I have notice that the left in both parties tend to assume that if something is wrong it much be unconstitutional such as discrimination. The constitution only bans certain kinds of discrimination with respect to voting and only over certain groups. Its a good thing because we should discriminate against criminals who would vote for politicians to reduce the penalties they get for the crimes they do. The point I am trying to make is that the constitution has more in common with my car manual than any religious text that determines what is right and wrong for the people. It is simply a set of rules for the government to operate by and depending on how those rules are written it can be good or evil. For example: Slavery was legal under the constitution and so was voter discrimination in the 3/5 person provision in it. Those were changed through the legal amendment process but were not changed because it corrupted the "holiness" of the document. The new Arizona law may discriminate and even do it unethically (thats not my opinion) but that would not change the constitutionality of it unless it actually violated the constitution itself. The constitution has no ethereal goodness to it and is just what it is which is the words that are written onto it and people can't decide the constitutionality of something simply because it is wrong but only because it violated the rules written for the government.