We are ostensibly in a war and we are fighting to preserve our sovereignty, our republic.   Does it really matter whether Judge Susan Bolton ruled against portions of the Arizona Law known as SB1070?   No, it doesn't.   It doesn't because regardless of who was the victor in Judge Susan Bolton's court the result was going to be appealed.   This will have to go all the way to the US Supreme Court and this is only the injunction.   The actual case that Eric Holder is putting together in his attempt to deprive the State of Arizona and all other states of their natural Constitutional power to protect its citizens and to deprive Arizona of the Constitutionally mandated federal protections it deserves will all need to be adjudicated at that level making Judge Susan Bolton barely relevant in the entire process. 

A second consideration is whether anything beyond the injunction will be necessary.   There should be a high expectation that the next Congress will be dominated by more rational Americans steeped in the idea of state rights, believing in the limited powers of the federal government and thus intent on limiting this grasp for power by Eric Holder and Barack Obama.   Does anyone doubt but what this next Congress might not pull the rug right out from under Holder and deprive him of the funding he requires to pursue this case against Arizona?  

Wednesday night on the O'Reilly Factor, his guest host, Laura Ingraham interviewed a law professor who suggested we read the footnotes to Judge Bolton's ruling.   Where she struck down the requirement that officers look into the status of an individual when performing a routine detention, there is nothing in her ruling that forbids the discretion of a police officer.  The problem according to her ruling was in the requirement to perform that act.   Thus Sheriff Arpaio is able to continue his enforcement process and it has not been made illegal to verify a person's legal status.  http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/arpaio-arizona-immigration-ruling-obama-mexico-border-/2010/07/28/id/365938?s=al&promo_code=A60D-1

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) in one of those rare appearances on the Fox News Channel where he made sense on the subject of immigration indicated a desire to bring forward a Constitutional Amendment to repeal a portion of the 14th Amendment that grants persons automatic citizenship if born in this country.   He stated that it made no sense for our country to reward those persons who enter this country illegally with automatic citizenship for their baby when they are in the process of committing an illegal act.   From his remarks it would seem that his amendment would be directed at those persons who are here illegally and save for another day any potential problems of simply repealing the paragraph that states that any person born in this country is a citizen.   The 14th Amendment had as its purpose the granting of citizenship to the recently emancipated slaves and their children.  No person who was the target of that amendment is still alive.  

Sadly, Senator Graham went on to speak of the immigration problem as one that requires that we do something positive about those persons already here.   This is where the Senator separates from the company of most Tea Partiers.   It is our firm belief that when it is made a felony to knowingly hire an undocumented worker, when there is a guest worker program that is available to people in construction and agriculture, when the anchor baby magnet is withdrawn and when people are regularly deported for being in the country illegally that the majority of people will return on their own to become a part of the guest worker program.   We will not need to deport them.   Is there any better example of this than the migration of illegal aliens from Arizona to neighbor states this month?   They will go on their own.