mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Immigration after 2016
The New Nullifiers
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • FriendlyGoat

    I’m not sure it is helpful to muddy the definition of “nullification”, a concept celebrated by organizations such as the John Birch Society where state legislatures might seek to override federal laws inside whole state jurisdictions on the theory that Congress or the Supreme Court did not have Constitutional authority to pass them in the first place as a result of the 10th Amendment. We have a closer example to “nullification” with the states proceeding to legalize medical and recreational marijuana in violation of federal law. Another would be any states which might seek to prohibit same-sex marriage within state boundaries after Obergefell v. Hodges—-if any ever do.

    Meanwhile, the so-called sanctuary cities are refusing to emphasize enforcement of illegal immigration with their own law-enforcement resources because of practical urban realities as much or more so than because of a political argument. While that has been on-going for a long time in many places (both formally and informally) , it is not done on the same legal theories as “nullification”.

    • Fat_Man

      Goat: I guess you never learned any US history.

      • f1b0nacc1

        Well, he knows nothing about economics, and apparently has a weak grasp of math….so he *IS* consistent…

    • JR

      Shorter version: When you don’t do things I like, that’s nullification. When I do things you don’t like, totally cool because of (spins the wheel of BS Leftwing excuses)… and the winner is practical urban realities. Hopefully AG Sessions will teach these law breaking renegades that unless you are Hillary Clinton, you can’t selectively enforce the laws. I can’t wait…

      • M Snow

        Perhaps you could send a photo of that wheel; I’d love to see the whole thing.

      • FriendlyGoat

        Of course you can’t wait. People who are all giddy for their whole damnable lives about slapping somebody for something or other and who speak of nearly nothing else always say “can’t wait”. The party of small government suddenly wants jack-boot at the federal level. Who knew?

        • JR

          You seem bitter. Funny enough, I don’t recall that bitterness when Obama was ruling through executive fiat. You and your Leftwing friends were there on the sidelines, cheering him on. Warnings that one day the shoe will be on the other foot were ignored. Well, that time is now. Live by executive fiat, die by executive fiat. That’s the way it goes.
          And as for small government, one of the governments essential jobs is to maintain the integrity of borders. Why do you hate rule of law so much?

          • FriendlyGoat

            You invite me to be bitter every day. But, oddly enough, you don’t succeed. I’ll stick with my own understanding of nullification.

          • JR

            I call ’em like I see ’em. I think your own understanding of nullification and they way I described your understanding of it are exactly the same. It’s good when you do it, and bad when it’s done to you. Makes sense.

          • Jim__L

            You certainly come across as bitter.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I am beaten over the head here in this nest of cynics every day by a regular dozen of mean hearted people for providing balanced discourse and Jim, the church guy, says I’m bitter.

            I wrote about nullification because I talk to people all the time who debate its actual use in the legal context. The TAI article is misusing the word when it speaks of cities which cannot and do not nullify anything.

            So, what’s the response? The usual sh*t talk from JR. Where are you with both your intellect and self-proclaimed spirituality? You’re with the sh*t talk.

          • JR

            Oh, there will be a lot of sh*t talk coming your way as I relentlessly mock your double standards and situational ethics. And when I say your I mean it as both your individual double standards, and those of Left-winger at large. In my defense, I was doing the same thing in 2009, when Democrats controlled every lever of power.

          • Jim__L

            I’m not sure you own the word “nullification”, to say what it can and can’t be used for. A political commentary editorial making an apt historical allusion is allowed to be inexact in its terms.

            To be honest, I lose patience with many of your posts. You accuse people of things that are not true, because you conflate supporting a flawed presidential candidate with supporting that presidential candidate’s flaws. This is especially hard on one’s patience because you made a habit of utterly ignoring the flaws of your own party’s former candidate, and in fact explicitly embrace the dire flaws of your own party’s political platform.

            You can learn something from a lot of the Trump supporters here, FG. Individual American voters do not have to embrace the totality of a political candidate or party. That is a GOOD thing.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Your patience was lost long before you met me. Ditto the gang here.

          • JR

            You are absolutely correct. My patience for any and all sorts of Socialism and Collectivism has been gone for more than quarter century before I met you. I try to combat them in every form and forum as I can,

          • Jim__L

            No one is completely without patience all the time. Rapprochements have been made now and then.

            And I note that with that comment you not only dodged the substance of my comments clarifying my own position (which to your credit you don’t always), but also once again dodged any reflection about your own position — which I’m not sure I’ve ever seen you do, here.

