Arizona became a state on February 14, 1912, just two years before Franz Ferdinand’s assassination sparked the First World War. It shouldn’t need to be said, but before Arizona was a state it wasn’t a state. The territory that became Arizona was pried away from Mexico and formally annexed in pieces between 1848 and 1853. When the Founding Fathers were hashing out the original compromises that went into drafting the U.S. Constitution, Arizona belonged to Spain. Let’s keep these facts in mind while considering the political philosophy of Arizona state Senate President Russell Pearce (R). He’s upset that the federal government doesn’t recognize Arizona’s right to set immigration policy:
PEARCE: U.S. history, most of us weren’t around when the Constitution was written. But you remember we kind of existed before Congress, the states. We created the Congress, we created the federal government, by compact. Do you know what existed before the Congress, the states? Do you know, you’re not a citizen of the United States. You’re a citizen of a sovereign state. The fifty sovereign states makes up United States of America, we’re citizens of those sovereign states. It is not a delegated authority. It’s an inherent authority that states have over the federal government. [applause] It’s about time somebody gets it right!
What existed prior to the War of Independence were colonies. After independence, they were referred to as states and they drew up the Articles of Confederation. Only in this sense did the states precede the ratification of the Constitution. Arizona wasn’t one of those states. As Zaid Jilani at Think Progress notes, the Constitution clearly states that it “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.” One of the powers expressly given to Congress is the right and obligation “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” In addition, Article 5 of the Constitution clearly provides for an amendment process, making the Fourteenth Amendment as valid as the first ten. And the Fourteenth Amendment clearly states that:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What this means is that the people of Arizona are both citizens of that state and of the United States of America. It also means that Arizona cannot make any law that takes U.S. citizenship away from a naturally-born person. Even if you somehow do not accept any amendment after the Tenth to be legitimate because your state entered into its agreement to form a compact prior to the enactment of those amendments, Arizona agreed to join the compact forty-four years after the enactment of the 14th Amendment. If you want to appeal to “original intent,” you really ought to ask the King of Spain. Spain still has a king; he’s still alive; and, presumably, he can offer his opinion on how the monarchy intended to deal with the U.S. citizenship of its subjects at the time the Constitution was being debated and ratified. After all, I could just as easily argue that the citizens of Pennsylvania never had any intention of allowing Spain’s subjects to vote in our federal elections, and that, therefore, we do not have to recognize Arizona’s Electoral Votes. It makes more sense that what Senator Pearce is arguing, if you ask me.
