So here's the deal. There's this Pennsylvania law that lets the state prohibit and issue fines for private companies hiring people who have been deemed "illegal immigrants" by the federal government.

This is, of course, a violation of the US Constitution's CONTRACT CLAUSE, which prohibits states from passing "any law impairing the obligation of contracts."  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_Clause) States are not supposed to be able to interfere in private commerce. Simple, isn't it?

Evidently the majority of "justices" on the Supreme Court disagree. And they don't even go so far as we might toward actually studying the potential conflicts within the Constitution. For example, one could argue that, since the Constitution does not grant the federal government power over immigration (only naturalization), the matter of who is or is not a "legal immigrant" is left to the states. This MIGHT be seen as possibly allowing the state gubments the power to produce laws regarding who can and cannot live as immigrants on the soil of those states. One could further speculate as to whether this literal approach towards the Constitution would allow states the power to arrest "illegal immigrants" who had been hired by private companies, thus pitting the Contract Clause against the power granted the states to control immigration.

HOWEVER, this debate is NOT the debate that occurred in the Supreme Court! The Court referred to states acting to prohibit the hiring of "illegal immigrants" made "illegal" by FEDERAL immigration laws, which are actually unconstitutional. The state laws are not based on state distinctions regarding who is "legel and illegal", sooo.. Yeah, the state laws are unconstitutional infringements on the Contract Clause.

Logic. Something politicians and their appointees don't apply.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/06/supreme-court-orders-review-i...

Enjoy that great protection the Constitution provides! Yeah, it's been so success against those politicians out there, hasn't it...

Be Seeing You!