« German city fathers refuse to meet visiting Iranian delegation | Senator Boxer: Serving in the military is kinda like serving in Congress »
July 26, 2010
Arizona immigration law and Federalist number 27
In the Federalist number 27, Alexander Hamilton commented upon how the states were to participate in executing the laws of the federal government:
"It merits particular attention in this place, that the laws of the confederacy, as to the enumerated and legitimate objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land; to the observance of, all officers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in each state, will be bound by the sanctity of an oath. Thus the legislatures, courts and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operations of the national government, as far as its just constitutional authority extends; and will be rendered auxiliary to the enforcement of its laws. Any man, who will pursue, by his own reflections, the consequences of the situation, will perceive, that if its powers are administered with a common prudence, there is good ground to calculate upon a regular and peaceable execution of the laws of the union."
The officers, legislature, Governor and police force of Arizona appear not only to understand not only their Constitutional duties exceedingly well but also the original intent of the authors of the Constitution.
It is worth mentioning that Hamilton wrote this passage in retort to objections raised at the time by opponents of the Constitution who feared that the federal government might be negligent in its duties and leave the States without recourse to defend themselves and enforce the law. In addition to making the point that the officers, courts, legislatures and magistrates of the States would be auxiliary to the federal government in enforcing federal laws, Hamilton closed the chapter by making his feelings known that he felt this apprehension was overwrought and not based on any rational supposition as to why the federal government would be motivated to neglect its duties:
"But though the adversaries of the proposed constitution should presume, that the national rulers would be insensible to the motives of public good, or to the obligations of duty; I would still ask them, how the interests of ambition, or the views of encroachment, can be promoted by such a conduct?"
That, Mr. Hamilton, is a very good question.
To comment on this or any other American Thinker article or blog, you must be a subscriber to our ad-free service. Login to your subscription to access the comments section. You can subscribe on a monthly basis for $6.79 a month or for a year at $69.99
Login
Subscribe / Change PwdAd Free / Commenting Login
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- Antisemitism in the Guise of Humanism
- Escaping the State of Sin
- Outsquatting the Squatters
- From Illegal Alien Invaders to Newcomers to Democrats
- The Impact of China-Linked Contractors on U.S. Security
- Debunking the Stupid, Yet Passionately Held, Myths About the 1994 Crime Bill
- The Death of the American Salesman
- The Alarm Bell Is Clanging
- Voting and the Meaning of Honor
- Exploding The Myth That Islam Is An Abrahamic Religion
Blog Posts
- So was Hunter Biden 'Our Man in Ukraine'?
- The suspect who smashed Kaylee Gain’s head into the pavement claims she’s the victim
- About those innocent Palestinian civilians...
- The GOP seems to be on the verge of capitulating before the Democrats, again!
- Biden and the insurmountable
- Universe twice as old as we’ve been told?
- Ketanji Brown Jackson is a fascist who should be removed from the Court
- Can Letitia James handle the rough world of property management?
- It’s time to stop accommodating the crazies in America
- The value of perspective
- And then they voted Democrat in November
- Trump towers in his mastery of words to rally voters
- Planet Fitness loses $400 million in value after banning woman who exposed the company’s anti-female stance
- Schadenfreude: New movie labeling white people ‘dangerous animals’ flops at box office
- Why are American youths so unhappy?