In recent weeks, talking heads for both sides of the fence (pardon the pun) have battled as to the Constitutionality of Arizona’s recently passed immigration law. What interests me is not that people are railing against the Constitutionality of this policy, but that none are applying the Constitution to the cities that have openly boycotted Arizona and its business. These very public boycotts are more distressing to me than anything that Arizona could have done in the name of immigration reform.

For fear of summarizing an entire lecture series on Constitutional law: a state, or city, cannot discriminate against the business of another state. This is what is commonly referred to as the Commerce Clause. Such discrimination is prohibited even if a law has the effect of discrimination without expressly calling for a boycott, let alone when the state or city expressly discriminates against the business of another state. This is a troubling precedent. If a city is permitted to deny business and travel opportunities to a state in which the city has some grievance, then where will the line be drawn? Social policy? Sales tax rate? Availability of public transportation? Potential to beat the Lakers? The list quickly degrades from legitimate forums of differing opinion to subjective squabbles.

States and cities are given a wide range of freedom in crafting their own laws. The founding fathers knew that the rule of law is best tailored to the region in which it is to govern. This is precisely why America is a government of States that answer to a Federal government; not States that answer to States.

I leave you with this question: if you don’t like whom your neighbor’s daughter dates, should you be allowed to barricade your neighbor’s driveway?