(07-24-2020 08:31 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Tanq

George presented portions of the Constitution that imply to me an obligation beyond protecting federal installations, but to protect local citizens who are being denied equal protection... you seem to at least somewhat agree if I am reading you correctly. The way I read it which of course is not as an attorney, they have an obligation to protect the rights of those citizens.... using existing laws or passing new laws to do so. So it's not that they have an obligation to surge or pay... those decisions lie within the laws beneath this obligation.... its that they have a legal obligation to protect.... and surging or paying or witholding federal funds as in the 'sanctuary city' issue (as well as many other options) are among the tools at their disposal.

You are reading me correctly. And if a state fails to provide that protection you correctly note some of the options available.

The Cruz bill goes even further -- a) it empowers private citizens to sue for the damages that the state 'caused' in its failures in the above; an b) it specifically strips states of sovereign immunity from suit and must face those claims that come forward.

In essence the Cruz bill is a the equivalent of the sign in the shop that says 'you break it, you pay for it'.

But there are major political problems with this: a) we all know that a reading of anything legal in the progressive worldview is subject to the 'translation de jour'; and b) you absolutely know that the progressives will never agree that such an obligation exists, and that even if it does, how dare that the defaulting party bear the burden, because, well, Orange Man Bad overrides anything.