Happy Fourth of July! Independence!

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...

Keeping "comprehensive": John McCain declares that "comprehensive immigration reform" will be his "top priority yesterday, today, and tomorrow."

The Supreme Court overturns the DC gun ban in District of Columbia v. Heller. The decision was 5-4: Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito in the majority with Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg dissenting. For analysis, see some of the usual suspects: SCOTUSblog, Volokh, and Hot Air. Here are some of the basic points of this decision, written by Scalia, as far as I can tell: the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right, and this right is subject to some regulation. The court doesn't lay out exactly what regulations are permissible but does find that DC's law crosses the line of Constitutionality. Since Heller's lawyers seemed not to quarrel with the notion of licensing, the court did not rule explicitly on that. Here's a relevant passage on the restriction of firearms:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

With its (admitted) numerous gray areas, this opinion would seem to pave the way for more lawsuits about the Second Amendment in the future.
One interesting point for further lawsuits in this area is whether the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to the individual states as well as the federal government. The court doesn't rule on incorporation directly, but the role of incorporation is mentioned in a footnote about the nineteenth-century ruling of U.S. v. Cruickshank, which ruled that the Second Amendment was not incorporated into the Fourteenth:

With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation,
a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also
said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did
not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by
our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252,
265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed
that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

So the court does mention precedent denying incorporation to the Second Amendment. However, Scalia may imply an avenue for incorporation in this observation near the beginning of the opinion:

The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights
use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the
First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in
the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause.

These First and Fourth Amendment provisions have been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment (reversing Cruickshank's denial of incorporation to the First Amendment). Could the "right of the people" be used as a vehicle for claiming incorporation?

Speaker Nancy Pelosi says, according to one journalist, that she supports the return of the "Fairness Doctrine." So the top Democrat in the House and the number-two Democrat, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (also a prominent and early Obama supporter), support the "Fairness Doctrine." Congress made attempts before to codify the "Fairness Doctrine" into law in the 1980s and '90s, but Reagan and George H. W. Bush vetoed those laws. Would a President Obama veto a "Fairness Doctrine" bill? Or would he staff the FCC with commissioners who would reinstate the Doctrine? Perhaps he opposes the "Fairness Doctrine"? Obama avoided a cloture vote on the anti-"Fairness Doctrine" Coleman amendment last July and, as far as I can see, has not made a clear statement on the Doctrine yet.

UPDATE: An Obama spokesman denies that the Illinois senator supports the "Fairness Doctrine":

"Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

"He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," Ortiz added. "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

H/T Hot Air, which is skeptical, considering some of Obama's other rhetorical moves over the campaign. I'll leave you with their exit question: "Anyone see President Obama vetoing a Democrat bill to revive Fairness?" Good wiggle possibility: not supporting is not necessarily vetoing...

This Politico story brings out an important aspect of the Obama money gusher (assuming this gusher doesn't keep slowing down) and Obama's wider plans. He is not only running for president; he is also trying to lay the groundwork for an enduring and far-reaching Democratic majority. This is what most presidents and presidential candidates try to do (Bush and Rove tried to do it), and Obama hopes to use any financial edge not only to build himself up but to support candidates further down the Democratic ticket. And he's reaching for more than a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House:

Barack Obama will focus his resources largely in 14 states George W. Bush won in 2004, his chief field operative said Tuesday, hoping to score upsets in places such as Virginia, Indiana and Georgia.

But winning the White House won’t be his only goal, deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand told Politico: In an unusual move, Obama’s campaign will also devote some resources to states it’s unlikely to win, with the goal of influencing specific local contests in places such as Texas and Wyoming.

“Texas is a great example where we might not be able to win the state, but we want to pay a lot of attention to it,” Hildebrand said. “It’s one of the most important redistricting opportunities in the country.”

Texas Democrats are five seats away in each chamber from control of the state Legislature, which will redraw congressional districts after the 2010 census.

Setting up local Democratic legislators in a strong position for the 2010 elections could pave the way for House redistricting very favorable to the Democrats in these states for the next decade.

Michelle Malkin has a roundup of details about a McCain event in which the Republican candidate for president again pledged to make "comprehensive immigration reform" a top priority. A reader sent along to Malkin this translation of a Spanish-language newspaper article about McCain's promises on the behalf of immigration "reform":

McCain said that it is completely false that [he] has abandoned his original commitment to fight for reform for the more than 12 million undocumented immigrants that reside in the United States and that includes the failed proposal of President Bush, to secure the borders first.

“This reform will be a priority in my administration because it is a convincing federal responsibility”, added the contender of the Republican Party. “We will undertake immigration reform and on the day after my inauguration, I will ask Congress to reconsider it, although I believe that first we have to secure our borders, set in motion a plan for guest workers that works and to focus on the issue of the undocumented in a humane and compassionate way.”

Federal prosecutions for illegal immigration are increasing according to the Los Angeles Times:

In the widening crackdown, administration officials prosecuted 9,350 illegal immigrants on federal criminal charges in March, up from 3,746 a year ago and an all-time high, according to statistics released Tuesday. Those convicted have received jail sentences averaging about one month.

