“Minnesota Nice” has morphed into
“Minnesota No Ice,” as we have all seen on our screens. The Loony State’s
Democrat officials have sued the federal government for enforcing federal immigration law. Not wanting to be left out of the
madness, Illinois, the Land of Lincoln, has followed suit. How’s that for
irony?! (Think about it.) Illinois Attorney General Kwame
Raoul recently
announced that his office has filed a lawsuit against the Department
of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Customs
and Border Protection, accusing federal agents of “unlawful” enforcement
actions in Illinois. One question for Kwame: “How is it that federal agents
enforcing federal law as regards illegal aliens is “unlawful?!”
AG Raoul at a press conference:
“The repeated invasions of private property, wrongful arrests, illegal
interrogations, and violent confrontations have not made our city or state
safer.” The repeated invasions by illegal aliens and their often criminal and
violent actions have not made your city or state safer, either, pal. And
neither have the actions-- or inactions-- of the Illinois or Minnesota state
governments led by the bluest of the blue, politically speaking. By contrast,
ICE is in your cities and states trying to make them safer for actual
citizens.
In effect, Walz, Pritzker and company
are saying to ICE, “How dare you do your jobs and protect American citizens! We
don’t!” But, of course, with these clowns, performative virtue signaling trumps
effective action.
To make matters even worse, Sen. Chuck
Schumer, D-N.Y., heartily agreed with MS NOW's "Morning Joe"
contributor Mike Barnicle recently, when he suggested flying Democratic
senators and members of the NYPD to Minneapolis to confront ICE officers. Do
Democrats really want another crack at a civil war? It sure seems like they do.
It also seems like they are bizarrely
unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2),
which declares federal law to be the supreme law of the land, binding state
courts and superseding conflicting state laws. In other words, federal law takes precedence over state laws should
there be a conflict.
Democrats almost never oppose federal
law when they are in power but often do when they are not. Yet many Democrats did
filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 1957, President Eisenhower sent federal
troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce a federal court order for school
integration, much to Democrats’ dismay.
And, of course, there was April 12, 1861,
when the Democrat South fired on Fort Sumter to start the Civil War. How’d that
go for the country? Are these criminal-loving asshats soon going to fire on
ICE?
Talk about chaos! I’m a dedicated
Federalist, but if states can choose whether or not they want to obey federal
(Constitutional) law, the union is in existential peril. And anywhere from
620,000 to 851,000 people would have died in vain. Would
it be better for all—or even possible—for the likes of Minnesota and Illinois
to secede from the union, or to be thrown out of same?
As Lincoln noted, “A house divided
cannot stand.” Therefore, the actions he took were not an attack on federalism
or state’s rights, but a desperate attempt to save the union. It is impossible at
this point to know the ramifications had he not been successful in doing so, whether
regarding slavery, World War I, World War II, or several other crucially
important historical institutions and events.
What would Lincoln do now? It’s hard
to say with certainty and conviction.
But he wouldn’t send senators and
policemen to needlessly confront federal troops in Minneapolis—or anywhere
else.
No comments:
Post a Comment