Posted on 03/12/2018 8:15:25 AM PDT by Liberty7732
This headline is most certainly not clickbait. The path from this point to dissolution of the Union or actual armed conflict between California authorities and federal authorities is not hard to map. Whether it happens depends largely on the actions of California.
Right now, California is the first and only state to pass a law making itself a “sanctuary state” where it forbids all state and local law enforcement officers — oddly named at this point — from cooperating with federal officials seeking to deport people who came to this country illegally. However, as California’s dangerous wantonness has not come with immediate costs, other states are considering the same move.
Now Attorney General Jeff Sessions is marshalling the forces of the Department of Justice to sue California over its lawlessness in the same way that Obama’s DOJ sued Arizona for trying to uphold border law. It inevitably had to come to this.
In a speech announcing the action, Sessions took aim at both the awful policies and individual politicians, such as Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, Democrat, who publicly warned illegal immigrants in her city last month about an impending raid by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents: “How dare you? How dare you needlessly endanger the lives of our law enforcement officers to promote a radical open-borders agenda?”
Calling on vast reserves of disingenuity, the Washington Post called Sessions a states’ rights hypocrite while pretending to write a news story, by referring to invisible and unnamed “observers” and finding some yahoo at Sam Houston State to make the reporters’ argument:
“As a Republican senator from Alabama for 20 years, Sessions was known as an advocate for states’ rights. But, as attorney general, observers say, he is making an exception when state policies bump against his conservative agenda.
“As soon as Attorney General Sessions is able to craft federal policy that matches what he believes to be the interest and values of America, he is perfectly fine with strengthening the federal government and overcoming states’ rights,” said Benjamin E. Park, author of “American Nationalisms” and an assistant professor of history at Sam Houston State University. “States’ rights philosophies are always skin-deep and work until you want a strong federal government to support your policies.””
This case is nonsense because states’ rights is a long-time American ideal, tradition and constitutional issue — except in very few cases where there are “enumerated” rights for the federal government. The reporters and the professor may want to consider reading the document.
In Section 1 Article 8 of the Constitution, these enumerated rights are spelled out and include naturalization of citizens and national security, which clearly requires border control. Californian cannot do that as it is a prescribed power of the federal government, which Sessions is supporting. Whereas the federal government has taken on all sorts of rights that are not prescribed for it, which Sessions opposed. See, guys? Read the Constitution.
California is Arizona, except opposite
It is easy to empathize with the plight of Arizona being overrun by illegals crossing the Mexican border and the federal government’s refusal to enforce existing federal law — like, you know, what the president promises to do when he places his hand on the Bible and is sworn into office. But the Supreme Court ruled correctly in favor of the corrupt Holder DOJ in saying that border enforcement is a federal responsibility and a state may not do it. That was a Constitutionally correct ruling, not the political kind we get too much of in the Ninth Circuit Court.
Precisely the same principle applies to California. The state is trying to usurp an area of clearly delineated federal authority in border control, naturalization and national security. Just like in Arizona, they are duty-bound to lose at the Supreme Court — almost assuredly the Ninth will issue a law-free political decision, and then will be overturned.
What’s not clear is what happens next. And this is where things get really dicey.
No one serious worried that Arizona would revolt and threaten dissolution. The state acquiesced to order and law and backed down on enforcement. Will California?
Arizona was trying to enforce federal law and so as expected followed the ruling. California, which is increasingly run by truly radical progressives, was trying to break federal law. Will they follow the ruling of the Supreme Court and eliminate their sanctuary state status? Will they begin cooperating with federal ICE agents and not warn illegals of coming raids?
If you think they obviously will, you have not been paying attention. There are reasonable betting odds that the radicals running the state in Sacramento will simply continue to flout federal law. They will maintain their sanctuary status and they will continue to not cooperate with ICE. Further, probably more will do what the Oakland mayor did and actively work to undermine the efforts of the federal government to enforce federal law by siding with criminals — even very low-level criminals. It’s also not impossible that there are some California radical Democrats who actually want to see the state secede from the Union and the dissolution of the United States.
Dissolution, civil war or new leaders
So if California openly and publicly ignores a Supreme Court ruling, then what do the feds do? How does Washington respond to a rogue State in the Union?
It seems there would be three ultimate options — after exhausting several intermediary attempts to come to a resolution, such as withholding federal funding, which may or may not be found to be legal or effective.
One, the people of California could revolt electorally against the radical leadership and elect new leaders that are a little bit more pro-America, and rational. This is obviously the most desirable outcome. But it seems like a longshot.
The biggest reason for that is that California laws and judicial rulings are putting non-Americans in the voting booth, probably in very large numbers. As we reported in January:
“California is baking into its laws, regulations and governmental attitude the opportunity for literally millions of Mexican nationals and other non-American citizens to be voting in American elections. This has probably already happened at least in some small ways.”