Mickey Kaus wonders about some of the electoral consequences of immigration "reform":

P.P.S.: According to The Hill, "Hispanic Democratic lawmakers" are warning:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) must commit to helping illegal immigrants achieve citizenship or else risk losing the vital Latino vote in the general election ... [E.A.]

I thought the party line after the California primary was that it was a mistake to assume that Latino voters cared only about legalization. It seems to be practically all Latino politicians in Congress care about, though. ...

He also mentions a study exploring the ways in which multiple immigration amnesties in Spain may have lead to increased "illegal immigration."

SCOTUSblog has a number of posts on the Supreme Court's Boumediene v. Bush ruling. So does Volokh. Just keep scrolling...

An immigration-enforcement law is expanding its reach in Georgia.

President Bush signs an executive order requiring contractors with the federal government to check the legal status of their employees.

The Miami Herald offers an anecdote-heavy story about "illegal immigrants" deciding to leave the US due to new enforcement rules (and the execution of old enforcement rules). (Via Mark Krikorian)

A Texas town's ban on renting to the "undocumented" is struck down by a federal judge:

Only the federal government can regulate immigration, U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay concluded in his decision.

The city didn't defer to the federal government on the matter, violating the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which allows for the federal government to pre-empt local laws, Lindsay said.

Bill Brewer, who represented apartment complex operators who opposed the rule, declared victory.

"It's a good day, not just for my clients," Brewer said. "It's a good day for people who are thinking clearly about what is the proper role of municipal governments in the immigration debate."

Representatives for the city said they had anticipated the outcome. The city has no plans to appeal the ruling because it has already stopped pursuing the ordinance and replaced it with another tactic.

"We're disappointed but not particularly surprised," Michael Jung, one of the city's attorneys, said.

The Farmers Branch council passed the ordinance last year. It would have barred apartment rentals to illegal immigrants and required landlords to verify legal status. The rule would have exempted minors and senior citizens from having to prove their immigration status or citizenship.

Families made up of both citizens and undocumented members would have been allowed to renew an apartment lease if they met three conditions: they were already tenants, the head of household or spouse was living legally in the United States, and the family included only the spouse, their minor children or parents.

The town has scrapped this policy and will be implementing a new one:

Farmers Branch has given up requiring landlords to verify immigration status and instead plans to implement a rule that would require prospective tenants to get a rental license from the city, which would then ask the federal government for the applicant's legal status before approving it.

The future of carbon trading? A British environmental committee has put forward an idea of personal carbon rations:

Every adult should be forced to use a 'carbon ration card' when they pay for petrol, airline tickets or household energy, MPs say.

The influential Environmental Audit Committee says a personal carbon trading scheme is the best and fairest way of cutting Britain's CO2 emissions without penalising the poor.

Under the scheme, everyone would be given an annual carbon allowance to use when buying oil, gas, electricity and flights.

Anyone who exceeds their entitlement would have to buy top-up credits from individuals who haven't used up their allowance. The amount paid would be driven by market forces and the deal done through a specialist company.

MPs, led by Tory Tim Yeo, say the scheme could be more effective at cutting greenhouse gas emissions than green taxes.

The Labour government doesn't oppose the idea in principle, either; it merely "warns it is 'ahead of its time'." Every purchase would be monitored and incorporated into this scheme, the news report says. George Monbiot, who is currently advocating a "citizen's arrest" of John Bolton, praises the measure's redistributionism: it "tends to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor."

Some point out the difficulties of the program:

But critics say the idea is deeply flawed. The scheme would penalise those living in the countryside who were dependent on their cars, as well as the elderly or housebound who need to heat their homes in the day.

Large families would suffer, as would those working at nights when little public transport is available.

It would need to take into account the size of families, and their ages. There is huge potential for fraud.

Matthew Elliott of the Taxpayers' Alliance said the cards would be hugely unpopular. 'The Government has shown itself incapable of managing any huge, complex IT system.' he said.

Some are also criticizing this matter more broadly in principle, saying that it would offer too extensive an intervention into the economic lives of its citizens, and some are even calling it "totalitarian." Tim Yeo has a long history of advocating further government intervention in the daily lives of its citizens. For example, last year, he argued that the UK government should work to abolish domestic flights.
Will David Cameron and the other Conservatives also support this plan? Some think they will not.

McCain reiterates his support for "comprehensive immigration reform" and pledges to make this reform a top priority of a potential first term:

After several of the business leaders complained about the difficulty in obtaining temporary H1B visas for scientists and engineers, something the Senate immigration bill was supposed to address, Mr. McCain expressed regret the measure did not pass, calling it a personal “failure,” as well as one by the federal government.

“Senator Kennedy and I tried very hard to get immigration reform, a comprehensive plan, through the Congress of the United States,” he said. “It is a federal responsibility and because of our failure as a federal obligation, we’re seeing all these various conflicts and problems throughout our nation as different towns, cities, counties, whatever they are, implement different policies and different programs which makes things even worse and even more confusing.”

He added: “I believe we have to secure our borders, and I think most Americans agree with that, because it’s a matter of national security. But we must enact comprehensive immigration reform. We must make it a top agenda item if we don’t do it before, and we probably won’t, a little straight talk, as of January 2009.”