            To be completely frank, you look like a shill for the Democrats’ platform, incapable of independent thought, and incapable of using other moral points of view (the religion you claim to follow comes to mind) to level the slightest critique of what the Democrats are about on any point.

            You idolize the Democrats, FG. That is not a good thing.

          • texasjimbo

            Here’s a solution: stop reading or replying to the comments. Honestly, you are a master of the leftist tacit of using wordy, superficially grammatical arguments that aren’t very coherent upon close examination and frequently seem to glide right over pertinent but inconvenient facts.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Please note who is replying to who above. I mostly write original comments and attract critics, not the other way around.

          • Andrew Allison

            In short, elections have consequences! LOL

        • Jim__L

          Well, there are a few things – controlling the national borders, for example — that really are under the purview of the national government.

          We want *limited* government, not nonexistent government. And we want government to be effective at its limited responsibilities. In fact, that’s one of the best reasons to limit the responsibilities of government — because if those responsibilities expand too far, there’s no way the government can be effective at them.

          The tenth amendment was a very, very good idea. And considering that without the first through tenth amendments, the Constitution would not have passed, it’s fair to say that if the Federal Government ignores those amendments it has no right to exist.

  • JR

    Cut federal funding and have ICE agents take a more pro-active role. Nobody is above the law (except Hillary Clinton). Nobody.

    • f1b0nacc1

      More to the point, prosecution of municipal officials who decline to provide cooperation with lawful federal initiatives should do the trick quite quickly.

      While we are at it, have a few conservative activist groups sue the various cities (and perhaps some of the politicians themselves) for unspecified damages. Make sure that some of these virtue signallers get some skin in the game.

      • JR

        I think Democrats are about to rediscover the virtue of federalism. Having said that, after the Arizona Supreme Court case it will be VERY hard to argue that the federal government doesn’t have ultimate authority on immigration matters.

        • f1b0nacc1

          I absolutely agree about the latter point, but am not as sure about the former. The Left will always have the ‘but….’ defense, i.e. that the specifics of this or that case allow them the exception to ignore their previous standards. So we will have federal supremacy when it suits them, ‘but…’ an exception when it does not.

          • JR

            Oh, they will undoubtedly try. What I think the Left-wingers are underestimating is how much everybody is on to their little “but” games. It’s a con, pure and simple. Every con requires at least two participants: a sharpie and a sucker. The suckers no longer want to play the role assigned to them by a sharpie. All of a sudden, the Left will be made to suffer all of the consequences of their policies and Supreme Court cases that enshrined these policies with the 4 Liberals arguing favorably for it. For some reason, Left-wingers thought that “live by the sword; die by the sword” didn’t apply them. It is time they learned an unpleasant, yet very important lesson. Time for some tough love.

          • f1b0nacc1

            While I agree with you in terms of the logic, I am not as sanguine about the certainty of the Left being made to eat their own dog food. The gang of four on the SCOTUS has made it abundantly clear that they are completely unmoored from principle and utterly committed to results, so I wouldn’t put it past them (particularly the not-terribly-bright Sotomayor, or the apparatchik Kagan) to simply rule with ‘the broader interests of the public’ in mind. This is why it was so essential that Trump win to prevent HRC from getting the option of a fifth (and perhaps sixth) seat for the Left on the SCOTUS. I am not crazy about Roberts, nor do I have much love for Kennedy, but what we see from the left side of the court is far, far worse.

      • Johnathan Swift Jr.

        I am not an attorney, but I believe there are legal barriers that prevent the federal government forcing local authorities to do their bidding under that kind of penalty, but assisting a criminal in the avoidance of arrest is a different thing. Since all of these cities and their residents are so dependent on the federal government, the purse strings are the answer and then prosecution when they aid a criminal who is to be arrested. The main thing will be to fine employers, that will drain the swamp.

        • f1b0nacc1

          Largely I agree, but then again this doesn’t have to be a federal initiative. Lots of friendly ‘activists’ could be employed to sue, for instance (a tactic that the left has used for decades), and there are lots of ways to compel local obedience that aren’t necessarily legal strongarming.

  • Disappeared4x

    deBlasio is the heir to Fernando Wood, the “Copperhead”New York mayor, when it was just Manhattan, who wanted to secede from the Union.

    deBlasio might just stimulate voter turnout in 2017, when he will need more than his 2013 win with 700,000 votes out of 4.3 million, a 23% voter participation. Millions of voters now know why there is a housing crisis, with 800,000 illegal immigrants in NYC residence.

