Virginia Gun Control Controversy

[NationalTitles18]

"Sanctuary cities" is merely a derogatory term (originally) for federalism. What I mean by that is that elected officials at state or local levels are not necessarily bound to enforce federal law and in some instances even state law, though that varies from state to state. In regards to federal law enforcement see Mack v. United States.

 

[B1GTide]

"Sanctuary cities" is merely a derogatory term (originally) for federalism. What I mean by that is that elected officials at state or local levels are not necessarily bound to enforce federal law and in some instances even state law, though that varies from state to state. In regards to federal law enforcement see Mack v. United States.

Well, they are bound by law to enforce those laws - they just dare the higher government to do anything about their rogue behavior.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Well, they are bound by law to enforce those laws - they just dare the higher government to do anything about their rogue behavior.

That simply is not true. State/local officials are not bound to enforce federal law. Some states have long traditions, for example, of sheriffs not enforcing certain state laws and those actions have held up in court. I'm not the lawyer of the board but there is a long tradition that the feds cannot force state or local officials to enforce their laws. Now, that is not to be confused with having to abide by some constitutional provisions such as in incorporation of clauses of the constitution. It does mean that congress can't pass a law and then demand that local officials take their time/money to enforce that law.

 

[B1GTide]

That simply is not true. State/local officials are not bound to enforce federal law. Some states have long traditions, for example, of sheriffs not enforcing certain state laws and those actions have held up in court. I'm not the lawyer of the board but there is a long tradition that the feds cannot force state or local officials to enforce their laws. Now, that is not to be confused with having to abide by some constitutional provisions such as in incorporation of clauses of the constitution. It does mean that congress can't pass a law and then demand that local officials take their time/money to enforce that law.

That is true and not true at the same time. They are bound by professional courtesy between enforcement agencies, not law.

Thing is - sanctuary cities are not being asked to directly enforce federal law. They are only being asked to hold people who they already have detained and they know to have broken federal law until federal agencies send someone to collect these folks. They are not being asked, for example, to round up illegal aliens. But they are being asked to hold them if they break another law and are already in custody, or to notify the feds so they can come get them. Sanctuary cities are choosing to do neither.

And all the federal government has to do is withhold federal $$$ to make them come into line. It would be very easy to do and totally constitutional.

 

[NationalTitles18]

That is true and not true at the same time. They are bound by professional courtesy between enforcement agencies, not law.

Thing is - sanctuary cities are not being asked to directly enforce federal law. They are only being asked to hold people who they already have detained and they know to have broken federal law until federal agencies send someone to collect these folks. They are not being asked, for example, to round up illegal aliens. But they are being asked to hold them if they break another law and are already in custody, or to notify the feds so they can come get them. Sanctuary cities are choosing to do neither.

And all the federal government has to do is withhold federal $$$ to make them come into line. It would be very easy to do and totally constitutional.

Professional courtesy is just that, nothing more. When it comes to the purse strings it's another mixed bag. In many cases they can withhold money. In some cases that is more difficult.

US court: Feds can't withhold funds from sanctuary cities

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the Justice Department can't deny Philadelphia millions in public safety funding because of its status as a "sanctuary city." The ruling echoes others that block the department from withholding funds to cities that refuse to cooperate...

apnews.com

Federal appeals court rules Trump sanctuary city order unconstitutional

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled that a lower court judge went too far when he blocked the order nationwide.

www.usatoday.com

If Congress gathers the political muster to put it into law it may be a different matter.

 

[B1GTide]

If Congress gathers the political muster to put it into law it may be a different matter.

We need a federal law to enforce federal law.

Crazy world we live in.

 

[crimsonaudio]

We need a federal law to enforce federal law.

Crazy world we live in.

I'm thankful the 10A still has some teeth, albeit far fewer than was intended.

 

[NationalTitles18]

We need a federal law to enforce federal law.

Crazy world we live in.

Federalism creates a definite separation of powers. Just as none of the three federal branches can overstep their bounds the feds cannot overstep into state/local matters.

 

[B1GTide]

I'm thankful the 10A still has some teeth, albeit far fewer than was intended.

I agree - I am very much a proponent of limited federal government. Just talking about sanctuary cities as an example of how different we are across the nation. There is no "single" America.

I support the idea of sanctuary cities (even states), just as I support the right to protest. It is an important part of what we are as a nation.

