Supremacy is not tyranny - it's in the Constitution

Arizona's SB 1070 and why the feds are suing to stop it

"S.B. 1070 is invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution and must be struck down." (from the US Department of Justice complaint, United States v. State of Arizona (et al), dated: July 6, 2010)

Like a hole in an Arizona border fence, the lack of comprehensive, US immigration reform has left what Latino advocates call a "void," into which Arizona has inserted SB 1070. "Immigration policy and enforcement falls squarely upon the federal government, and the lawsuit will ensure to reassert federal authority," Jerry Gonzalez, of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, said in a statement issued after the DOJ announced the suit.

Any reform, Constitutionally, must come from the federal government, and not just in a way that pleases industry and appeases xenophobes. Indeed, watering down the law to cater to those groups is an abandonment of the charitable principles that, so proudly, we hail ourselves for every time we give our stuff to the Salvation Army and see a picture of the Statue of Liberty.

A government that is committed to the interests of its people operates dysfunctionally if it ignores the interests of the global community of which it is a member. Allowing states to make their own law irrespective of existing federal statute not only potentially disrupts the integrity of US international relations, it violates the Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause of Article VI in the United States Constitution says the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and ... every State shall be bound thereby."

In the view of the Department of Justice, The Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of State, Arizona's controversial new immigration law violates this clause because - among other things - it "interferes with the numerous interests the federal government must balance when enforcing and administering the immigration laws and disrupts the balance actually established by the federal government."

The agencies involved feel that any step Arizona - or any state - takes to amend or rewrite federal immigration law, may jeopardize treaties and other federal laws with regard to the safety and security of the entire country. Specifically, the brief says, "Arizona’s immigration policy exceeds a state’s role with respect to aliens (Homeland Security), interferes with the federal government’s balanced administration of the immigration laws (Justice), and critically undermines U.S. foreign policy objectives (State)."

This follows what the Supreme Court decided in 1941, Hines [Secretary of Labor and Industry for Pennsylvania] v. Davidowitz, et al. "Our primary function," the court said, "is to determine whether... [state] law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. And in that determination, it is of importance that this legislation is in a field which affects international relations, the one aspect of our government that from the first has been most generally conceded imperatively to demand broad national authority."

Even though "the status quo perpetuates a broken immigration system," as GALEO's Gonzalez said, there is still federal immigration law already in place. Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano insisted that DHS will "continue to enforce the laws on the books."

Arizona's law, therefor, is an example of a state acting on its own to change a law which every other state must follow. "Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws," Attorney General, Eric Holder, said in the DOJ press release, "will only create more problems than it solves.”

Gonzalez agreed, saying that in the case of the state his organization represents, the Justice Department action "should give pause to the Gubernatorial candidates talking about enacting or pushing for such a law in Georgia."

Napolitano also said that, as Governor of Arizona she "vetoed several similar pieces of legislation" because, she believed they "undermined the vital trust between local jurisdictions and the communities they serve.”

The lawsuit is important because it says that in our democratic society, though we speak with different voices, and often a disquiet consensus, we still believe in the supremacy of the rule of law - one nation. E pluribus unum.

-PBG

For Jews, BDS is BS

How the Jewish-American far left is wrong, and so is Alan Dershowitz

It must be nice to be part of a people that take so many things as gospel. As Jews, we are taught to question everything - even established rabbinical law - until we understand why things are a certain way, why specific customs and behaviors are necessary. Because, for us - regardless of whether or not we find the relevance - we are expected to perform the customs that have been part of our heritage for thousands of years. Our faith is a constant paradox of, "Okay, following that commandment is supposed to be relevant, and I'm supposed to accept that - but why is it relevant?"

Such is the challenge for the liberal American Jew as regards supporting Israel and her government. It creates yet another struggle for an angst ridden and purposeful people, for whom tikkun olam, repairing the world, is an utmost priority. But so is the survival of the Jewish people.

