Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.
4 Likes
Also posted in the “Attempted Coup” thread, but it seems it also deserves a spot here:
Among the educational objectives of this EO:
(ii) a clear examination of how the United States has admirably grown closer to its noble principles throughout its history;
(iii) the concept that commitment to America’s aspirations is beneficial and justified, and;
(iv) the concept that celebration of America’s greatness and history is proper
It’s not just opposing a policy, it’s opposing existing Federal laws, and making it easier to break these laws. I’m not saying that I agree with the bill, but I think it could be considered aiding and abetting to try and implement sanctuary cities.
Keep in mind that they aren’t “aiding and abetting” criminals; they’re “aiding and abetting” tortfeasors.
(It’s not actually a crime to be in the US without status. It’s just a civil offense…which is approximately why deportees don’t get to plead their cases before juries or get free access to public defenders.)
It shouldn’t be a felony, especially in a country that purports to believe in the freedom of speech, to express the opinion that it is a net positive to have policies in place to not discourage certain interactions with the government, even when the folks doing the interacting aren’t entirely kosher with the law.
That some of the sanctuary-ness also pertains to resisting unfunded mandates, and resisting directives that violate the Fourth Amendment are just garnish to the issue.
1 Like
Thanks for the correction. In any case, establishing sanctuary cities interferes with the Federal government carrying out the process established by current laws, namely deporting illegals.
As for free speech, you are free to express an opinion that criticizes current laws. You aren’t free, however, to actually establish policies which expressly violate those laws.
I guess it could be argued that voting to establish a sanctuary city isn’t a crime unless the vote passes - if you lose the vote, then there’s nothing violating the law.
This is all that needed to be said, because of reality and how it is.
If I had to guess, laws establishing sanctuary cities would be overturned, as they violate federal laws.
I think that depends on how sanctuary city is defined, which will surely vary by example
Hmm… passing a law that doesn’t conform with current law or policy, in hopes that law or policy will change… where have I heard that before?
1 Like
If you’re referring to abortion laws, there’s a difference. SCOTUS ruled it was protected, so the rules couldn’t take effect. Nobody was doing anything that violated Federal law. Many of the laws had clauses that they’d only take effect if and when Roe v Wade was overturned.
In this case, the laws go against Federal law.
But many of them did not have those clauses and were challenged and most Federal Courts issued injunctions and many of those laws were eventually ruled unconstitutional.
So should every lawmaker who votes for a law that is ultimately declared illegal as violating a federal law or unconstitutional be subject to prosecution?
No of course not. Criminalizing how an elected official votes is the most nakedly undemocratic thing I’ve ever heard being done in the US
2 Likes
I refer you to every state except Nebraska and Idaho currently selling Schedule I narcotics.
No, and I definitely disagree with the bill. My point is that if someone actually takes an active role in preventing federal laws from being enforced, they can probably be prosecuted for it.
Well, except t-Rump, of course.
Hard disagree
Not sure what you are hard-disagreeing. He will not get prosecuted for anything he does, including the withholding of funds that he is doing right now. He will not get expelled after an impeachment, which probably will not happen.
2 Likes