Posted on 08/30/2006 11:08:29 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
That's exactly what I was trying to say. That article IV implies that states and localities have an obligation to enforce federal laws made under the Constitution.
With a screen name like 'El Gato' it's obvious you must know English better than the rest of here, so please enlighten us as to where you believe enforcement is mentioned in that passage from the Constitution.
This part:
and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
Judges enforce the law.
BTW, I'm of English (Harrison and Lee),German (Kunz) and European, who knows what (both my grandfathers are of unknown European ancestry, probably a lot of German in one case, but completely unknown in the other) Not a Spanish speaker in the bunch. Sorry to disappoint.
I don't see one either. I see the ordinance as a piece of enabling legislation that enables the city to enforce the federal law, as the Art. IV section I quoted seems to imply they must.
I also see that I didn't make myself clear. I put the "unconstitutionality" line in quotes, to indicated it was a summary of the argument against the ordinances. I was not arguing that they are unconstitutional.
ping
Thank you, Sir. On top of things, as usual.
You mention that other towns have also passed such ordinances and others are waiting in the wings to see how this goes before taking action. It occurs to me that, if every town merely contemplating such action would just DO IT, this might well grow into a wave across the country such that the ACLU would not have the resources to battle them all.
I'd LOVE to see the ACLU foundering with the tide pouring in over her gunwales and her crew scrambling for the long boats.
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.