Let me begin by saying that this is probably going to offend most of you, no matter which side of the aisle you are on. But I hope that you will at least give it some thought before you blast me! There are a lot of debates taking place over two topics in particular, Arizona’s immigration law (sb1070), and the proposed mosque at ground zero. Most would argue that they are unrelated, but there is one thing that does connect them that no-one seems to mention, and that is the argument of constitutionality. Beginning with Arizona, proponents claim that AZ has the right to pass and enforce its own laws under the tenth amendment *(“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”). They are correct, it is a state rights issue. However opponents argue that it violates the fourth Amendment *(“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”)… It does not! When reading the law it is apparent in the first line “Legal contact” that the fourth amendment is to be adhered to. But there are always going to be groups that want to bring the federal government into what should be a state issue. Now on to the proposed mosque, this is where my fellow conservatives will want to stone me. Opponents say that it is a slap in the face to those and the families of those who died in the tragic evil attack on September 11 2001. I agree. They also claim that it violates zoning ordinances. Then if I were a New Yorker I would petition the zoning commission, Mayor, and as far up the bureaucratic chain as I could, but not on the federal level as many of my fellow patriots are trying to do. Then not only would it be a tenth amendment issue but also a first amendment issue. *(“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”) Let’s say for arguments sake this fight goes all the way to the supreme court, and the ruling prohibits the mosque. The right wing would consider this a victory, until years later a church, synagogue, or temple is not allowed to be built because the planned site is next to a school, post office, or other government building or landmark. This case would be used to set precedence. Unfortunately we must defend the rights of radical Islamic-fascists, in order to protect our own religious freedom! It reminds me of the petitions that many of my fellow conservatives signed in the mid to late 90′s to get the FCC to fine or “kick off the air” shock-jocks such as Howard Stern. Now those same conservatives are signing petitions to stop the implementation of the “fairness doctrine”. You can’t corner the market on the constitution! If you want its freedoms, you must be willing to afford them to all US citizens and states. No matter how much they may offend you. The constitution is much like a piece of metal, when you bend it to suit your own purpose it will produce sharp edges that cut both ways.
* Amendments copied from www.usconstitution.net
