Arizona law

The Justice Department has issued no formal announcement, but in an interview earlier this month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a TV station in Ecuador that the federal government will indeed sue Arizona over the state's controversial new illegal immigrant law.

"To learn of this lawsuit through an Ecuadorean interview with the secretary of state is just outrageous," Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said. "If our own government intends to sue our state to prevent illegal immigration enforcement, the least it can do is inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation."

The Arizona law, which is scheduled to take effect July 29, requires police to check proof of legal residency when investigating a suspected crime, something they were already allowed to do.

Critics worry this could lead to racial profiling. Gov. Brewer and other Arizona officials respond that the law actually bars the use of race in deciding whom to ask for documents -- which all legal foreign nationals are required to carry.

"It wouldn't matter if you are Latino or Hispanic or Norwegian," the governor said on June 3. "If you didn't have proof of citizenship and the police officer had reasonable suspicion, he would ask and verify your citizenship. I mean, that's the way that it is. That's what the federal law says. And that's what the law in Arizona says."

In response, President Barack Obama only repeats the excuse that illegal immigration is a vast and complex problem, requiring a "comprehensive" approach that deals with people already in the country illegally.

"Comprehensive" immigration reform has become widely recognized as the latest Democratic euphemism for amnesty, a measure so unpopular that even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was taken to the woodshed and quickly went quiet on the issue the day after he told a rally of illegals here in Las Vegas April 10 that, "We are going to pass comprehensive immigration reform. We need to do this this year."

A Washington Post-ABC News poll released last week shows 58 percent of Americans support the Arizona measure; 41 percent oppose the law.

Arizona has acted -- quite reasonably -- only because the federal government is doing nothing to round up and deport the millions of illegal immigrants who flood the Southwest, placing enormous burdens on tax-supported public schools, hospital emergency rooms, etc.

Mr. Obama and members of his Cabinet have sworn oaths to enforce the law. But not only do they refuse to do so, they now propose to file a lawsuit to make sure no one else can enforce it, either.

While the Constitution gives Congress the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," it doesn't appear to bar the states from helping enforce said "uniform rule."

The Constitution also gives the federal government primacy in establishing post offices, after all. Does that mean the federal government would object to -- would actually go to court to prevent -- local police from pursuing and arresting a masked bandit who had just stuck up a post office or a mail truck?

Why?