More Pete Stark: Refusing to hire illegals might be unconstitutional

Via the boss emeritus, new wit and wisdom from a guy who thinks the Constitution entitles the feds to do pretty much anything they like — which, per current Commerce Clause jurisprudence, is basically true — except when it comes to regulating illegal aliens, I guess. (The money line from Stark, oblivious to the thick stench of irony: “You don’t like the Constitution, I know that.”) On its face, his position isn’t nutty: E-Verify has been challenged on constitutional grounds before, as all immigration enforcement measures invariably are, and he’s probably right that if a government agency chose to use it for, say, new Latino employees and no one else, they might be at risk for an equal protection lawsuit. But ultimately, that’s not the thrust of his argument; his point seems to be that placing limits on illegal labor is itself some kind of constitutional violation. Which, ironically, is a position you’re more likely to find among libertarians, not far-left liberals.

I’m not sure where this clip, combined with yesterday’s, leaves us with respect to the Pete Stark theory of deciding when laws are and aren’t constitutional, so let’s just say he knows it when he sees it and leave it at that. Exit question: Had he even heard of E-Verify before the audience brought it up here?