Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
First Principles: The Fairweather Federalist
I find curious the subject of sanctuary cities; specifically why limited government conservatives support the Trump administration’s attempts to “do something” about them. Those attempts haven’t yielded much other than litigation, and so the Trump administration has started talking about arresting local officials who do not play along. Similar is the Attorney General’s recent decision to rescind the Cole Memo, paving the way for federal prosecutors to begin cracking down on marijuana producers and retailers in states where such a thing is legal.
We have the phenomenon of those conservatives who talk about the virtues of federalism, states’ rights, subsidiarity, and limited government but it all goes right out the window when it comes to Mexicans or pot.
And so I must ask the question to those fair-weather federalists who see no problem: What is the general principle at work here?
Before you answer, let me propose a test of principle.
If you state a principle of federalism, “The feds can do X, states shouldn’t be able to do Y,” I ask that you test it by applying the Fugitive Slave Act. If you apply the Fugitive Slave Act, and you are comfortable with the results, then you’ve established your principle.
To those of you who are able to thread that needle, please speak up. State your general principle. I’m eager to hear it.
Published in General
Sure. But where this is “open to interpretation” is what it means to interfere. Is openly welcoming illegals to your city interfering? Seems to me that helps the feds. They know where to go. Is it interfering if you simply turn a blind eye and plead ignorance? Maybe.
But it isn’t so cut and dried, is the point I’m trying to make right now.
It is interfering when you prevent people from acting of their own accord to help the Feds – even private citizens.
Probably. Is it interfering when you simply say “No, I won’t give you that information, I have no legal requirement to do so?”
I think a bit of both have gone on, if my reading of the news is correct.
Yes it is interfering, and yes they do have a legal requirement to do so. The main area where this arises is when state authorities have a known illegal alien in custody, and choose to release him rather than turn him over to ICE. Even when ICE has made a specific request for custody. It is no different than if there was a warrant out for that person, and state officials released him rather than honor the warrant. Police officers take an oath to uphold the law. I am not aware of any exception in that oath allowing them to ignore federal laws they don’t like. Or that their political bosses don’t like. And they are not being “conscripted” to do anything, since they will be releasing the inmate either way.
What is your position, Spin, on laws that require teachers to report suspected child abuse to authorities?
If I were to take the same position as some others on this post, at this point I’d be saying, with much outrage, “What the? Are you accusing me of being a child rapist?!?! How dare you!?!?!?”
Does the oath of a police officer include federal law? Or just the law within their jurisdiction?
Would not all their jurisdiction be within the United States?
Huh?
Does a police officer in Kalamazoo, MI, take an oath to enforce Federal laws? State laws? Or just the laws of Kalamazoo? I don’t know, I’m asking. I’ll ask my police officer friend and see what he says…
Exactly…
As a US citizen he has a duty to obey federal laws, and also not to interfere with the feds’ enforcement of those laws. Obstruction of justice is a crime no matter who does it.
That’s not the question Larry posed, though, is it?
Again, go read the Supremacy clause in the Constitution.
Does it say a police officer in Kalamzoo must enforce federal law?
Google is a wonderful thing. Since you ask, the Kalamazoo oath reads as follows:
Not only posed, but answered.
Well there you go, then.
The oath required of police officers in Virginia, on the other hand, makes no mention of supporting laws; only of supporting the Federal and Commonwealth constitutions.
Would support of the Constitution entail enforcement of legally enacted laws?
I don’t know. That’s why I’m curious about the variance. Michigan includes laws, Virginia does not. Civil War stuff?
I meant to come back to this sooner, but I’ve been busy trolling other posts.
I had a long conversation with a friend of mine who is a local police officer. He showed me his oath, which is almost verbatim that of the Kalamazoo oath. He said, though, that the officers on his police force are “discouraged” from doing ICE’s job. they are just small town cops with their own stuff. He said “there is about 99.999% chance I’m never going to enforce federal law.” It was interesting, because he thought I was asking about enforcing laws about marijuana. But then I asked him about what he would do if he pulled over “Jose” and how would he know if “Jose” was illegal. He said that, very rarely, Jose would tell him. But most of the time he would not have any way of knowing. Even if he suspected for some reason, he wouldn’t really have any cause to do anything about. He said if he knew, or if he knew ICE or the border patrol were looking for this person (which for him would be rare), he would detain the person and call border patrol.
Anyway, it was a good conversation, spawned from this conversation. I think this whole conversation has been good because it forced me to think through some things and now I’m smarter. I’m still very skeptical of the federal government, and want them doing as little as possible in my state. Anyway…have a nice day.
Your friend is 100% correct here. This is what’s supposed to happen.
I’ll let him know you approve.