A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Denver Post, Dec. 18, on U.S. Supreme Court’s review of Arizona’s proposed immigration law:
The U.S. Supreme Court’s review of Arizona’s controversial immigration law will, we hope, provide clarity to states lining up to enact get-tough policies designed to chase illegal residents over the state line.
The legality of Arizona’s law is a more complex question than it might seem at first blush, but we hope the court sees the matter for what it is—an encroachment on the federal government’s mandate to set immigration policy.
The core issue centers on just how far states can go on immigration enforcement issues.
The U.S. Constitution authorized the federal government to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization … throughout the United States.”
Subsequent federal immigration laws acknowledge a role for state officers, but it is explicitly one of cooperation with the U.S. attorney general.
It certainly doesn’t authorize creation of a broad body of state law that is at odds with the federal mission.
From a practical standpoint, if all 50 states were to layer separate immigration laws on top of the federal government’s policy, the nation would have nothing short of a mess.
The law that set off this immigration policy firestorm was passed by the Arizona legislature in 2010. It requires state law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they stop, or have reason to believe may be in the country illegally. It also makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to seek work or hold a job. And it gives police authority to arrest someone without a warrant if they have probable cause to think the person had done something for which immigration officials could deport them.
Not surprisingly, the Obama administration quickly challenged the law, and a federal appeals court acted to keep the most questionable provisions from being enforced.
Several other states—South Carolina, Alabama and Utah—enacted similar laws, which only upped the ante.
The common thread is that states are frustrated by lack of federal enforcement action on immigration.
That argument wears thin considering illegal immigration has been reduced to levels not seen in decades. At the same time, federal immigration enforcement actions are more intense than ever before.
The Obama administration has deported more than 1 million illegal immigrants, and there has been a doubling of border patrol guards since 2004.
That does not, however, let federal lawmakers off the hook. The country still needs comprehensive immigration reform, which should include a more robust guest-worker program and a clear path to legal status for productive members of society.
What the nation’s approach to illegal immigration shouldn’t involve is a patchwork of state laws that would obstruct the federal government’s responsibility to set—and enforce—immigration laws.
Editorial:
———
The Daily Sentinel, Dec. 19, on Newt Gingrich’s proposal to abolish some federal courts:
There probably aren’t many sentient Americans who haven’t adamantly disagreed with federal court rulings on some important issues—whether it’s Roe v. Wade, Gore v. Bush, prayer in public places, individual ownership of guns or dozens of other decisions.
But, regardless of one’s political affiliation, everyone should be appalled at Newt Gingrich’s idea of relegating the federal judiciary to some shadowy status in which it is subject to the whims of Congress or the president.
Gingrich said if he were president, he would abolish some federal courts if he believed rulings by judges on those courts were out of step with the country, according to the Washington Post. He also suggested on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday that federal marshals could be sent to arrest judges who issue controversial rulings, and compel the judges to explain their decisions before Congress.
What balderdash by someone who claims to know history!
Not only are Gingrich’s court ideas blatantly unconstitutional—violating the Constitution’s separation of powers—they would put Americans’ liberty at risk. Nations where the courts aren’t independent but must answer to political leaders or follow party lines—think Russia, Venezuela or China—are places where tyranny takes hold.
That’s why it’s welcome to see many conservatives, including some of Gingrich’s competitors in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, blast Gingrich’s ideas.
Both Mitt Romney and Ron Paul criticized the former House speaker over the weekend. Paul correctly called the ideas “a real affront to the separation of powers.”
Michael Mukasy, attorney general under President George W. Bush, was more blunt. He said what Gingrich has proposed is “dangerous, ridiculous, totally irresponsible, outrageous, off the wall and would reduce the entire judicial system to a spectacle,” the Post reported.
And former federal Judge Michael W. McConnell, who was appointed by Bush, said Republicans should be careful about wishing for such power over judges because it could just as easily be used by Democrats who object to the decisions of conservative judges.
The independence of our federal courts was established in the Constitution by founding fathers all too familiar with courts that simply did the bidding of the king or Parliament.
Judicial independence and the Supreme Court’s authority as “ultimate arbiter of the Constitution” was established in Marbury v. Madison, the 1803 Supreme Court decision that many legal scholars view as the most important ever rendered.
