More Than 200 Sanctuary Cities Across The United States
Alan: Does "The Right of Sanctuary" degrade The Rule of Law, or paradoxically enhance it?
Sanctuary and The Right of Asylum
Wikipedia
Right of asylum
Main article: Right of asylum
Many ancient peoples recognized a religious right of asylum, protecting criminals (or those accused of crime) from legal action and from exile to some extent. This principle was adopted by the early Christian church, and various rules developed for what the person had to do to qualify for protection and just how much protection it was.
In England, King Æthelberht made the first laws regulating sanctuary in about AD 600, though Geoffrey of Monmouth in his Historia Regum Britanniae (c. 1136) says that the legendary pre-Saxon king Dunvallo Molmutius (4th/5th century BC) enacted sanctuary laws in the Molmutine Laws as recorded by Gildas (c. 500–570).[2] By Norman times, there had come to be two kinds of sanctuary: All churches had the lower-level kind, but only the churches the king licensed had the broader version. The medieval system of asylum was finally abolished entirely in England by James I in 1623.[3]
Dear Fred,
Thanks for your email.
Good question about sanctuary cities...
In my view, an intrinsic feature of American governance is that local political bodies "test the waters" to see what "they can get away with" under aegis of "subsidiarity."
Sanctuary cities are a case in point.
If "the Feds" choose NOT to crack down on sanctuary cities, what emerges is a law which multi-jurisdictional executive bodies - in coordination - choose not to execute: in consequence, the law "stays on the books" but "authorities" overlook it.
On the other hand, if the Feds choose to crack down on sanctuary cities -- and the sanctuary cities resist -- then it is up to the Feds to bring in The National Guard to enforce submission.
Or not.
Or not.
If the Feds succeed (and are not over-ruled by The Supremes), it is appropriate, under Rule of Law, that the Feds work their will. Like Mao said: "Political power comes from the barrel of a gun."
Right now, if all skeletons were out of my closet (and the statute of limitations did not apply) and "the authorities" chose to charge me with every felony infraction of which I am guilty, I suspect I'd be sent down river for dozens of crimes.
At bedrock, it is always a question of which battles we choose.
It is standard operating procedure for governments to create enough laws to ensure that everyone is guilty of something. This enables selective prosecution whenever authorities deem it necessary to punish or incarcerate someone.
Blacks Arrested For Contraband Twice As Often As Whites Though Much Less Likely To Have Contraband
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/04/blacks-2x-as-likely-to-be-arrested-for.html
Sanctuary Cities successfully navigate "end-runs" around laws that were passed by small, rural states which are disproportionately represented in Congress and therefore anti-democratic by the "one person, one vote" principle.
"The Small State Senate Bias"
***
Consider:
The sale of recreational marijuana remains a felony in 11 states.
I do not know if these 11 states still bring felony charges for marijuana crimes but I hope not.
It is not because I undervalue The Rule of Law that I hope such laws are not enforced but because the The Law, with surprising regularity, has its head jammed in The Dark Place.
Of course, my personal preference -- and The Rule of Law -- can be very different things.
Even so, if a state chooses to impose The Rule of Law -- even though it contradicts my desires -- I acknowledge its legal right to do so.
As always, definition comes into play.
St. Augustine (354-430), in Book IV of The City of God, relates the story about the pirate who had been seized and brought before Alexander the Great. The cheeky pirate asks Alexander what is the real difference between a pirate and an emperor apart from the scale of action
In the end, I have no objection to Kim Davis taking a stand.
However, I much prefer Christians take stands that don't "wreck the brand."
Although Bertrand Russell pointed out that he found no New Testament verse praising human intellect, the future of Christianity is much too important to be left to dimwits.
Christians Are Their Own Worst Enemy: Wrecking The Brand
It has occurred to me that Laura Wood is probably "wrecking the brand" for her own children. Either they will succumb to "the party line," or, as rebellious teens, they will be flabbergasted that "orthodox Christianity" made Mom "fall" so hard for white supremacy that she ended up a conspiracy theorist who chose David Duke as an ideological bed-mate.
"Jesus In The Talmud" By Peter Schafer... Brought To You By "The Thinking Housewife"
On the other hand, a real moral stand -- a stand that is begging to be taken -- is the conscientious position that Americans should not have to violate their moral integrity by paying that portion of their federal taxes which support The Military-Industrial Complex, an "agency" dedicated -- 23/7 and trans-generationally -- to fucking us in the ass while fostering an international milieu that reduces entire cultures to rubble. (You would think sodomy alone would prompt Christians to protest.)
"Do War's Really Defend America's Freedom?"
(Homage Marine Commandant, Major General Smedley Butler)
Admittedly, Uncle Sam gets plenty of help from assholes all over the world.
But in the end it takes two to tango.
Well, It's One, Two, Three, Who Are We Fighting For?"
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/05/well-its-one-two-three-who-are-we.html
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Fred Owens <froghospital911@gmail.com> wrote:
Cities grant sanctuary to illegal immigrants in defiance of federal law
,is that all right?But I 'm arguing tactics....going for 100 percent victory is a form of absolutism...Even the Supreme Court was divided 5-4on gaymarriage
On Friday, September 4, 2015, Alan Archibald <alanarchibaldo@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Fred,
Thanks for your email.I agree with the shell of your argument but in this instance, not its content.The Kim Davises of the world will not be stomped out but a public servant's refusal to provide public service will come to an end.It is a non-negotiable.Either she does her job as a public servant, or she quits her government job.The following argument is at least as strong -- theologically and politically -- as the case Kim is trying to make.Gospel Of Mark: Why Doesn't Kim Davis Deny Marriage Licenses To The Previously Divorced?
The fact that American Christians don't see the denial of marriage licenses to the previously divorced as being an equally strong argument to denying licenses to human beings wanting to get married for the first time is an indicator of why shifting sensibilities guarantee 100% compliance over the short-to-intermediate term.Theologically -- and scripturally -- it makes more sense to keep marriages together -- and not give people a second chance if they blow the first one -- than to prevent people who love one another from making a ritual life-long commitment in the first place.I have the feeling I'm leaving something out.But a prior commitment in Durham prevents me from brooding this email any longer.Pax tecum
Alan
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Fred Owens <froghospital911@gmail.com> wrote:
Proponents of gay marriage pursue total victory and 100 percent compliance. This is never a good idea, for any movement. Sensible people quit at 98 percent and call the rest a sampling error..You speak often of the dangers of absolutism -- well, we see it at work here.Attempts to stamp out the likes of Kim Davis will backfire. I guarantee it
No comments:
Post a Comment