  • Frank Natoli

    Why is it that Democrats chant “it’s the law of the land” only when it comes to killing the most innocent and most defenseless? Or a man bedding down with a man?

    • Johnathan Swift Jr.

      Because there are no fixed points for them, no timeless wisdom, no documents that stand the test of time, everything must be re-invented on an hourly basis, in order to meet their goals.

  • Fat_Man

    I had all this goose sauce left over from dinner last nigh.

  • JohnnyBazooka

    How’s the law against De Blasio? Nothing in the law compels NYC to cooperate.

    You could pass a law that compels cooperation at the risk of federal funding. But only incremental funding is at risk, ironically thanks to a SCOTUS ruling challenging Obamacare. Which is maybe 1-2% of the NYC’s budget.

    So yeah they’re gonna tell you to stick it where the sun doesn’t shine… and it will probably be entirely legal and constitutional.

    • Jim__L

      If it’s legal for de Blasio to do that, it’s legal for bakers to decline to make custom cakes for whoever walks in the door.

      • JohnnyBazooka

        I believe that stems from a separate constitutional issue (interstate commerce). NYC is protected from federal authority based on, to my knowledge, the 10th amendment and how SCOTUS interpreted it.

        So, to cut it short, NYC is in the clear, but a discriminatory baker isn’t.

        • f1b0nacc1

          Actually no.

          The prosecution (persecution?) of bakers, etc. who don’t wish to do business with gay weddings is pretty much a clear-cut 14th Amendment issue, not a Commerce Clause question. The 10th Amendment doesn’t protect NYC and the other sanctuary cities for several reasons:

          1) These are cities, not states. Now you MIGHT have a better case (twice nothing still being nothing though) if it were a state (CA comes immediately to mind) engaging in this behavior, but still…unlikely…

          2) The 10th Amendment applies only to those powers not delegated to the federal government, nor those prohibited to the states. The body of law that leaves border control to the federal government is vast, and clearly counts as settled law.

          3) Federal authorities acting in the furtherence of those activities permitted to it under the constitution (see (2)) aren’t likely to be undercut by the states, particularly when there is no broader constitutional question. If you really doubt this, you had best take a look at any number of civil rights cases or go back further to the nullification question that the courts didn’t show much support for int he antebellum era.

          By all means though….please ‘die on that hill’….it will amuse me to see the Dems trying to make a case int he courts for nullification, then to watch it used to kill their laws for most civil rights (gay marriage,for instance), environmental overreach, etc.

          • JohnnyBazooka

            Dude… I responded to your comment below. I’m not gonna bother to respond to this mountain of misnomers (on civil rights, for example, the commerce clause is the basis for extending the civil rights act of 1964 to private businesses; the 14th is restricted to the state).

            But you know what, what would I know, I only attend on of the highest ranked law schools in the US.

            Rest assured, this is a fight my side is itching to have. My boys and I will see you in court.

          • f1b0nacc1

            Well, I only taught at that school, but since I don’t believe in appeals to authority, we don’t need to go there.

            Please, join us in court….I think you will find that you will lose both the battle and the war…

          • SDN

            Go ahead; take it to court. Counter discovery won’t be your friend, especially when the sources of your funding get the colonoscopy without lube they’ve deserved for some time.

        • Jim__L

          How is a local baker interstate?

          NY is going to get nailed for doing what he’s doing, and any defense De Blasio mounts is only going to provide some very, very nice precedents for sanity, without actually protecting him.

          =)

          • jhp151

            The SJC has ruled all commerce is interstate commerce if the effects of local only production and use can be shown to affect the same commerce across state lines Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). That said, Johnny is wrong on pretty much everything.

          • Jim__L

            W v. F seems to be overreach, plain and simple. A Constitutional amendment should clear that up — the commerce clause originally meant that states are not allowed to have tariffs or other inhibitions to trade, not that the Federal Government gets to be in charge of everything.

            That decision was just wrong.

          • Disappeared4x

            SCOTUS precedent for expansive Federal use/abuse of the Commerce Clause goes back to 1937: National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Company
            more of the saga at:
            http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Commerce_Clause

    • f1b0nacc1

      Actually quite a bit more than that. States and municipalities are bound by all sorts of unpleasant (to them) federal laws, from immigration to environmental, to civil rights. In the case of both Civil Rights and Environmental laws, we have numerous court rulings that put the cities themselves (as well as the officials in those cities, in the case of civil rights law) vulnerable to private lawsuits, and federal prosecution for hindering prosecution of crimes. Finally, there is absolutely nothing to stop the federal government from directly limiting funding to sanctuary cities outside of merely statutory cuts.

