Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Quick Hits


Seems the most controversial parts of the bill were struck down today and will go to higher courts. That was expected anyway. Personally, the apparent requirement for pedestrians to carry ID proving citizenship in case they may get stopped for something on a jaunt down the block (and get locked up until proven innocent) never sounded correct. Then again, any state or federal law that requires a citizen to purchase a product or be fined or taxed also sounds incorrect.

The immigration methods in practice in Rhode Island sound better and they've already withstood some challenges. Other states could perhaps look east--after all nobody will care because Rhode Island is in the heart of blue country.

That said, it's high hilarity to watch liberals gloating that we're a nation of laws governed by a sacred constitution while arguing for amnesty, or illegal aliens jumping for joy in the streets at the news they won't have to show proof of citizenship during a police stop when the government already requires them to show it when applying for a job. Chaos still reigns.


Coming out November 9, a week after the mid-terms, but the Huffington Post is chortling over the timing, quoting some Republicans as saying it's 'selfish' because advance copies/excerpts will be leaking out beforehand, reminding voters of the Dems' main campaign theme.

In that sense they are correct, but what if the advance leaks are something of a bombshell nature? An October surprise, perhaps. Just sayin'.


One thing the press isn't asking but should--now that al-Megrahi feels better (and based on Libya's in-your-face celebration) why haven't we put this turd on the Rewards for Justice site? When Germany released Mohammed Ali Hamadei, a terrorist convicted for the 1985 hijacking of TWA 847 (and death of Navy diver Robert Stetham), reportedly in a swap for a captured German in Iraq, the United States placed the man on the list. If nothing else it makes a statement. So far the only statement made by the US government has been a "we asked Scotland not to" then some outrage, then nothing. Not even an official condemnation.


Anonymous said...

The Arizona decision might remind us of Worcester v. Georgia, 31 US 515 (1832). In this case, President Jackson wrote, " ...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate..."

Will this case make it to the SCOTUS? I think it is likely. Now lets see ... where will Sotomayor and Kagan come down on this issue?

A.C. McCloud said...

Sotomayor? Hmm. That's a toughie.