Preemption???

Today, the incompetent Attorney General Eric Holder filed suit against the state of Arizona on the basis of "preemption". In other words, the federal law pre-empts the state law under the so-called "supremacy clause."

But here is the problem, and any first year law student can verify it: the supremacy clause and preemption is only a valid basis for suit if the state law conflicts with the federal law.

It does not. The Arizona law basically says, "Hey, ya know the federal law that makes being here illegally a crime? Well, Arizona is applying that exact same law as a state law - so that which is illegal under the fed law is now illegal also under state law."

There is NO conflict at all. In fact, the Arizona law is even easier on illegals than federal law, and the Constitution permits states to pass laws that do not step on federal toes. Fed law does NOT prevent authorities from racial profiling, but the Arizona law does. And that is permissable.

It's like the speed limit - the feds put a maximum speed limit of 55 on interstates at one time. States could REDUCE that to 50, or 45. But they could not INCREASE it to 65 or 70.

What would NOT be permissable is if the Arizona law were to require stiffer racial profiling than federal law.

Someone should give Holder the boot - HARD! This is not his first big screw up. Remember he wanted to try Sheik Kahlid Mohammed in New York in criminal court? And even AFTER the government won its case against the New Black Panthers on voter intimidation, Holder dismissed the case - AFTER IT WAS WON - stating the DOJ did not have the evidence to win. But they had already won.

And now this.

Holder is nothing short of an incompetent dolt, incapable of even being ON a jury. He should not be Attorney General. Heck, he should not be the White House dog sitter.

/