Last week, Mitt Romney called Gingrich “zany” in references to other remarks Gingrich has made and ideas he has promoted. But Gingrich’s latest ideas about federal judges—while they may win him some applause on the campaign trail—are worse than just zany. They are downright dangerous.
That’s why even conservative leaders are denouncing them, and perhaps one reason Gingrich’s brief lead in the polls seems to have evaporated. Newt Gingrich will have to recant such ideas if he hopes to become president.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
Canon City Daily Record, Dec. 19, on state’s new fracking rules:
The state’s fracking fluid disclosure rules unanimously adopted Tuesday by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, like most compromises, don’t make everyone happy, but the state now has the most transparent rules in the nation.
Previously, oil companies listed fracking chemicals for wells in Colorado on a voluntary basis at fracfocus.org. Now, the listings will be mandatory
Within 60 days of the fracking job, the company must list the chemicals and their concentrations in the fracking fluid at fracfocus.org. Operators can claim a trade secret exemption, but they must certify, under penalty of perjury, that it truly qualifies as a trade secret. And they still must list the chemical family and its concentrations. In addition, regulators and medical professionals can request trade secret information specifics when necessary.
Environmentalists and many residents near wells long have contended that fracking—in which a mixture of water, sand and chemicals is pumped into a well at very high pressure to force natural gas out of rock—can contaminate groundwater and the air. Oil and gas companies say the process, which has been used for decades, is safe and protects groundwater through the use of multiple layers of protective steel and cement casing.
Whether the new rules will allow regulators to determine if a drilling operation contaminates groundwater remains to be seen. But they’re a good step in ensuring fracking is done safely, and it allows regulators to obtain the complete makeup of fracking fluid for a given well if there’s a question that a well might be contaminating groundwater.
Editorial:
———
Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald, Dec. 17, on Tim Tebow’s following:
For just a few moments every Sunday afternoon, Tim Tebow has the power to cause football fans and opposing players to sit in stunned silence.
Every other minute of the week, however, Tebow is the center of a circus of noise. Backers and haters behave like professional wrestlers and their silk-suited managers, working themselves into the frenzy that precedes a staged bout.
Yet this quarterback who is the subject of so much blathering sticks to simple, self-effacing statements that praise his teammates and opponents alike, and which continually thank God for every success.
In a sports world of chest-thumping bravado, vicious words and take-my-talents-elsewhere egos, what is it about Tim Tebow that gets people so worked up? (For the record: “LeBron James haters” does deliver far more Google hits than “Tim Tebow haters.”)
It could be that, golly, some sports fans just can’t believe Tim Tebow is really the person they see and hear, singing praises and giving the receiver who just dropped the ball a pat on the back and an encouraging word.
Here’s the surprise: They have reason to question too-good-to-be-true Timmy. After all, this is pro sports, this is business, this is about those who win, and decisions are made not on moral uprightness, but on the ability to keep delivering. Does anyone believe that any player, in the long run, won’t make a decision that benefits himself over his team, or that management won’t make a decision that benefits the franchise over a player? Ask Kyle Orton, who seems like a decent guy himself.
And in a culture where wearing religion on your sleeve is easily associated with televangelism, condescension and condemnation of unbelievers, some Americans reject outright the idea that a professional football player should use the sport as a platform for evangelizing.
But there’s something different going on here, because Tebow — who is all about how you play the game and winning — has in his brief career responded to praise and criticism consistently, redirecting praise from himself, and turning the other cheek when criticized, often agreeing with the critics.
Agree or not with his religious convictions, Tim Tebow speaks what many Americans believe, and he does so without being abrasive. He walks the talk, and most importantly, he ignores the continual chatter, even of his most rabid supporters.
Impressively, he displays the kind of sportsmanship and optimism that parents want to see in their own children. Certainly not perfect. But simply a likeable, humble guy who works hard. Fans should remember that, even when the Broncos don’t win. That will be the real test of what Tebow and those on his bandwagon truly believe.
Our thought: Win or lose, start or be benched, Tim Tebow is likely to remain Tim Tebow. As good as he is at football, Tebow will give it his all no matter what he does.
And should Tebow be allowed to personalize his eye black on Sunday, the message might be this one: “Col. 3:23”
Look it up.
Editorial:
