Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Enforcing the laws on the books

qneill
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 1:09:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Recently in Texas a state senator (Donna Campbell) submitted a constitutional amendment to prohibit state agencies from enforcing penalties related to Obamacare:

http://www.senate.state.tx.us...

This got me to thinking - is it possible our state agents or the federal agents in our state could coerce resident federal agents to enforce their own laws? The absurdity of passing more immigration reform laws when the previous laws from the 1980s and 1990s aren't being enforced is mind-boggling.

I'm wondering if there is statutory support for e.g. the state Attorney General to file federal complaints against, prosecute, agents who do not enforce laws they are sworn to uphold. In other words, you can go to jail if you don't do your sworn job. You are appointed or you are elected, you serve, you get benefits; but if you screw up or loaf off or bring politics into the matter, you go to jail.

If there is no such statutory support, is it time to draft, lobby for, and pass such "Teeth in Government Accountability" laws?
--
qneill
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 3:14:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 1:09:20 PM, qneill wrote:
Recently in Texas a state senator (Donna Campbell) submitted a constitutional amendment to prohibit state agencies from enforcing penalties related to Obamacare:

http://www.senate.state.tx.us...

This got me to thinking - is it possible our state agents or the federal agents in our state could coerce resident federal agents to enforce their own laws? The absurdity of passing more immigration reform laws when the previous laws from the 1980s and 1990s aren't being enforced is mind-boggling.

I'm wondering if there is statutory support for e.g. the state Attorney General to file federal complaints against, prosecute, agents who do not enforce laws they are sworn to uphold. In other words, you can go to jail if you don't do your sworn job. You are appointed or you are elected, you serve, you get benefits; but if you screw up or loaf off or bring politics into the matter, you go to jail.

If there is no such statutory support, is it time to draft, lobby for, and pass such "Teeth in Government Accountability" laws?

No idea if it is even constitutional for states to not enforce federal laws. Can states be allow to stop enforcing federal laws just because states do not think the laws are acceptable?

Quote: "Keeping Teas strong means standing up against the bad policies of Washington D.C. Washington may think these type of penalties are acceptable, but Texans do not."

Moreover, "this bill will prevent Texas agencies from being used in such an unsavory manner." So it seems that Washington can simply send Federal agencies (not Texas agencies) to finish its job. If it is the case, then what kind of difference does this amendment make?
qneill
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 9:57:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 3:14:46 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 4/19/2013 1:09:20 PM, qneill wrote:
Recently in Texas a state senator (Donna Campbell) submitted a constitutional amendment to prohibit state agencies from enforcing penalties related to Obamacare:

http://www.senate.state.tx.us...

This got me to thinking - is it possible our state agents or the federal agents in our state could coerce resident federal agents to enforce their own laws? The absurdity of passing more immigration reform laws when the previous laws from the 1980s and 1990s aren't being enforced is mind-boggling.



If there is no such statutory support, is it time to draft, lobby for, and pass such "Teeth in Government Accountability" laws?

No idea if it is even constitutional for states to not enforce federal laws. Can states be allow to stop enforcing federal laws just because states do not think the laws are acceptable?

I too pondered the federal constitutionality of such an amendment.

I think the novelty is in turning the government on itself to do the will of the people. It seems in the past agents were compelled by oaths, oversight, "checks and balances", and common sense but the world has changed. Thus my musings about using judicial and even criminal prosecution to get administrators to do the job the laws prescribe. At the very least it would shine light into what they are doing.

We've seen how ineffective congressional oversight can be, what consequences did H. Clinton face for getting one of her ambassadors killed? Might be a different story for local feds. Imagine if the State Police or Texas Rangers showed up at INS with subpoenas and search warrants and ended up putting some desk jockeys behind bars for malfeasance. What would their defense be? Because our boss told us to do it?

Moreover, "this bill will prevent Texas agencies from being used in such an unsavory manner." So it seems that Washington can simply send Federal agencies (not Texas agencies) to finish its job. If it is the case, then what kind of difference does this amendment make?

I wonder if we haven't seen a foreshadowing of that with Texas Law enforcement declaring they would not permit federal agencies to collect arms from the citizenry.
--
qneill
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 10:42:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 9:57:01 PM, qneill wrote:
At 4/19/2013 3:14:46 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 4/19/2013 1:09:20 PM, qneill wrote:
Recently in Texas a state senator (Donna Campbell) submitted a constitutional amendment to prohibit state agencies from enforcing penalties related to Obamacare:

http://www.senate.state.tx.us...

This got me to thinking - is it possible our state agents or the federal agents in our state could coerce resident federal agents to enforce their own laws? The absurdity of passing more immigration reform laws when the previous laws from the 1980s and 1990s aren't being enforced is mind-boggling.



If there is no such statutory support, is it time to draft, lobby for, and pass such "Teeth in Government Accountability" laws?

No idea if it is even constitutional for states to not enforce federal laws. Can states be allow to stop enforcing federal laws just because states do not think the laws are acceptable?

I too pondered the federal constitutionality of such an amendment.

I think the novelty is in turning the government on itself to do the will of the people. It seems in the past agents were compelled by oaths, oversight, "checks and balances", and common sense but the world has changed. Thus my musings about using judicial and even criminal prosecution to get administrators to do the job the laws prescribe. At the very least it would shine light into what they are doing.

We've seen how ineffective congressional oversight can be, what consequences did H. Clinton face for getting one of her ambassadors killed? Might be a different story for local feds. Imagine if the State Police or Texas Rangers showed up at INS with subpoenas and search warrants and ended up putting some desk jockeys behind bars for malfeasance. What would their defense be? Because our boss told us to do it?
Indeed, it amused me that Texas attempted to derail the ObamaCare through constitutional amendment. But to the best of my recollection, Federal law has pre-emptive effect over states law. So it would be very interesting to see how administration would respond to the event if Texas managed to get its way. But my impression is always that one way or another, Federal government always gets what it wants. I would argue that if states genuinely believe ObamaCare would corrupt the Health Care market, just let President have his mandate. After a while, when the premium soars beyond human imagination, Republicans can use its failure as a weapon to attack Democrats.

Moreover, "this bill will prevent Texas agencies from being used in such an unsavory manner." So it seems that Washington can simply send Federal agencies (not Texas agencies) to finish its job. If it is the case, then what kind of difference does this amendment make?

I wonder if we haven't seen a foreshadowing of that with Texas Law enforcement declaring they would not permit federal agencies to collect arms from the citizenry.
if Texas managed to pass its constitutional amendment successfully, we may expect in the near future, Texas Law enforcement would declare they would not permit federal agencies to collect arms from the citizenry.
qneill
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 12:23:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 10:42:32 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:

if Texas managed to pass its constitutional amendment successfully, we may expect in the near future, Texas Law enforcement would declare they would not permit federal agencies to collect arms from the citizenry.

It is already happening in more than just Texas:
http://cspoa.org...

And we see opponents moving to legislate against it as well:
http://washingtonexaminer.com...

Are we seeing an acceleration in specialized legislation?

Perhaps the legislative branch will trivialize itself into irrelevancy, because otherwise I guess we are losing control of our government.
--
qneill