Wrong. Both the plain language of the Amendment, and centuries of interpretation by SCOTUS, support my reading. The Constitution does not say what you or I would wish it to say ... it says what SCOTUS says it says. I hate that SCOTUS rendered Citizens United and a perverted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but whether I agree or not that is presently the law of the land.Cannoneer wrote:I take issue with your interpreation of the amendment. It means congress cannot make a law establishing a religion or interfering with the free practice of religion. This was put in the constitution because the founding fathers did not want us to go the way of Europe,but it only applies to the federal government. Not to the several states.
You appear to be unaware of a fundamental principle embedded in the Constitution, equal protection under the law as stated in the 14th Amendment. Individual constitutional rights apply with equal force in and to ALL of the states. I really recommend that you read the Constitution. It is worth your time.
Why should I? Immigration, in all its aspects, is the province of the federal government. States are acting unconstitutionally when they arrogate such powers unto themselves. You and I may differ over how well the federal government is exercising that power, but it is theirs exclusively to exercise.Cannoneer wrote:Are you going to address the issue of Arizona?