![handle is hein.journals/tsamlw11 and id is 1 raw text is: Volume 11 Texas A&M Law Review Arguendo 2023
TEXAS'S OPERATION LONE STAR: THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE AND DUAL
FEDERALISM IN LIGHT OF ARIZONA V. UNITED STATES
By: Reynaldo Ramirez, Jr.*
I. INTRODUCTION
The Supremacy Clause of Article Six of the United States Constitution was enacted to
remedy the failures of the Articles of Confederation.1 Initially, the states enjoyed near-boundless
state sovereignty in nearly all aspects of the first federalist government.2 However, in practice, the
necessity of federal supremacy for conducting the business of governing obligated the states to
prioritize national interests above the states' sovereignty.3 To do so required revision of the
Articles of Confederation.4 This drafting culminated in the contentious ratification of the
Constitution in 1788, including the Supremacy Clause and the Tenth Amendment.5 That said,
ratifying the Supremacy Clause and establishing the demarcations of state sovereignty as provided
by the Tenth Amendment was antagonistic, while state and federal laws each explored the margins
of the other's authority.6 The first challenge commenced with McCulloch v. Maryland and the
Necessary and Proper Clause, which established the implicit powers necessary to exercise those
powers enumerated in the Constitution.7 Commencing with the Naturalization Act of 1790,
immigration became a matter for the federal government to regulate.s Since the Naturalization
Act's enactment, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that the federal government has
broad and exclusive authority in immigration.9
Additionally, immigration significantly affects the United States economy, implicating the
Commerce Clause.10 Approximately 27 million permanent, temporary,
and undocumented immigrants make up almost 17 percent of the U.S. labor force. Immigrants
currently represent a larger percentage of the U.S. labor force than they have at any other point in
the nation's history, and immigrants' labor market participation rate is far higher than
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37419/LR.V11.Arg.1
*Reynaldo Ramirez, Jr. is a former instructor at The University of North Texas and Adjunct Law Professor at
Thurgood Marshall School of Law. He received his M.B.A. from Texas A&M International University, his Juris
Doctor from Thurgood Marshall School of Law, and his L.L.M. from the University of Dayton in American and
Transnational Law. He is the sole principal at The Ramirez Law Firm in Houston, Texas. Special thanks to J.D.
Candidate, Harris Dubin and the Texas A&M Law Review staff for their hard work and dedication to the publication
of this article.
1 See generally U.S. CONST. art. IV, cl. 2.
2 See ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION OF 1777, art. II. But see Vasan Kesavan, When Did the Articles of
Confederation Cease to Be Law?, 78 NOTRE DAME L. REv. 35, 46-47 (2002).
3 Cf Ronald D. Rotunda, Life Under the Articles of Confederation, 75 ILL. BAR J. 544, 545 (1987).
4 Cf id. at 546.
5 See generally Kesavan, supra note 2, at 36 (explaining that the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1788).
6 See, e.g., infra notes 7-13 and accompanying text.
' See generally McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 411-12 (1819).
8 See generally Naturalization Act of 1790, 1 Stat. 103 (Mar. 26, 1790).
9 See, e.g., Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 394-95 (2012).
10 See Press Release, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Lab., Foreign-Born Workers: Labor Force
Characteristics 2021 (May 18, 2023), https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf [https://perma.cc/ZQ85-
N6D4].
Id.
1](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/tsamlw11&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most