The answer to what we, as Jews in the Diaspora, can do to change the often disconcerting words and actions with which the Israeli government responds to its historical regional adversity is, therefor, not an easy one, especially for an American liberal raised in a very, VERY pro-Israel home.

There is a movement in the liberal wing of the American Jewish community known as BDS, for boycott, divest and sanction, meaning, use those tools to let Israel know we do not approve of some of her government's attitudes and actions in the region. I'm not a fan of this tack. More on that later.

First, let me say, I am not one of those who would call other
members of the tribe by epithets that challenge the veracity of their faith or their identification as Jews, just because they want to challenge the authority of Israel's government. Leave that to people like the famous attorney Alan Dershowitz. Dersh, as he is called, recently referred to a group rabbis who sent a letter of support to Judge Richard Goldstone (the Jewish jurist - and strong supporter of Israel - who issued a UN commission report last September critical of Israel's actions during the 2008/2009 Gaza incursion) as "bigoted...rabbis for Hamas," and accused them of "blood libel" for saying in the letter that they believe that Israel has been in engaging in "a pattern of continuous and systematic assault against Palestinian people and land that has very little to do with Israel's claim of security."

Too much righteous indignation on all sides there. In my opinion, the rabbis letter goes a little too far in taking a rhetorical stand on the report, which they say "affirms" accusations that the Israel Defense Forces engaged in "the intentional targeting of civilian infrastructures such as hospitals, schools, agricultural properties, water and sewage treatment centers and civilians themselves with deadly weapons that are illegal when used in civilian centers."

The folks who advocate BDS are extremely well meaning. Their intentions, I believe, are to show - as dramatically as possible - that Jews who live in the Diaspora will not hesitate to let Israel know that we do not hold a blind allegiance to Israeli government policy. The thought is that a "bad" action by Israel reflects badly on all the world's Jews. That is a good argument.

To me, though, BDS is a BS approach for Jews, liberal or otherwise, to take regarding Israel. I'll admit, on its face, it seems pretty cut-and-dried. When there is a government - anywhere on the planet - whose policies we find uncivil, or even dangerous, BDS is the kind of global response that brings changes. Sometimes, as with the Apartheid regime in twentieth century South Africa, it can bring down an entire regime. It is because of precisely that, though, I do not support the BDS approach when it comes to changing the situation in Israel.

Bringing down the Israeli government would be as bad for Jews as bringing down Lhasa was for Tibetan Buddhists. Those who do not have our best interests in mind would run the country, and, like the Dalai Lama, we would once again be a people in exile.

BDS punishes all the world's Jews - not just Israel. On the other hand, we cannot let only Israelis decide the fate of Israel, something in which all the world's Jews have a stake.

My belief is an old one, from sixties activism - if you want to make a difference change the organization from the inside. Find the smaller political parties in Israel that take a "broader" view of the security situation, and do what you can to support them. Send your local Consul General an email with your plain, civilly expressed opinions.

If you want your opinions to matter to Israel, make your opinions matter in Israel. Instead of BDS it should be BTC - be the change you want Israel to be. If you can't do it from here, you can always move there.

In a way, it's a shame we can't vote in Israeli elections the same way exiled Iraqis got to vote in theirs, but then again, we are exiles by choice.

-PBG

Stick-to-it-iveness: An issue of political viscosity

Sometimes it feels like progressive activism is the same as having a huge, pot luck dinner party where every dish goes untasted and everyone leaves hungry and disappointed because they forgot they all brought food.

Ah, the salad days of 2008! How I miss them. The progressive jelly was so thick and rich on the good old American marble rye that we could not even taste the goobers scattered like pinheads across the pock-marked, doughy landscape.

The times, though, have changed. The American political appetite has become a quest for the perfect blend of dense, nutty paste and the wistful promise of sweet, fruity spread. Cowering in opposite corners with independently constructed sandwiches - sticky jelly for us and smooth goober butter, for, well, them - leaves a majority of voters hungering for the tasty integrity achieved through condiment cooperation.

