David Horowitz: Democrats are the party of hate

You have been judged as a heretic in this forum because of your opinions regarding feminism. That you hold to just about all of the rest of the left-wing orthodoxy doesn't matter.

Did you read the part about "these issues are decided by the courts"?

If you word this as an ethical argument, then it is perfectly reasonable. Usually there is no point in arguing over ethical principles. They are based on core values... and different people have different core values.

And your core value is different than mine on this? Ethical arguments are far more material than legal ones in terms of what is wrong or right.

In my view, there are more important ethical principles at play at this issue.

Like what?

This ethical argument has nothing to do with rule of law. In reality, we have courts that listen to the arguments of both sides and then render a decision based only on the evidence and the law.

Obviously, and we need to abide by those decisions, but it sounds like you are arguing: "If we have really clever lawyers we can get around the law to satisfy our emotional desires"

Both sides of a legal case come to a court hearing prepared with an interpretation of the law that favors the outcome they want. You can't assume that the conservative side will always win (any more than I can assume the liberal side will always win). Often the there are competing arguments that both have some validity. The court has to decide between them.

With respect: Blah, blah, blah. You keep writing this. Where have I ever indicated that I assume the "conservative side" will or even should win? If you want to keep dodging the ethical issue, I can't stop you.

I thought it was funny that this time I am invoking states rights, and I said so.

Is there something else?

the Supreme Court struck down most of Arizona's immigration legislation, siding with the Obama administration and immigrant rights activists who argued that Arizona's law intruded on the federal government's well-established authority over immigration.

a sanctuary city is a city that limits its cooperation with the national government effort to enforce immigration law.

So far it seems like on this one point at least, the courts are agreeing with my side.

The issue in the Sanctuary State bills is whether the Federal Government can force local and state police departments to cooperate with Federal enforcement. These bills aren't suggesting that federal agents can't operate in the state. It is only saying that enforcing federal law is not the responsibility of the local police.

This is civics 101. It is ridiculous that we would even argue this.

But then these state official began to be tried in federal courts, where stiff penalties, including the death penalty, could be handed out for such civil rights violations as failing to afford equal protection to all it's citizens.

I am curious. Link please? I couldn't find any record of this is a quick google search.

Conspiracy Against Rights—18 U.S.C. §2414

18 U.S.C. §241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any persons of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States (or because of his/her having exercised the same).”

Punishment for violations includes a fine and/or imprisonment for a maximum of 10 years. The law provides greater punishment to violators if their acts result in death (or an attempt to kill) or include kidnapping (or an attempt to kidnap) or aggravated sexual abuse (or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse). Under such heightened circumstances, offenders may face face life imprisonment or the death penalty.

Can a state impede federal authorities from enforcing their own law if the state deems the law to be unconstitutional. The answer is “No."

Nullification attempts have failed on three occasions: In 1828, South Carolina tried to nullify two national tariffs. President Andrew Jackson proclaimed nullification to be treason; Congress authorized Jackson to send troops, and the state backed down. In 1859, the Supreme Court rejected nullification in Ableman v. Booth.

Booth had frustrated recapture of a slave in violation of the Fugitive Slave Act. Wisconsin’s Supreme Court held the act unconstitutional, but the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the conviction. In 1958, after southern states refused to integrate their schools, the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Aaron held that nullification “is not a constitutional doctrine … it is illegal defiance of constitutional authority.”