Three Law Professors at UC San Diego Say Arizona’s Immigration Law is Constitutional

Three strikes against the putative Constitutional pseudo-scholar, Obama, would send most folks back to the dugouts in shame, but not Our Dark Overlord.  Nope.  He’s too much of a Communist ideologue to let a little technicalities like that stop him from swinging away:

Three UCSD professors say Arizona law is constitutional
Controversial immigration law violates civil rights, critics say
By EDWARD SIFUENTES
nctimes.com

Arizona’s controversial new immigration law probably would withstand legal challenges on constitutional grounds, according to a panel of three UC San Diego law professors.

However, the professors said the law could create problems, such as racial profiling, if it is not implemented properly.

[Yeah, right.  What-e-v-e-r.  What a sophistic thing to say.  Every law ever written could create problems if not implemented properly.  Consider, for instance, the Biblical law, "Love Thy Neighbor."  If not implemented properly, sure, there could be problems.  But, that is not the fault of the law.  That is the fault of an individual improperly enforcing the law---which is a people problem, not a piece of paper problem.  End of story. ]

The professors spoke Thursday during a panel discussion on the university’s campus in La Jolla hosted by the Institute of the Americas, an organization that promotes cooperation between the U.S. and Latin America.

[...]

Critics say the law, which takes effect later this year, could lead to racial profiling of Latinos and other ethnic minorities. Some Latino and civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, say they plan to challenge the law in court.

Those groups say the Arizona law also violates the U.S. Constitution by interfering with federal immigration power and authority.

Professor Lawrence Alexander, who teaches constitutional law at UCSD, said that argument would fail because the Arizona law does not conflict with federal immigration law. The state law is only seeking to enforce the federal law, he said.

“I don’t see anything in this law that is going to fail a challenge on the grounds of federal supremacy,” Alexander said.

Alexander was a panelist along with professors Donald Dripps, a scholar on criminal law, and Maimon Schwarzschild, who specializes in constitutional law. Former U.S. Ambassador Jeffrey Davidow, who is president of the Institute of the Americas, served as moderator.

[...]

The panelists agreed that defining what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” could be problematic. But that alone does not render the law unconstitutional, Alexander said.

“Could a police officer overstep the bounds and do something that the Constitution does not permit? Of course,” he said. “Police officers can do that now. They can do that without the law, but the law itself does not authorize anything that is unconstitutional.”

[...]

Explore posts in the same categories: immigration, politics