Do states and localities have an obligation to follow the laws of the Federal Government?

Discuss...

I suspect you'll get more responses to this thread if you simply cut to the chase and let us know why you posted it.

Nope. Just wanting to know if localities should be following federal law. It seems both sides want to have it both ways.

You have an agenda with this thread. If you want a conversation to develop then tell us what it is. Waiting for the gotcha is pretty tiresome.

Sanctuary cities do not follow Federal Law. I think they should.
Kim Davis does not follow Federal Law. I think she should.

I am not looking for a "Gotcha". I am looking to see if the theory of Federalism is going to be equally employed.

I think a new topic is better than the repetitive nay-saying on the other forums going on right now.

Right, so now we're getting somewhere...

I don't know what a sanctuary city is but I'm going to guess they're cities which impose firearms restrictions. I have no idea who Kim Davis is. In the first instance, it presumably must be legal because if it wasn't it would surely have been successfully challenged by now. Not like there's any shortage of gun rights advocates with deep pockets to bring a case before federal court.

Your federal system is always going to throw up anomalies. A more interesting one in my opinion is the fact that Colorado, Washington and a couple of other states have legalised marijuana and now have thriving industries in its cultivation and sale despite it remaining illegal under federal law. Should the federal government have the right to impose itself over the democratically expressed will of the residents of these states ? As a supporter of marijuana legalisation my kneejerk reaction would be to say no, but then I have to ask myself what I'd say if Utah were to vote in favour of legalising polygamy...

I think it ultimately comes down to pragmatism. The feds almost certainly could close down the legal marijuana industry in Colorado if they wanted to and they'd probably be within their rights to do it, but the will doesn't seem to be there. As such you'll continue to have this rather messy legal grey area until so many states have followed suit that the federal law is changed to reflect the facts on the ground. It's not ideal of course, but I'm comfortable with grey areas and constitutional fudges. The British constitution is riddled with this kind of thing.

Sanctuary city:
Sanctuary city is a term that is applied by some to cities in the United States or Canada that have policies designed to not prosecute illegal aliens. These practices can be by law (de jure) or they can be by habit (de facto). The term generally applies to cities that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about an individual's immigration status. The designation has no legal meaning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city

Kim Davis:

Kimberly Jean Bailey Davis (born September 17, 1965) is the county clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky. In 2015, Davis gained international attention after defying a federal court order requiring that she issue marriage licenses following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Davis_%28county_clerk%29

I think the marijuana issue is another great point. Why are some wanting some of the Federal Laws to be followed and not other ones?

bbauska wrote:Sanctuary city:
Sanctuary city is a term that is applied by some to cities in the United States or Canada that have policies designed to not prosecute illegal aliens. These practices can be by law (de jure) or they can be by habit (de facto). The term generally applies to cities that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about an individual's immigration status. The designation has no legal meaning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city

Kim Davis:

Kimberly Jean Bailey Davis (born September 17, 1965) is the county clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky. In 2015, Davis gained international attention after defying a federal court order requiring that she issue marriage licenses following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Davis_%28county_clerk%29

I think the marijuana issue is another great point. Why are some wanting some of the Federal Laws to be followed and not other ones?

Someone should teach Sas how to use Google

To answer your question, most people's ethics are situational. Their view on a particular issue (immigration, gay marriage, marijuana) will often override a larger theoretical principle such as federalism. And that's really true for everyone. You may feel that it is appropriate to always follow the law, but we can all come up with hypotheticals where the law should not be followed. (I can get to Godwin in one post.)

Thus my view on the law being followed or one must be willing to accept the consequences is why I don't understand the "situational ethics". I just want the standard to be applied equally on Federalism, whether that is not supported or supported.

Help me understand how some can be willing to be discriminatory in how they apply the law? I don't get it? (really, I don't get it )

Ray Jay wrote:Someone should teach Sas how to use Google

While they are at it, could they teach bbauska to quit the elision and attempts to trap with absolutist questions?

To answer your question, most people's ethics are situational. Their view on a particular issue (immigration, gay marriage, marijuana) will often override a larger theoretical principle such as federalism. And that's really true for everyone. You may feel that it is appropriate to always follow the law, but we can all come up with hypotheticals where the law should not be followed. (I can get to Godwin in one post.)

I shall ignore the "ethics" for now and answer bbauska on the "legal" side of it:

There are different levels of Federal Law. Even I "get it", despite not being American:

The Constitution is the topmost Federal Law. And its main purpose is to impose restriction on government. Primarily the Federal government, but since the 14th Amendment and others and since interpretation by the USSC, that also applies parts of the Bill of Rights and other clauses to State and Local jurisdictions.

So if a locality (or the agent of it in the case of Kim Davis) breaches such a provision of the Constitution, then there should be redress.

