I was watching an encore episode of The View yesterday while I worked out and they had the most interesting hot topic.
Miss Oklahoma recently (like May) was asked about Arizona's immigration law. Specifically she was asked if it should be mandated by the state or federal government. Her response was well thought out and honest. Yet she was booed and came in second place, apparently as many thought, because she gave an unpopular answer to the question.
Her response, see below, was essentially that she is a proponent of state's rights but that she is also opposed to illegal immigration and racial profiling so sees both sides. My impression is that her support for state's rights wins out. OK sure fine.
The way I understood the question, it was more about which governing body should determine if this is a law or not. That has less to do about the ethics of the law and more about constitutionality. So isn't her response about states' rights fairly spot on as to the actual question?
Personally, I'm proud of her for having an opinion, speaking her mind and answering the question. I'm glad she didn't somehow manage to just say "I believe in world peace," thereby dodging a bullet.
Miss Oklahoma's answer won't dramatically change the world. But I'm curious, what do you think?