RT @secupp: Scalia's dissent: "If securing its territory...is not w/in the power of AZ, we shld cease referring 2 it as a sovereign State.”

"'The President said at a news conference that the new program is “the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administra­tion’s proposed revision of theImmigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforc­ing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.'"

A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding? Today’s judgment surely fails that test. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the delegates contended with “the jealousy of the states with regard to their sovereignty.”

Scalia goes on to argue that Arizona was in "complete compliance" with federal law because it had moved to "protect its sovereignty."