I could not get 3 libs to answer this very simple question last week
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
Should the sanctuary city politicians be in jail for violating federal law? Forget about the DOJ not enforcing the law but rather the fact that they are openly violating federal law. Should they be in jail?
Do you believe selective enforcement of "favored" groups leads to equal justice?
I believe you are losing the culture wars and the rest of America is laughing like hell at the idiot that is apparently your hero! Here is a good example of the twitter backlash, #FreeKimDavis is the sign that her first three husbands placed on their front lawns. Lol, my apologies to Devil Dog for making him sad reporting on twitter again.
Please just answer the question. Should they be in jail? I don't care about contempt vs. breaking federal law. Both are law breakers. It sure seems that libs only want the other side punished.
Who are you going to jail in those cases - the law makers? the law enforcers? Most of these sanctuary city laws are decades old. Do you jail the authors? the ratifiers?
That's another difference between the Davis case and the sanctuary city situations. With Davis out of the picture, the licenses get issued. She was the root problem. I don't think you have the root of the problem with the sanctuary city issue - no one or handful of people who are the root cause of the issue.
Jail the lawbreakers, the politicians that created sanctuary city law that directly violates federal law. Mayors and city council members. They are the root cause, the police are simply following orders. These politicians are not immune from the legal system.
Your support for law breakers, while simultaneously supporting the jailing of a politician that breaks a law you favor, is very telling.
No. Printz v United States - local officials have no legal requirement to enforce federal law.
singled out in Cotton’s proposal already are illegal. Two federal laws, passed in 1996, say that states and cities can’t pass their own laws prohibiting local officials from sharing information with federal immigration officials.
San Fran and many other cities are in direct violation of federal law, regardless of what lib sites tell you.
It is not invalid. The law requires simple notification. No court has ruled the law invalid.
I believe that the federal govt could withhold federal funding for cities not in compliance with federal law. Of course, Obama would veto and the GOP will not be able to do anything about the veto.
So you jail sitting mayors and council members for laws passed decades ago? How were those laws passed is another question, one that I don't currently know the answer to. If it was passed by a popular vote, would you have to jail the majority of voters that voted to enact it?
Davis is not in jail for breaking a law - she is (or was) in jail for contempt of court.
I have no problem with the fed going after the sanctuary city laws - have at 'em. I think the issue is as I described it - who is really the responsible party that you go after? The way the fed will combat it, if they ever choose to do that, is by withholding federal money.
And legally that is the only way they can go after the cities. The situation would be different if the cities were preventing federal officials from enforcing the law.
Let me explain the Constitution to you. Congress enacts laws. The judiciary interprets the constitutionality of laws. The laws passed in the 90's are valid, enforceable laws until the judiciary says they aren't constitutional. That hasn't occurred.
She was held in contempt for refusing to obey the law. Just as sanctuary cities are refusing to obey the law. Gavin Newsome and other politicians blatantly ignored the law when they issued gay marriage licenses. Not a thing happened to any of them. I guess enforcement, in the lib world, depends on who's ox is being gored.
You actually somehow manage to get dimmer every time you post.
Again, have you read the Printz decision or understand how it applies?
Cite the court order any of those you mentioned violated?
Newsome believed he was acting under a correct interpretation of the law. The courts then became involved and followed orders issued by the courts.
Please note that no one jailed Davis while she was following the process and her case was in the court system.
"The California Family Code states that marriage is a union between a man and a woman." - SF Chronicle, 2/15/04. It's not a mayor's job to act as the judiciary and redefine marriage. The law was clear. He acted outside the law. He illegally granted 4,000 marriage licenses.
And when a court invalidated those licenses, he went along with what the court ruled.
And his point was that he believed the law was invalid under the Constitution of the United States. By issuing the licenses he forced the issue into the courts.
What he did was no different than Davis initially not issuing licenses and taking her objection in the court system. Where it differs is that he never violated a court order. She did.
You have to be trolling.
You were doing well right up to that last offering.
