This is the latest in a series of fact based articles on global overpopulation. Immigration, both legal and illegal, and their offspring cause over 80% of population growth in the United States.

My last article quoted excerpts from a letter I received from the Committee for Justice www.committeeforjustice.org, that outlines its "Statement of the Case." as Amicus Curiae for the State of Arizona before the U.S. Supreme Court. Here are excerpts from their "Summary of Argument".

"The United States has failed to demonstrate that the Arizona law is preempted by the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause"

"Arizona has passed a law that does not contradict federal immigration law, but mirrors and supports federal immigration law.

"Under the Arizona Law, state law enforcement is only authorized to enforce immigration law the is concurrent and consistent with federal immigration law. Arizona has not enacted or authorized any new, different, or enhanced immigration law.

"The Arizona Law simply requires Arizona employers to use the federal ‘E-Verify’ program to confirm the eligibility of prospective employees to be hired. State and local authorities enforce federal laws all the time – such as federal drug laws and laws against counterfeiting.

"The Supreme Court of the United States, in 1976, affirmed the power of the states to regulate employment, even when the regulation concerns immigration law. DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 356 (1976).

"Under the American system of government, including the

Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, the states are sovereign and are presumed to have authority to pass laws and govern themselves as they see fit unless the federal authority can prove that those laws are prohibited by or in contradiction of federal law.

"Largely relying on James Madison, the Supreme Court of the United States in Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 457 (1991) described America’s system of ‘dual sovereignty’ this way.

"The people of each State comprise a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence. Without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States … [T]he preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government.

"… The Supreme Court has held that the federal authority cannot override or supersede state law without clear congressional intent…

"Nowhere do the Petitioners present any evidence or proof that the Arizona law inhibits, impedes of interferes with lawful federal action or was intended to be preempted by federal law.

"Congress has never passed any law the would prevent the states from supporting and enforcing immigration law.

"Until a factual set of circumstances develops that shows the will of Congress has been frustrated with regard to the enforcement of federal immigration law, this Court should avoid reaching conclusions based on what might happen.

"As the Court has consistently stated: a ‘facial challenge to a legislative Act is, of course, the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exist under which the Act would be valid.’ United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987).

"The United States has failed to demonstrate that the Arizona law will result in discrimination against racial minorities.

"Because most of the Arizona Law has yet to go into effect, there are no facts that the U.S. Justice Department can produce to show how anyone’s Constitutional or civil rights have been violated by the Arizona Law. The Petitioners’ claims are a ‘facial challenge’ to the Arizona Law and, as such, are based purely on speculation about what might happen in the future.

"Facial challenges to legislation put the court in the position of having to predict the future, without any facts, events or circumstances to render an opinion. Courts much prefer to rule on events that have occurred in the past. Cases based on speculation about what might happen in the future must overcome an almost insurmountable burden of proof. Gonzalez v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 168 (2007).

"CONCLUSION

"The Court should dissolve the preliminary injunction and declare the Arizona Law to be constitutional and effective immediately."