It is not that neither side, on its own, offers a tasty sandwich. Indeed, those munching peanut butter will continue to cluck their tongues, and those slurping jelly from the sides of their bread will keep smacking their lips. The real issue is viscosity - busy little molecules of political will, interacting to keep their respective gooey stuff together, lest it squish out from the bread under consumer pressure.

But in that battle, it seems, the goobers have an advantage; it takes a awful lot of pressure to get them to gush from their cushy Wonder® bread slices. Our sweet malleability means the slightest pressure on the whole grain goodness we call America gets too many of us to abandon our positions and ooze toward the exits.

The nuts stay and we just stain, hoping the voters won't forget the promise of our pectin.

We need more gumption to be a flavor for major consumption. Instead, we wait for the people to tire of the stale flavor of goober heads so they have no choice but to see what a sample of smart jelly has to offer. But they don't stick around, because we neglect to create the energy to keep them next to us.

We each have a duty to be extra sticky for the liberal causes of progressive politics. What will you do to get your glue on?

-PBG

The clowns and the clueless

A story about corporate personality and corrupt policy

Doctor: "Congratulations, Mrs. Private! It's a corporation"

Mrs. P. : "Wow! I think I'll name it Inc."

Mr. P. : "Aw. Look at him. Coo-chee-coo! Ow! Damn! He bit me!"

Some kids don't eat their vegetables. Inc was not one of those kids. He at his vegetables and bread and meat. He ate dirt and flowers and trees. He drank rivers, lakes and oceans of water.

There is nothing the growing Inc would not eat, and the more he ate, the fatter he got.

Some of the other kids stayed away from Inc because they were afraid he might eat them too. Others would actually let Inc chew on their arms and legs - even nibble the nose off their faces - because it made Inc giggle with contagious delight. Indeed, it was said that his laughter was viral. Word quickly spread that a bite from Inc was like a thousand little kisses.

Like most who are morbidly obese, Inc sweated - a lot. Amazingly, it was found that the sweat pouring from his saturated glands was 5.3 times more happy inducing than the toe tickling saliva from his flesh nibbling. People began to clamor for whatever few drops from that stream of Inc's sweat they could get.

An entire industry grew up around Inc's sweat glands. There were the people who had the dangerous task of collecting the sweat (many of whom died from laughing lung disease), and those who's job it was to find the living, willing Public to feed old Inc Private so he would keep sweating his bullets of happy, so those folks could drink Inc's sweat and be very happy too.

It did not take long for the feeders to develop side effects from all that happy. Their noses turned red and bulbous; their hair - the ones that didn't fall out - turned bright orange and exploded like transformer wire from their whitening scalps; they lost so much weight that their clothes began to look old and many sizes too large; and they each developed a permanent, crazy grin behind their smiling, colorless lips. To cover their balding pates, they found hats that were many sizes too small, and they wore flowers in their jacket lapels that squirted happy sweat on as many of the people they met as possible. They were addicted clowns, needing Inc's sweat, and certain that happiness came from everyone not just wanting, but having a little jar of sweat they could call their own.


But there were still many, many people who found that feeding their flesh to Inc was just too high a price to pay for a little euphoria. Don't misunderstand; they loved to be happy. They just preferred to regulate from where, and under what circumstances, they derived their happiness. They were distressed that the clowns who were devoted to Inc had managed to create a policy that made it too easy for clueless crowds to get a touch of happy sweat.

These folks also felt that, while it was okay for Inc to be fat and happy, his sweat was just too big a distraction for the clowns, who were all convinced that what was good for Inc was good for everyone. Even hiring others to pull the clowns in another direction failed, because Inc's sweat was so powerful, that once even rational people got a little sweat on them, they became happy, unaccountable clowns too.

His juice was more powerful than anyone imagined. Under its influence, the catatonic clowns contracted antiperspirant manufacturers to create tons of the stuff that they made others wear, just in case anyone could compete with Inc's special talent for spreading happy. They also started wars to make sure there was plenty of people fodder to keep Inc eating and sweating.