Newsome violated state law in 2004. It's not his job to judge the law. Nothing happened to him while he issued 4,000 illegal licenses over many years. In fact, he was praised by libs and the media. Why did nothing happen? Because libs in California choose not to enforce the law.
Over many years? Are you drunk?
There is no criminal punishment under CA law for a mayor issuing licenses later rules to be invalid.
What state law is the clerk in Kentucky violating? Newsome knowingly and willfully violated California state code. When someone breaks state law, they are usually brought to justice, right? At least one of the liberal posters earlier in this thread admitted that he was a hypocrite. I guess you're not brave enough.
She wasn't in jail for violating state law, you ignorant choad. It was a contempt of court charge.
Newsome challenged state law by issuing the licenses and then abided by all court rulings. As I stated earlier, what he did is no different than what Davis did by initially refusing to issue licenses while her challenge played out in court. The difference is that she refused to follow the direction of the court. Had Newsome ignored a state or federal judge and continued to issue licenses, then yes, he should have received a contempt charge.
You're the one who first mentioned state law not me. He did not need to issue 4000 licenses to challenge the law. he was willfully ignoring California statute. Just like he willfully ignored federal statute on the sanctuary city policy. Libs like you are huge hypocrites. You love it when somebody breaks the law that you disagree with. You want them thrown in jail when somebody breaks the law that you agree with. You have no intellectual integrity whatsoever.
1.) I mentioned state law but never said she was jailed for violating a state law, you ignorant choad.
2.) I am not a liberal.
3.) He challenged the California statute. And lost. And obeyed every court ruling during the process.
4.) Again, local officials are not required to enforce federal law.
5.) I would challenge your intellectual integrity but that would be like issuing a challenge regarding sasquatch - no way to challenge something which cannot be proven to even exist.
2.) I am not a liberal.
3.) He challenged the California statute. And lost. And obeyed every court ruling during the process.
4.) Again, local officials are not required to enforce federal law.
5.) I would challenge your intellectual integrity but that would be like issuing a challenge regarding sasquatch - no way to challenge something which cannot be proven to even exist.
The guy you are creaming on this thread is a troll. Not only he is a troll, he is a very partisan and ignorant troll. Please continue creaming him with intelligent replies as I am enjoying it but he isn't worth the time of day. Unfortunately, he has infected this board with his presence.
He challenge the statue by issuing 4000 marriage licenses? Are you kidding me? He knowingly and willfully violated state law and you're too much of an idiot to admit it.
And you're too stupid to read about the sanctuary city policy of San Francisco to understand that it does in fact violate federal law. The Federal law requires notification not enforcement, moron.
Using your logic, the County Clerk Could claim she is simply doing what Abraham Lincoln did when he ignored the Supreme Court ruling in Dred Scott. But you're probably too uninformed to understand Lincoln's actions and how they again using your logic could apply to this case.
Yes he did. And the licenses were ruled invalid.
And again, the law you keep referencing is not enforceable RE: Printz v United States.
You Challenge a law by finding a litigant and taking it to court. You don't issue 4000 marriage licenses. What an inane argument.
And let me say this very slowly so you can understand. The law passed in the mid 90s has never been challenged in court and is thus in enforcible. Unless and until it is challenged and deemed unconstitutional, it is law. By the way this law requires notification not enforcement.
Using your argument in defense of Newsome's activity, the County Clerk in Kentucky could easily use Abraham Lincoln's argument about ignoring the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court. Dred Scott was settled law but Lincoln chose to ignore the Supreme Court ruling.
You do realize what issuing those licenses did, right? lol
FYI - a law does not have to be challenged directly to have a provision that can no longer be enforced. Example: when Loving v Virginia was issued, all miscegenation laws nationwide were struck down at once, even though most were not directly challenged. In this case, the Feds are saving your tax dollars by not attempting to enforce a law that everyone who is not an imbecile knows is invalid.
I don't have time right now to suss out what point your marginally literate *** thinks it is making about Lincoln and the Dred Scott decision.
Your stupidity is beyond comprehension. You don't know anything about the bill but have declared it unenforceable. And your inability to discern my point about Dred Scott is truly a testimony to your ignorance. Did you actually go to college?