Then there are the bulk of other Federal Laws - laws which are Constitutional. These may or may not apply to lower levels of government, and the ability of the Federal government to "impose" them on other governments of course varies by the Constitution and legal precedent.

So these depend upon a wider set of factors than whether or not the law is "federal".

And of course there is the third kind of Federal Law which is Unconstitutional. Now, that may not yet be known of course, and when it is "known", it will be because it has been struck down by the USSC. But the main way to challenge a Federal Law that imposes on a State or locality would be for that State or locality to not apply that law, leading to a court case which would end up resolving the matter.

Is class now dismissed? Good.

I understand the laws and Constitution and how they are applied. My question is why do some want to have sanctuary cities managed under State/Local jurisdiction, which are in contradiction to Federal Law, but do not want the border managed by State/Local jurisdiction in contradiction to Federal Law.

My question is not about the law, but people's inequality of application, in a manner that helps their agenda. Perhaps you can help me understand the psyche of one advocating such an application.

BTW, thank you Danivon for teaching me a new word. I had not seen the word elision before. Had to look that one up.

bbauska wrote:Is class now dismissed? Good.

Yes, but it seems you did not understand the lesson, so please stay after and do some make-up work.

I understand the laws and Constitution and how they are applied. My question is why do some want to have sanctuary cities managed under State/Local jurisdiction, which are in contradiction to Federal Law, but do not want the border managed by State/Local jurisdiction in contradiction to Federal Law.

They are different Federal laws, with different statuses in terms of how they apply.

But a common thread is that they don't want the local/state jurisdiction to be the one applying restrictions to people (note "people" because that includes citizens and residents whether "legal" or "illegal").

My question is not about the law, but people's inequality of application, in a manner that helps their agenda. Perhaps you can help me understand the psyche of one advocating such an application.

But when the law is not a one-size fits all thing that applies equally anyway, the question is about the law as much as it is the "psyche" of those who advocate different interpretations of it in different specific situations. Well, maybe not to you, but the law as it stands is a large part of the context.

There are other similar viewpoints, such as those who oppose means of detection and law enforcement for dealing speeding and running red lights (often because they break the law themselves by speeding, let's be honest), but support similar means of detection for other crimes.

BTW, thank you Danivon for teaching me a new word. I had not seen the word elision before. Had to look that one up.

The marvels of a state education for ya!

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Is class now dismissed? Good.

Yes, but it seems you did not understand the lesson, so please stay after and do some make-up work.

Perhaps it was the teacher who did not understand the student's question.

The speeding analogy is a good one. If I were to break the law by speeding/running a red light, I would gladly accept punishment for the violation (and I have...).

However, the sanctuary city does not do that. It refuses to acknowledge the right of the Federal government to place jurisdiction over them. That would be akin to my telling the officer that he does not have jurisdiction over my vehicle after I was going 70 mph in a 60 zone. Imagine the officer's reaction if told that!

Texas wants to enforce the border as it sees fit IRT to immigration. Should they be allowed to?
San Francisco wants to enforce it's border as it sees fit IRT immigration. Should they be allowed to?

Why or why not?

bbauska

My question is not about the law, but people's inequality of application, in a manner that helps their agenda

If police were unable to use discretion.
If prosecutors were unable to use discretion
If judges were unable to use discretion
Would justice be better served?

Today the US jails more people than any other nation on earth. In large part due to the elimination of discretionary sentencing in the 90s. Today it seems to be universally recognized that this was a mistake and there is, almost alone among issues, bi partisan agreement to redress this issue. And other drug laws.

The federal system in the US does allow for states to lead the way on legal issues. Where Conservatives usually spout States rights as a way to avoid progressive changes on laws, in practice it is the introduction of new laws at the state level in States that has advanced progressive laws. (Gay marriage, marijuana). When the nation has sufficiently changed to where the issue has been resolved then, and only then, has the federal state moved to impose the new positions.
In the case of sanctuary cities, please note that - as your quotation says
The designation has no legal meaning.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

My question is not about the law, but people's inequality of application, in a manner that helps their agenda

If police were unable to use discretion.
If prosecutors were unable to use discretion
If judges were unable to use discretion
Would justice be better served?

Yes.

We need less laws for sure, but follow the laws equally if they are in place.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/san-francisco-board-eyes-measures-immigrant-sanctuary-34605091

San Francisco declared itself a sanctuary city in 1989, passing an ordinance that bans city officials from enforcing immigration laws or asking about immigration status unless required by law or court order. A follow-up ordinance in 2013 allows detention only under a court order targeting violent felons.

Should Texas and San Francisco both enforce immigration laws of the Federal Government? You'll notice I answered your question with a single word. I even bolded it for you. You should try it.