 

[B1GTide]

Federalism creates a definite separation of powers. Just as none of the three federal branches can overstep their bounds the feds cannot overstep into state/local matters.

No doubt - is immigration a state or local matter?

 

[NationalTitles18]

No doubt - is immigration a state or local matter?

The constitution grants the power to make and enforce immigration laws to congress and the president, respectively. It does not grant them the power to co opt state or local offices for their own purposes.

 

[B1GTide]

The constitution grants the power to make and enforce immigration laws to congress and the president, respectively. It does not grant them the power to co opt state or local offices for their own purposes.

If the state of Alabama arrests a man for reckless driving and notices that the man is wanted for some other crime in Mississippi, what do they do? Alabama can choose to extradite him or not, essentially on a whim. Every state has this right. But there are consequences. Choose not to extradite and you can bet that there is going to be some quid pro quo coming your way the next time you are looking for interstate cooperation, so states cooperate. Not because they have to do so, but because it is in everyone's best interests to do so.

Sanctuary cities behave as they do because the federal government chooses (in most cases) not to play that card. But there really is a lot that the federal government could do if they wished to simply by refusing to cooperate in countless ways when a state needs help. As an example - have a natural didaster and need FEMA - nope - not happening.

 

[NationalTitles18]

If the state of Alabama arrests a man for reckless driving and notices that the man is wanted for some other crime in Mississippi, what do they do? Alabama can choose to extradite him or not, essentially on a whim. Every state has this right. But there are consequences. Choose not to extradite and you can bet that there is going to be some quid pro quo coming your way the next time you are looking for interstate cooperation, so states cooperate. Not because they have to do so, but because it is in everyone's best interests to do so.

Sanctuary cities behave as they do because the federal government chooses (in most cases) not to play that card. But there really is a lot that the federal government could do if they wished to simply by refusing to cooperate in countless ways when a state needs help. As an example - have a natural didaster and need FEMA - nope - not happening.

The constitution requires states to extradite certain criminals to other states.

Within the United States, federal law governs extradition from one state to another. The Extradition Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV Section 2) requires that:

A person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

The fallout would be enormous for withholding disaster funds.

 

[B1GTide]

The fallout would be enormous for withholding disaster funds.

I cannot imagine Trump caring. He threatened many times this year to withhold funds to help fight fires in California. Why? Because they hate him in California. I could see him doing that. I could see him doing almost anything.

But you are right, a rational leader would not.

 

[Wakecrash]

I'm thankful the 10A still has some teeth, albeit far fewer than was intended.

I would say the 10 can gum some mashed potatoes but not really sink its teeth into meat.

 

[NationalTitles18]

I cannot imagine Trump caring. He threatened many times this year to withhold funds to help fight fires in California. Why? Because they hate him in California. I could see him doing that. I could see him doing almost anything.

But you are right, a rational leader would not.

And even Trump backed off the ledge.

 

[Tidewater]

I saw one local Virginia politician mention that his would be a "sanctuary City" for the 2nd Amendment. Um.

That has happened all over the cities and counties of western Virginia.
The difference is this. Counties and city of Virginia are the creatures of the Commonwealth. If they refuse to enforce the law of the Commonwealth, I do not think that it will take long for the authorities of the Commonwealth to stop funding for things like salaries of local officials or Commonwealth apparitions for things like roads and schools.

What I think will happen is that local officials will not openly declare they refuse to enforce laws they feel violate the constitution. They will just be extremely "incompetent" at enforcing them. This is called "Schweikism" after the novel The Good Soldier Schweik. Local cops and Commonwealth's Attorneys will just not be very good at looking for and then prosecuting violators.

This is an old American tradition. In the late colonial period, royal officials had a deuce of a time enforcing unpopular importation laws. Smuggling was rampant. In the late 1850s, Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas announced that slavery laws could not be enforced in a territory (or state) in which they were not popular. In a practical sense, this is correct, even if constitutionally dubious.

 

[Tidewater]

Now, that is not to be confused with having to abide by some constitutional provisions such as in incorporation of clauses of the constitution.

Just out of curiosity, where might I find the "incorporation clauses?"

 

[B1GTide]

Just out of curiosity, where might I find the "incorporation clauses?"

I took him to mean the incorporation doctrine.

 

[Tidewater]

My son sent me these. His sense of humor runs a bit to the malicious.

And this.