(NationalSentinel) For most of the past 166 years since California became part of the U.S, the Golden State has complied with federal laws. That included all eight years of the Obama administration.
But apparently, the election of Donald J. Trump has changed all of that.
Legal battles are on the way, and, some say, maybe a real fight someday down the road.
As reported by The Washington Post, Trump, on Sunday during a pre-Super Bowl interview with Fox News‘ Bill O’Reilly, was asked about California’s recalcitrance to his goal of ending sanctuary cities.
“I just spent the week in California,” O’Reilly said. “As you know, they are now voting on whether they should become a sanctuary state. So California and the U.S.A. are on a collision course. How do you see it?”
“Well, I think it’s ridiculous,” Trump replied. “Sanctuary cities, as you know I’m very much opposed to sanctuary cities. They breed crime, there’s a lot of problems. We have to well defund, we give tremendous amounts of money to California. . . . California in many ways is out of control, as you know. Obviously the voters agree or otherwise they wouldn’t have voted for me.”
“So defunding is your weapon of choice?” O’Reilly inquired.
“A weapon. I don’t want to defund the state,” Trump responded. “I don’t want to defund anybody. I want to give them the money they need to properly operate as a city or a state. If they’re going to have sanctuary cities, we may have to do that. Certainly that would be a weapon.”
The Post goes on to essentially do what it always does when the subject comes to Trump: Bash what he says, attempt to prove him wrong, and generally take the opposite position that he takes.
Okay, so maybe California does contribute more in federal funding than it takes; so maybe violent crime in many sanctuary cities is lower than non-sanctuary cities (are there any of those?). So what?
The point Trump is making is irrefutable: Cities and, if California voters decide, the entire state, cannot be “sanctuary cities,” period. Federal law supersedes state and local laws, thanks to the Constitution’s supremacy clause.
In other words, to the nimrod reporters at the Post, one of the last election cycle’s biggest purveyors of fake news, it really comes down to this: California does not have the right, legally or otherwise, to disobey, disrupt or ignore federal laws governing immigration. Besides having statutory authority, the federal government has constitutional authority; Article I, Sect. 8, gives Congress, not Gov. Brown or the California Assembly, authority to make rules governing naturalization.
The fact is California Democrats are in the wrong here, period. And whether Trump uses federal funding as a “weapon” to convince California legislators and Gov. Brown or actual weapons, the president has the authority to enforce federal law and a duty to uphold the Constitution.
And no amount of “analysis” by the Post changes this.
The Trump administration and California lawmakers may well be on a collision course, but it’s because of choices being made in Sacramento, not Washington, D.C.