrats to challenge Arizona's treatment of the illegal immigration issue.

The problem, however, is that political calculations as the basis for policy decisions, on either side of the spectrum, is exactly what the American people are sick of. Whatever your political affiliations, one thing most people can agree on is that they'd rather see a politician take a principled approach on a tough issue despite his reelection bid if it's what's best for his constituents or for the country.

In this particular matter, whether or not the majority of Americans polled like the AZ law or not has no bearing on its constitutionality. What's important is whether state law is being used to trump federal law in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. The Democrats are right to pursue a course of action they believe to be upholding the law, even if it means they lose political points. We elect our representatives to do what's best for us, not what's best for the future of their careers.

Ridiculous Video of the Day

Just when you thought campaign ads couldn't get any more blunt and obvious...

Arizona Takes A Play Right Out of A 4 Year Old's Playbook

In a not-so-surprisingly one-sided piece over at FOXNews, it was explained that Gary Pierce, a commissioner on the five-member Arizona Corporation Commission has written a letter to Mayor Villaraigosa in Los Angeles, telling him that if the city goes through with its boycott of Arizona companies in retaliation for the AZ immigration law, he would "encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate [their] power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation." According to Pierce "Doggone it -- if you're going to boycott this candy store ... then don't come in for any of it."

Here's the problem- beside Pierce's obvious inability to act like an adult- while Los Angeles has no commitment to patronize AZ companies or travel to AZ and give it any revenue, one would assume that AZ utility companies have some sort of contract with Los Angeles regarding the power they're supposed to provide. If Pierce is suggesting that these utility companies breach these contracts, I have a feeling they probably wouldn't fair too well with a "they started it" defense in court. I understand Pierce's point that Los Angeles is benefiting from its relationship with AZ and wants to have it both ways, but his childish tactics are just making an already embarrassed state look worse. "If you won't play the way I want, I'm taking my toys and going home" may have worked as a toddler, but as adults, we need to realize that the actions we take bring with them certain consequences.

Moving On Immigration Reform

Argue as you may about states' rights regarding things like taxes, education, regulation of business, etc., immigration seems like a no-brainer to be within the federal purview (once someone sneaks across the border, they don't necessarily stay in one state). Sure, it's going to be politically challenging- what isn't these days? But the more Congress stalls on important issues like this, the more states are going to take them on themselves. Once that happens, the states see it as their own issue and by the time the federal government comes around to enacting legislation (which automatically overrides state legislation via the Supremacy Clause) teapartiers have another rallying cry against the federal government as being overly expansive. What's worse: getting into another tough political fight about policy or getting into another tough ideological fight about the size of government?