Scalia's attempt to reargue the Constitutional Convention

Scalia's America is Romney's America

The Congress shall have power to [...] establish a uniform rule of naturalization [...] - Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution

In his dissent in Arizona v. United States (PDF), Justice Antonin Scalia takes issue with the Constitution's grant of the exclusive enumerated power of the national government on immigration issues. Scalia wrote:

Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court's holding [that the national government has supreme jurisdiction over immigration policy]? [...] Through ratification of the fundamental charter that the Convention produced, the States ceded much of their sovereignty to the Federal Government. But much of it remained jealously guarded[. ...] Now, imagine a provision'perhaps inserted right after Art. I, §8, cl. 4, the Naturalization Clause'which included among the enumerated powers of Congress 'To establish Limitations upon Immigration that will be exclusive and that will be enforced only to the extent the President deems appropriate.' The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits.

There is no need to imagine a justice who could write such nonsense. We see it here in Justice Scalia's dissent. Never before, NEVER, has a justice of the Supreme Court questioned whether the national government has the supreme power to set the nation's immigration policy. Until now:

If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent.

Wait, what? So each state gets to "secure its borders" is Scalia's conception of the Constitution? Nothing would surprise the founders more than this. In Federalist 3, John Jay explained:

[T]he administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States, and consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more SAFE with respect to us.

Of all the off-the-wall Tenther "theories" we have been subjected to, the notion that immigration policy is best left to the states and was left to the states by the Constitution is perhaps the most off-the-wall of all. (Indeed, not even Justice Clarence Thomas could join Scalia's bizarre dissent.)

Never before has a justice of the Supreme Court questioned this most basic proposition: "The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens. See Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1, 10 (1982)[.]"

But such is the view of the most radical, extreme, intemperate and injudicious justice of the modern era, Antonin Scalia (and considering some of the folks who have sat on the Court, that is saying something). But guess who really appreciates Justice Scalia, indeed promises many more like him? Yep, Mitt Romney:

Mitt Romney said if he had the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court justice he or she would be in the mold of Antonin Scalia[.]

Remember that the next time someone says to you there is no difference between Obama and Romney.