      However, if this is the hill you folks want to die on…please go right ahead. Should be fun to watch the identity-politics obsessed Democrats arguing that cities and states get to defy laws that they don’t like in order to protect illegal immigrants.

      • JohnnyBazooka

        I wasn’t aware immigration enforcement was a civil rights or environmental law issue. There’s no private lawsuit mechanism in immigration (it’s not the Endangered Species Act). Vulnerable to federal prosecution? There’s no such law, and I strongly doubt it would be constitutional.

        How could the feds sue a state official for not enforcing a federal law the state official has no power to enforce?

        National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius stops direct limitation of funding.

        • f1b0nacc1

          The feds couldn’t sue (no standing), but I have no doubt whatsoever that it would easy enough to find a few public-spirited private organizations or individuals who could be encouraged to do so. This has been the standard practice for the Left over the last few decades to handle environmental law, for instance, so we shouldn’t be surprised to see the same tactic used here.

          Regarding NFIB v Sebelius, you don’t bother with a direct defunding of the program in question, you simply go through congress and terminate the funding by not appropriating in the first place. Yes there are a few block grants here and there that might be problematic, but you can easily ignore those and go after the direct funding and carve-outs that these cities already have. Once again, let them take this to court, I would adore seeing how the SCOTUS (when it gets around to it….) tries to arrogate that sort of decision making unto itself. Keep in mind that there will be at best a 5-4 majority (assuming you can get Kennedy to go along with it) by that time to strike down the funding issue, which means only the narrowest possible interpretation will squeak through.

          Once again, the political fight here will be ugly, and your side will lose it. Please though, don’t take my word for it…go right ahead and pick the most unpopular part of the immigration debate to defend. If you really care about challenging immigration enforcement (not simply virtue signalling and identity politics), you have other options, but….

  • Jim__L

    So how ’bout the citizens of California put Prop 8 back on the ballot, and pass it again?

    =)

    • Frank Natoli

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/04/mozilla-ceo-resignation-free-speech/7328759/
      Contributing to a state proposition, 100% legal, can cost you your job, see above link or numerous other links to the treatment of Mozilla founder Brendan Eich. When his name was found on the contribution record for the traditional marriage proposition in California, the Mozilla board of directors announced that Eich had violated company policy regarding treatment of homosexuals and was forced out. Nice.

      • Jim__L

        With Trump in office, I would not be surprised if the forces of PC find themselves in retreat — when they are successfully sued for politically-motivated persecutions like that of Eich.

  • TGates

    Didn’t Arizona test the limits of its power to deal with immigration within its own borders? I believe that during the Obama administration the Supreme Court ruled that immigration actions, in this case failure to enforce immigration laws, was at the sole discretion of the Executive branch.

    • Johnathan Swift Jr.

      Yes, indeed it did. It is ironic that the party that is so hostile to the issue of state’s rights now wants to assert that the cities have primacy in the issue of immigration, one of the few areas that should be the specific domain of the federal government. There have been two recent incidents where illegal criminals who were protected from deportation committed (allegedly, wink, wink) heinous crimes, one the rape of a twelve year old, the other a murder.

  • disqusisass

    Open borders and lack of enforcement of immigrations laws is racists. Not enforcing the law only increases the suffering of those who risk everything to come to America. Obama created an humitarian crisis on the southern border for political reasons. But sadly 100’s of thousands have suffered. End racism, end open borders.

  • Johnathan Swift Jr.

    In forums like these, these issue are always argued in the abstract, but illegal aliens have a very high crime rate and their victims are real flesh and blood people.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/14/124-illegal-immigrants-released-by-dhs-later-charg/

  • http://whenfallsthecoliseum.com/author/kwatson/ megapotamus

    Well, we’ll see if anything can prevail over the mayors’ scruples, like money, maybe. The Feds have been taxing money out of the cities and returning it with strings for a century. Now those strings are in the hands of You Know Who. We know JEB would have sounded just like DeBlasio on this matter after the election if he had prevailed. Would even alleged Tough Guy Ted Cruz engage his full powers for border enforcement like this? No way, Hose A. #Only Trump

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service