My comments were general in nature, not specific to this thread (or any individual ;^). FWIW, the topic of antebellum 'States rights' was near & dear to my heart, during the early 2000's (IIRC, you & I threw some zingers back & forth during that period ;^). I can't remember the number of times I saw government actions defended, simply because someone thought they were moral, or the number of times I got hammered as a "slaver", "slavocrat", etc. And, in all honesty, I would hammer right back (sorry that you were likely on the receiving end of some of that).
Fast forward to 2019. The examples I listed ('Obama-Care', etc.) are 20th or 21st century issues; many current political proposals seem to be promoted on the basis of morality, with no thought whatsoever regarding the actual 'law of the land'. Government power seems to be 'available' any time it's required, via implication or judicial opinion, even for Republican proposals. And some current issues may be similar to points of contention from the early-mid 1800's.
How do I look at current events? If some issue pops up, do I just automatically support it (or oppose it?) based on gut-level feelings, or some previous moral judgement I made regarding similar historical events? Or do I make some (potentially difficult) decision(s) based on 'the law of the land', or a different moral evaluation?
We could easily face multiple "sanctuary State" issues over the next few years. Based on a previous judgement that "nullification" is wrong (as per 1830's South Carolina), do I also oppose some future "2nd Amendment sanctuary State"? Flip side of the coin: if I thought "nullification" circa 1832 was justifiable, do I offer knee-jerk support to California as a "sanctuary State" for illegals? The NRA was recently designated a "domestic terrorist" group by a local government; how would I react to a similar decision, involving any similar citizens' group, issued by the federal government? The Left is already talking about 'packing' the Supreme Court, at their first opportunity. If that actually happens, how will I view any decisions made by a 'packed' court?
In such circumstances, it may be important to dial in more than a gut-level 'right or wrong' feeling, or the fact that 'some @sshole' (like yours truly ;^) might have been arguing 'something similar' online.
But since we're all here on FreeRepublic, I'm probably preaching to the choir...
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve posted there. I’ve grown a bit weary of quick sloganistic retorts in place of reasoned responses. What you’ve provided on this thread has definitely been the latter.
In my view, questions regarding things like “sanctuary cities” (both for the purposes of illegal immigration and for gun control) need to be subjected to “reasonability tests” - would these arrangements or changes lead to a net good result or are they designed for partisan advantage? If one is regarded as necessarily bad does it follow that the other must be as well? Or should they be measured on their relative merits and not subjected to simplistic cookie-cutter litmus tests? And finally, do they follow established principles and precedent or do they run counter to convention?
In my old neighborhood some hispanics bought a nearby house. They seemed friendly and sociable enough and my inclination was (as is my nature) was to live and let live.
Their demeanor was a pretense however and within a year they had over a dozen people in addition to their own family living on the property. I began to have theft problems (there was only a waist high cyclone fence separating us). I asked the homeowner what was up and he shined me on. So I called the building department and inquired about the additions I could see appearing in my neighborhood. The homeowner was forced to demolish an illegal addition to their house and an outbuilding that was being used as an apartment/flophouse.
The following year that city joined the sanctuary city mob and my neighbor resumed his landlord operation. Crime increased and I chose to leave rather than fight.
Now I’m watching the arc of activity in Virginia (second amendment sanctuaries). Does (should) intellectual honesty compel me to oppose these 2nd amendment sanctuary cities? Regardless of my “feelings” on the matter? I don’t think so and here’s why:
Sanctuary cities (for the purpose of illegal immigration) are there to thwart constitutional law. They are there to thumb noses at established order. But sanctuary cities (for the purpose of 2nd amendment) are there to defend otherwise lawful citizens who are exercising their rights from unconstitutional infringement. My constitutional exercise harms no one but their unconstitutional practices do harm to the entire community. My .02
My hope is to continue reasoned debate in the upcoming year. There is going to be plenty to chew on!
Happy New Year!
It sounds like you're trying to be thought provoking, but the flippant answer is also the correct one: it depends if at heart you are really a Democrat or Republican.
If at heart you're really a Democrat, then you don't care a whit about intellectual honesty or consistency, all you care is how you feeeeeeel at the moment.
So you'll eagerly condemn in Republicans what you happily accept in yourself, etc.
Republicans by contrast are burdened with the need to be both honest and consistent with our morals and ideology.
On your question of "nullification" Democrats were always the party of nullification, and remain so today.
And were the roles reversed (as in civil rights laws) Democrats would take nullifiers to court and throw them in jail, but somehow that hasn't happened with Democrats' "sanctuary cities".
Do you even wonder why?