Two, the federal government could do nothing and accept California’s rebellion. That will encourage even more lawlessness on the part of the Sacramento radicals and embolden other liberal states to take similar steps. At that point, we will have anarchy, or a form of Civil War, or the dissolution of the United States.
Three, the federal government could move troops into California to essentially occupy the state and put down the rebellion, preserving the Union.
Seeing what happens beyond that is difficult. Would California National Guard units actually fire on U.S. Army units? Probably not. Very few radicals of this stripe are militarily inclined. But would there be armed insurrection? Probably so. And exactly what role might Mexico play? That they have harbored desires for the dissolution of the United States and return of regions to Mexico is hardly a secret.
California may yet relent, but it does not look likely. And barring that, it’s hard to see how this ends well for anyone, including California, considering the current leadership of California.
There are few armies in the world that could accomplish that without succumbing to blunt force trauma.
Here is why I think this sentiment is wrong, and why I believe that the federal courts ruled incorrectly on Arizona's SB 1070.
§ 1252c. Authorizing State and local law enforcement officials to arrest and detain certain illegal aliens(a) In general Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to the extent permitted by relevant State and local law, State and local law enforcement officials are authorized to arrest and detain an individual who—
(1) is an alien illegally present in the United States; and(b) Cooperation The Attorney General shall cooperate with the States to assure that information in the control of the Attorney General, including information in the National Crime Information Center, that would assist State and local law enforcement officials in carrying out duties under subsection (a) of this section is made available to such officials.(2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported or left the United States after such conviction, but only after the State or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the status of such individual and only for such period of time as may be required for the Service to take the individual into Federal custody for purposes of deporting or removing the alien from the United States.
As I underlined, this section of federal code expressly authorizes states to pass laws to support § 1252c.
Obama's DoJ sued Arizona on the grounds that ONLY Congress has the authority to make immigration law. This is not entirely true; Congress has plenary power, but they can delegate that power, and § 1252c is where Congress explicitly gives states a limited power to make supporting law, which Arizona did.
The federal court ruling against Arizona SB 1070 further found that the President has a discretionary power to not enforce a federal law, and so Arizona encroached on that Presidential power by enacting its own law. I argue that not enforcing a federal law that grants a power to a state does not disqualify that state from enforcing that law itself, because the state got its authority from Congress, not the President.
In the case of § 1252c (a)(2), a state is limited to apprehending previously convicted felons who were deported and reentered, and only for as long as it takes federal law enforcement to verify and take custody of the individual. § 1252c (b) compels the Attorney General to make this information available to state and local officials. Furthermore, 8 U.S. Code § 1226 - Apprehension and detention of aliens (d) Identification of criminal aliens authorizes the Attorney General to devise and implement an information system.
I would argue that if the Department of Justice refuses to cooperate with a state via § 1252c (b), then the state is in its rights to hold the individual until such time as the Attorney General cooperates. A defiant Attorney General does not nullify a state's power to act under § 1252c (a).
Based on the above analysis, the question now is whether § 1252c (a) gives California the authority to pass a law FORBIDDING cooperation with federal immigration arrests?
-PJ
I thought Gook referred to the Viet Cong? I know my wife hates it whenever I use the term, so it seems she is not the only one.
You need to make high profile arrests to get their attention then you prosecute and convict and they will all scatter
Cental_VA has never thought of a secession that he did’t like. If Calfoenia tries to leave the Union there will be war.
“
There are not enough soldiers to occupy Sacramento let alone the whole state.”
You don’t have to occupy cities, you just cordon off the roadsmane destroy whatever makes those cities livable: utility lines, power plants, sewage treatment plants, canals, cell towers, Internet data cables, cut off access to satellites, jam radio broadcasts, and blockade all fuel deliveries. Either they surrender the guilty or they starve. Nobody needs to go in the city to patrol it. .
Fascist.
Name calling like a good lefty are you now? You sir, are not worth my time. Please feel free to secede from Free Republic. You will then have more time to pursue your hobby; reading antebellum arguments for Southern secession while pleasuring yourself.
I hope an illegal alien gets squatter's rights on your property, breaks all of your tools, and knocks up your wife while demanding you pay for the delivery and for child support. Delusional ass.
If it talks like a fascist, posts like a fascist then it is a fascist.
Project much?
You suffer from fantasies of secession that have impaired your critical thinking. Using your logic every state that Mexico and the globalist can swamp with illegal aliens should be allowed to be peeled away to be transformed into third-world shitholes where the left feasts off the wealth and greatness that Americans built over centuries. Pathetic. You make the cheese-eating, surrender monkeys that infest France look like paragons or virtue with your apathy in response to the assaults on our country.
‘Tolerance And Apathy Are The Last Virtues Of A Dying Society’ - Aristotle
You reek of emasculation you virtue-signaling fool.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.