Tuesday, March 13, 2018

A Modern Battle of Little Rock

Before you read on, read this post from 10 years ago.

I don't like the idea of sending in the army to enforce federal law.  As I said in that post, though, the mayor of Little Rock as well as President Eisenhower were both thoughtful, decent men, and the outcome was actually the best possible outcome under the circumstances.

Today's role of Arkansas Governor Faubus is played by California's very own Jerry Brown.  And US Attorney General Sessions has filed a lawsuit (better than sending in the army, at least for now) against California:
The attorney general has filed a lawsuit challenging three California laws: one prohibiting certain information-sharing between state and federal authorities, one that requires the California state attorney general to “inspect” any facilities holding illegal immigrants, and one that bars private employers from cooperating with federal authorities. According to the Justice Department, “The Supremacy Clause does not allow California to obstruct the United States’ ability to enforce laws that Congress has enacted or to take actions entrusted to it by the Constitution.”
Admittedly, the first two challenges are on shaky legal ground.  The third one, though, is built on the Rock of Gibraltar:
To the extent that California is actively interfering with federal immigration enforcement, as opposed to merely passively refusing to cooperate, the federal government may well have a case here. But I wonder if Sessions’ rather strong rhetoric points to a potential federal response that goes beyond litigation. It wouldn’t be the first time a president has sent troops to enforce federal law when local officials stood in the way.
Operation Arkansas and the Battle of Little Rock.  If an Operation California is in the offing, history will repeat itself with a Republican president siding against unlawful and unjust acts of a Democratic state government.

I think another time in US history when a Republican president had to use the army against Democratically-controlled states kinda goes without saying.

As I said above, we got the best possible outcome in 1957.  In today's situation would we be looking at 1957 results, or 1865 results?  That such a question can even be suggested shows how bad one-party rule under liberals in California truly is.

No comments: