Carte Blanche: Can't Have It All
nbc
The saying goes, "You can have your cake and eat it too." Politicians have convinced themselves and many of those they represent that this is a fact, when in reality nothing can be farther from the truth. A particular topic that encompasses this is the idea of local authority overriding federal laws and vice versa. Governors, mayors, and city councils are quick to decry federal law enforcement and federalized National Guard troops entering their states and towns to enforce immigration policies and clamp down on crime. At the same time, there is always an argument to be made for federal overreach, especially against the unlawful deployment of the military outside a national emergency. However, in the same instance, those civic leaders will limit their citizens' 1st and 2nd Amendment rights. All while placing additional ordinances, taxes, and regulations on small businesses and homeowners. It is ridiculous at times to see them cry tyranny one minute and then arbitrarily enforce their will on those they claim to serve and protect. Contradictions are nothing new for politicians, but in the modern digital age, hiding them has become a challenging task. As discussions continue on these issues, it is best to keep in mind that either tyranny is a terrible thing, or they should admit only when it doesn't fit their agendas or desires.
There has been a dubious double standard that has become increasingly common among states and municipalities. The idea that states can nullify any federal law or regulation they like once split the country in two, and could shatter the nation entirely if allowed to continue.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
-Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution
Sanctuary cities and states will simultaneously question the legality of the Trump Administration to deploy National Guard troops at will. All while infringing upon the rights of their citizens. Larger metropolitan areas have written and enacted new ordinances and laws that crack down on the ability of citizens to gather and protest. An escalation of force and enacting curfews hinders the ability of the people to peacefully assemble and create a platform to vent their frustrations. All of which is guaranteed by the First Amendment. The overreach doesn't stop there. Since the Second Amendment became the law of the land, there have been countless attempts to outlaw the ownership and use of firearms through strict rules and costly regulations. The hypocrisy of defending human rights and emphasizing the value of allowing people to live how and where they wish, all while restricting the citizens' ability to exercise their natural rights, is lost on those elected and appointed officials who enforce them.
As the battle continues to be waged over the right of states and cities to declare themselves sanctuaries for immigrants, they continue to argue not for liberty but their right to ignore laws they dislike. The argument is one of immediate contradiction that should, from the very beginning, defeat itself through careful review. The federal government has passed and is implementing laws that are cruel or should be illegal because of how they treat human beings. That is a clear and concise argument. In the next breath, those same pundits argue their local laws must be passed and enforced to keep human beings from living, saying, or doing what would otherwise be their right if they didn't offend those in a position of authority. The argument against federal overreach can't be countered with state and city ordinance overreach. If the Trump Administration succeeds in its efforts to uniformly override the desires of citizens across the country by simply asserting that federal authority is absolute, there will be a grave danger posed regardless of party affiliation. With the powers of the office of President all but imperially and constantly expanded, America could experience ideological dictatorships every four years. This should highlight the need to remove laws that enable this, not create more at every level.
In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled on NFIB v. Sebelius. While the case concerned the Affordable Care Act's penalties for those without insurance after a specific period of time, it had far-reaching consequences. One particular court ruling held that the federal government lacked the authority to coerce states into adopting policies they disagreed with by threatening to withhold federal funding. There is an essential lesson that those same states should take away from that ruling. Extorting their citizens to behave as they deem appropriate while arguing that the federal government is doing the same can't be ignored as the double standard it is. Sanctuary laws are dubious at best, as are restrictions on the rights of Americans as guaranteed under the Constitution. They can't invoke their sovereignty by refusing those laws while infringing on sovereignty by passing their own. If the argument that is being made is that governments at every level must practice restraint in respect to the rights of citizens and non-citizens alike, then it can't be treated as a fair-weather cause. Either the rights of the people always come first, or the government has the authority to do whatever it pleases so long as it has enough money, and armed troops and police, to carry it out.