Attorney General Holder Admits To Not Having Read The Short Arizona Immigration Law That He Has Harshly Criticized

The Washington Times reports that "Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has been critical of Arizona's new immigration law, said Thursday he hasn't yet read the law and is going by what he's read in newspapers or seen on television." The attorney general is going around criticizing a law he has not even read? This is unbelievable incompetence that shows he is a political hack first and the top legal officer in our nation second. It is inexcusable for the attorney general to criticize a law passed by the legislature of Arizona on the basis only of newspapers and television. The law is not thousands of pages of Obama legislation that one could not possibly read or understand, but a short piece of legislation that is relatively simple. In fact, the controversial provisions of the law take up about one page. Yet he is criticizing the law based on what he saw on MSNBC or the pages of the New York Times? Are you kidding me?

Based on television and newspapers alone Holder took to the media to attack the law that Arizona passed and that all polls show a strong majority of Americans nationwide support. As the Washington Times reports, this "weekend Mr. Holder told NBC's 'Meet the Press' program that the Arizona law 'has the possibility of leading to racial profiling.' He had earlier called the law's passage 'unfortunate,' and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government."

Texas Republican Ted Poe told the attorney general in a House hearing that it's "hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven't even read the law."

The facts are that Arizona's law does not go beyond federal law, it simply allows local police only upon a lawful stop, arrest, or detention to ask for proof of citizenship if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is undocumented. The law is not unconstitutional because it easily and constitutionally coexists with federal law, it does not contradict it. Supreme Court precedent on federal conflict preemption of state laws provides a deference to the state acting in accordance with its traditional police powers including the health, welfare, and morals of the citizens of the state. This is the case unless it is the clear and manifest intention of Congress to invalidate the state law through Article VI's Supremacy Clause that Supreme Court jurisprudence has stated provides the basis for preemption. Further, the burden is upon the party challenging the state law to show that the state law cannot constitutionally coexist with the federal one. A fair reading of the law would show that is simply not possible. The law even includes express provisions banning racial profiling and stating that all civil rights legislation are applicable.

I have no problem with a vigorous debate regarding an important policy and legal issue like immigration. It is what America is and has always been about. I think laymen should argue the merits and not opine on constitutionality without understanding what is involved in that discussion. And I think that elected officials or those in positions like Eric Holder should not be forming their opinions on issues of constitutionality and legality solely based on what they read in a newspaper or saw on some television program.