Posted on 06/23/2021 5:18:44 AM PDT by Kaslin
When state and local officials decline to help enforce federal firearm rules they view as unconstitutional, The New York Times says they are adopting "a legally shaky but politically potent strategy" with racist roots. But when state and local officials decline to help enforce federal immigration rules they view as "unjust, self-defeating and harmful to public safety," the Times says, they should be proud of choosing "not to participate in deportation crackdowns."
That blatant double standard illustrates how policy preferences and partisan allegiances color people's views of federalism, which they tend to endorse when it serves their purposes and reject when it doesn't. But as Missouri Gov. Mike Parson and Attorney General Eric Schmitt recently observed while defending their state's Second Amendment Preservation Act, "you cannot have it both ways."
Missouri's law, which Parson signed on June 14, is part of a broader movement to resist federal gun control. It declares that some federal firearm policies -- including bans, registration requirements and taxes that have "a chilling effect" on purchases -- "shall be considered infringements on the people's right to keep and bear arms," which is guaranteed by the Second Amendment and the state constitution.
The law says such rules "shall be invalid to this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall not be enforced by this state." It authorizes injunctions against law enforcement agencies that violate this new policy, along with civil penalties of $50,000 "per occurrence."
In response to anxious questions from the U.S. Justice Department, Parson and Schmitt said the law's restrictions and remedies apply only to state and local officials. That means they do not interfere with federal enforcement of federal laws -- the same point the Times made in defense of sanctuary cities and states.
The immediate impact of this law, which is similar in spirit to laws passed by 11 other states this year, although their details and practical significance vary widely, is likely to be minor. The restrictions do not apply to federal firearm offenses that are also crimes under Missouri law, and currently, there is not much difference between those categories.
The main point of the law, according to its sponsors, is proactive. Should Congress pass the gun controls that President Joe Biden favors, such as a ban on the manufacture and unregistered possession of "assault weapons," Missouri officials will be prohibited from assisting in their enforcement.
Contrary to what the Times reported, that policy is not "legally shaky." It relies on the well-established anti-commandeering doctrine, which says the federal government cannot compel state and local officials to enforce its criminal laws or regulatory schemes.
That doctrine is rooted in the basic design of our government, which limits Congress to a short list of specifically enumerated powers and leaves the rest to the states or the people, as the 10th Amendment makes clear. That division of powers gives states wide discretion to experiment with different policies, some of which are bound to offend the Times.
The paper suggests that defending state autonomy is disreputable because that argument was "deployed in the past in the South to resist antislavery and civil rights laws." But federalism does not give states a license to violate rights guaranteed by the Constitution or to flout laws authorized by it.
Although the Times tries to tar the anti-commandeering principle as racist, the same basic idea was a crucial weapon for Northern states that refused to help the federal government enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. Today, that principle likewise means that state and local officials have no obligation to participate in the "deportation crackdowns" that the Times decries.
Similarly, the ongoing collapse of marijuana prohibition -- a development the Times welcomes -- would be impossible if states were obligated to participate in the federal war on weed. While both progressives and conservatives might wish that federalism could be limited to achieving results they like, that is not how constitutional principles work.
It is just like June umteenth, pure bovine excrement.
You got it.
They days of living under the rule of law are long gone. They have been gone for decades.
We are living under the rule of men....more specifically, the rule of the communist party.
Whatever the Politburo dictates is the rule. The courts have been bending more and more to the will of the Politburo.
The Pravda media has always bent to the will of the Politburo, but never as much as today.
The education system has bent to the will of the Politburo for decades.
Entertainment and social media have also bent to the will of the Politburo for decades.
Now, corporations are bending more and more to the will of the Politburo.
Their control is nearly absolute.
They have nothing to fear with their “double standards” regarding states rights or regarding protests.
They have enough control that they no longer fear a backlash because no voice will be loud enough or strong enough against them. They can destroy any voice who rises as a threat.
The left/MSM has AFAIK never endorsed federalism as a general principle. Conservatism does - and some conservatives even mean it, while others support the federal War on Pot.
Hmmmm. Seems like they can do whatever. Some folks may “pay the price” right pedo joe?
yet, when the state enacts a law that basically mimics federal law, the feds get most of it quashed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._United_States
Brought to you by the CIA and the rest of the American hating deep state goons in your: US government...
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.