Washington Vs. Arizona: Let's Argue From Analogy

from The American Thinker:

July 09, 2010


Washington vs. Arizona: Let's Argue from Analogy

Ed Condren



How about a small lesson on "being" and "non-being"? Imagine a man who has long been aware of a choice parcel of land in his neighborhood. Though well able to acquire the land, he fails to do so. Would it not be absurd of this man to assert prior entitlement when another man in the neighborhood initiates action to purchase the land? The first man's action only existed in potentia, as the philosophers would say. The second man converted his thought into something ontological; thought became a thing "in being."

This scenario strongly echoes Washington's current objection to Arizona's effort to bring its wish into being. Arizona wants to "buy back" its own land. The DOJ claims Arizona would be usurping the government's exclusive right. But by making no effort to protect our southern border, the government has not established a proprietary interest Arizona can usurp. The president and his attorney general are mired in potentia. Worse, they are likely to continue to do nothing, if their thin legal action prevails in court. Like the first man in the previous paragraph, they aren't interested in buying the parcel; they merely want to prevent anyone else from acquiring it.





Some readers may prefer a different analogy, one actually supported by the Supreme Court in the Kelso case. When someone petitions the courts to approve the taking of property belonging to another, the courts have the power to take the property if the taking is deemed in the public interest. In the current case of Washington vs. Arizona, it is painfully obvious that the law Arizona recently passed will immeasurably benefit Arizona's public interest. No substantial argument has been raised to contradict this benefit. Nor can the government claim Arizona belongs to Washington, or to the language of a law that Washington has likely never read much less applied. Moreover, should Washington prevail in the case recently presented, no one can doubt it will never be used. Washington has no interest in defending our southern border; it merely wants to prevent anyone else from defending it.







Posted at 09:53 AM