So McCain emphasizes his opposition to local measures in order to deal with "illegal immigration" and, seemingly, piecemeal federal measures.
(H/T: Hot Air)

Reid pulls the AgJOBS amendment from the Iraq supplemental. But one immigration measure remains attached to the legislation. Via NumbersUSA:

The H-2B provisions still in the bill, which were sponsored by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), would exempt from the annual cap of 66,000 any H-2B nonagricultural seasonal workers who were admitted during the previous three years. This could increase the annual number of H-2B workers to over 400,000 by FY 2011.

UPDATE: Reid has now also removed the H-2B provisions from the bill.

A group of ten senators writes a letter to Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) over the Feinstein/Craig Ag-Jobs measure. The press release announcing this letter:

U.S. Sen. David Vitter today joined fellow immigration reform-minded colleagues in a letter to U.S. Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid expressing disappointment in the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee’s inclusion of the Feinstein AGJobs language to the Iraq War emergency funding bill and urging for the controversial provision to be removed. Vitter joined U.S Sens. Jeff Sessions, Charles Grassley, Tom Coburn, Johnny Isakson, Saxby Chambliss, James Inhofe, John Barrasso, Elizabeth Dole and Jim Bunning on the letter.

“The Democratic leadership is building a reputation for sneaking unpopular provisions that would never see the light of day as stand-alone bills into larger necessary pieces of legislation, like the Iraq War supplemental funding bill,” said Vitter. “When will the amnesty proponents learn that the American people want border security and enforcement as their immigration reform policy, not sweeping amnesty for millions of illegal aliens? I join my colleagues in urging the Democratic leader to remove the Feinstein AG Jobs provision.”

Vitter also announced that he will introduce an amendment today to strike that Feinstein AGJobs language from the Iraq War emergency funding bill.

“My clear and concise amendment will simply state that the immigration amnesty language should be removed. We need to fight this bad policy and raise the awareness of the American people,” added Vitter.

The letter pledges a "vigorous debate on immigration policy" if Feinstein/Craig remains in the bill.

NumbersUSA has a more detailed analysis of Feinstein/Craig. In order to qualify for the amendment's visas, a worker would somehow have to show that he or she had worked "863 hours or 150 work days (defined as 5.75 hours of work per “work day”), or earned at least $7,000 in agricultural employment between January1, 2004, and December 31, 2007." Workers would not, it seems, be required to pay back taxes on this money earned; they will only be required to pay taxes on the money earned once they've been legalized. Once legalized, workers may be joined by their family members. In order to maintain this legal status, visa-holders would have to work in agriculture at least 100 days a year. Feinstein/Craig visas are applicable for five years.
NumbersUSA also brings out another interesting aspect of this amendment. It claims that Feinstein/Craig would bring "virtually all immigration enforcement to a grinding halt": if passed, the legislation would allow any apprehended "illegal immigrant" 30 days to file an application for legalization (assuming he or she could make a "nonfrivolous" claim) and could not be deported until after this claim is adjudicated.

Ira Mehlman of FAIR reports on some of the details of the immigration-related measures attached to the Iraq funding supplemental, bringing out the numbers that may be involved in these amendments. He thinks at least 2 million individuals could have their statuses changed:

In one afternoon, the Appropriations Committee approved amnesty for 1.35 million illegal alien agricultural workers, and made available an additional 650,000 skilled and unskilled foreign guest workers over the next three years.
[...]
The 2 million figure does not include the dependents of the amnesty recipients or new workers who could be admitted under existing agricultural guest worker programs. Under the agricultural amnesty – written by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) at the behest of the California agricultural lobby – the spouses of amnesty recipients will also be authorized to compete with American workers for jobs in any sector of our labor market. Nor does it include the potentially unlimited number of new guest workers agricultural employers will be able to import under a “streamlined” H-2A program that requires the Department of Labor to issue visas within seven days of an employer’s request.

In addition to Feinstein/Craig, other immigration measures were tacked on to the Iraq supplemental for both "skilled" and "unskilled" workers (e.a.):

The Maryland fishing and tourism industries also want a ready supply of cheap foreign labor, and Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) was happy to accommodate by offering an amendment that exempts returning unskilled or low-skilled H-2B workers from counting against the caps for that category. (Never mind that there are fewer Maryland crabs to harvest each year, and that with the skyrocketing price of gas people may not be able to afford to drive to the Eastern Shore.) Over the next three years, the cumulative number of H-2B workers admitted could reach 432,000.

And while the Appropriations Committee was piling on goodies for the low-skill industries, they found time to take care of the lobbyists for the high tech industry as well. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Microsoft/Wash.) added a provision to “recapture” 218,000 visas for skilled foreign workers. These visas didn’t really “escape,” so much as they just went unutilized between 1996 and 2004, especially during the years immediately after the high tech bubble burst. But now high tech employers and labor contractors want those visas back, because foreign guest workers tamp down labor costs for the industry.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a leading opponent of the "grand bargain," is mobilizing against the Feinstein/Craig amendment. (H/T Michelle Malkin)