The clowns even managed to convince hoards of people that Inc's unique specialness made everyone else unique and special too, even if they never even saw more than a thimble full of the happy-sweat. The clueless crowds became angry, screaming in blinding rage, if anyone suggested that the clowns had it wrong.

"What's the matter with you," they yelled between clenched teeth, "that you don't want us to be happy? Don't you understand that being fodder for Inc makes us happy? Don't you understand that having Inc sweat makes us unique, special, better and more important than anyone else? Leave the clowns alone! They are great for ensuring there is always Inc sweat."

One day, a stranger came through town, someone who had no direct connection or relationship with Inc or the clowns. The normal folks figured they could trust him to deliver an impartial opinion on what they saw as the corruptive influence of Inc on the clowns.

"What do you think about Inc's control over the clowns," they asked him. "Doesn't his big, unfailingly happy sweat have undue influence?"

The stranger stroked his hairless chin and paced the floor as he deliberated the difficult questions the people had asked him. Inc, after all, was free to be Inc. Everyone is special in some way, he thought, and Inc's talent happens to be intoxicating sweat.

The people who resented his influence, though, also had a point; if Inc's talent is so special that it is distracting, no one would listen to a thing they had to say. Still...

Finally, the stranger confidently grasped the lapel of his coat with one hand and pointed nowhere in particular with the other.

"I think it's obvious," he said. "Yes, Inc's abundance of happiness inducing sweat makes him very powerful, especially when it comes to influencing the clowns to create policies that serve him." The people were encouraged, until the stranger opened his mouth and said, "But." They froze.

"But," he repeated, "he is just Inc. You who are complaining can, I believe, gather your resources form a group to counter Inc. You're free to do that. Pool yourselves, if you want to go against Inc's influence. Won't your clowns allow you to do that?"

There was a general, dissatisfied murmuring. No one seemed to like what the impartial stranger had to say. The clueless hoards abhorred the potential of a united opposition to Inc's special status. They felt that was unpatriotic. Those who could potentially unite in opposition hated that they had to go through a unionization process just to get the clowns to listen to them.

No, thought the opposition, if Inc's happy sweat was going to trump the influence of any tiny, separate, freethinking groups they could muster, then they just needed a prolific Inc of their own. They needed someone whose influence would woo the clowns away from Inc's seemingly unstoppable happy sweat.

Her name was Ink. If Inc oozed a powerful, happy making drug, Ink glistened with pearls of knowledge, and a truth so pure that even Inc's powerful perspiration had no effect on her. Just looking at her made everyone feel smart, confident and secure. Some of the clowns even risked having their picture taken with her, because they thought it made them look smart too.

But a clown with a mortar board and stole is still a clown, and they would have to have many more visits with Ink before it would make a real difference. After all, as far as these jokers were concerned, the powerful bottles of Inc's sweat being delivered to their offices is what kept them in charge. What did Ink have to offer them, anyway? An elitist, thoughtful education? That did not get you hired by the clueless minions. Unfortunately, the clowns never realized how clueless that made them, and that they were the minions.

When it cam right down to it, though, Ink alone was not a strong enough counter. She awakened nothing in the clueless clowns. Holding a mirror in front of them to show them how irresponsible they were being was an unsuccessful tack, because when a clown looked in a mirror, he did not see a clown. He saw a patriot.

Ink had one suggestion. "If we cannot convince the clowns to cooperate," she said, "then we must get to the people, those who are easily swayed by the clueless crowds, the ones who think they have no choice but to give the limbs of their sons and daughters to feed fat Inc's endless appetite for irreverent exploitation.

"If they wake up, stop the senseless feeding of Inc, stand up for their own interests, then the gross perspiration that so woos the clowns will dry up, and they will have to detoxify and disengage from fat boy.

"They will know - in their hearts and their minds and their God fearing souls - that real happiness will come to everyone, even the clowns and the clueless, when the idiocy ends."

Don't be a clueless clown. Be a force in getting the idiocy to end. Be smart people, because the clowns in charge have forgotten how.

- PBG