They’re Not Going to Like Their New Rules

The Progressives believe that they can declare their cities and counties “sanctuaries” for illegal immigrants where local officials do not have to cooperate with the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The mostly Democrat politicians who run those jurisdictions presume they can nullify federal laws on their turf.

John Calhoun was unavailable for comment, but local officials in other jurisdictions were.

According to Reuters, the sheriffs in many jurisdictions (including some here in Maryland) are saying that they will refuse to enforce unconstitutional firearm laws being passed by state legislatures. Over sixty cities and counties in Illinois have declared themselves sanctuaries for gun owners should pending legislation pass. In Oregon, voters in eight counties approved Second Amendment Preservation Ordinances last November that allow sheriffs to determine which state gun laws to enforce. More such ballot measure are on the way in that state.

If the New Rule is that local officials can nullify federal laws, then other local officials should also be able to nullify state laws. If the Progressives can do it, then surely we Normals (I like Kurt Schlichter’s term for us) can as well. Alinsky’s Rule 4 states: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.

They’re not going to enjoy it.

7 thoughts on “They’re Not Going to Like Their New Rules

  1. I agree. This is how the concept of the “rule of law” unravels and the path toward the inevitable unraveling is not going to be pretty. We are about to relearn the meaning of “Humpty Dumpty.”

  2. If politicized law enforcement is optional on any level, then of course there is no law. Plenty of collectivist/Statist cassowaries swear by this, thinking “discretionary” statutes license everything from Grand Theft expropriations to infanticide and paedophilia, never seeing that anarchic force majeur will re-establish order by liquidating them all first.

    On this 66th anniversary of Stalin’s reversion to primordial slime, brownshirt/red-armband hate-mongers might take a moment to consider where socialism’s “who-whom” leads in absence of consent-of-the-governed under Rule of Law.

  3. Out of curiosity how many state-level or local officials have taken steps to, for instance, illegially ban abortion?

    Like many other things, this is a common phenomenon across the spectrum. Look at, say, Abbot’s actions in Texas.

    • That’s a question you should be able to find the answer to with the old Google machine, rather than wondering aloud in the hope that someone will do the research to make your argument for you. There are plenty of people that sue anytime anyone attempts to put any sort of limits on abortion.

      How are Gov. Abbot’s actions illegal? Why does Texas keep winning challenges to its laws?

  4. I’m asking it in the form of a question because I’m not expecting to convince people simply with a quick google search. I’d rather present a question that can be asked by anyone about the subject.. a question that covers an angle not addressed in the topic, and let people judge the results for themselves.

    As for Abbott, the key quotes are “The mostly Democrat politicians who run those jurisdictions presume they can nullify federal laws on their turf”, and “local officials can nullify federal laws.”

    I’ve got one general example, abortion, and one specific example, the career of Greg Abbott. Which of these is a poor examples of state officials nullifying federal laws on their turf? Abbott in particular, who once describe his job as suing Obama.

    As for illegality, I’m still looking for an explanation of why one of those would be illegal while the other one would not be. Do you have one?

    • Yes. One of them defies federal law. The other one doesn’t.

      I was not aware that it was illegal for Greg Abbot to have a career. How did he make out suing Obama? Is it illegal to sue Trump?

Leave a Reply