|3 votes (42.85%)|
|4 votes (57.14%)|
7 members have voted
Quote: Amendment #14, section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Quote: Possible precedent
In 1983 the Takoma Park City Council enacted the Takoma Park Nuclear-Free Zone Act and established the Nuclear-Free Takoma Park Committee to oversee implementation of and adherence to the Act. The act prohibs "work on nuclear weapons is prohibited within the city limits and that citizens and representatives are urged to redirect resources previously used for nuclear weapons toward endeavors which promote and enhance life...." .
* Prohibits the production of nuclear weapons in the City of Takoma Park;
* Prohibits the City from purchasing or leasing products produced by a nuclear weapons producer or from granting any award, contract, or purchase order to any nuclear weapons producer;
* Directs the City Council to establish and publish a list of nuclear weapons producers to guide the City in implementing the Act;
* Directs the City to develop and implement a socially-responsible investment policy prohibiting investments in industries and institutions engaged in nuclear weapons production;
* Provides for a waiver of the purchasing prohibitions, under certain conditions; and
*Establishes the seven member Nuclear Free Takoma Park Committee, appointed by the Mayor and City Council, to oversee implementation of and adherence to, the Act
We settled this in the 1860's during the war of the Southern Uprising. The main catalyst was when they wanted to keep slaves and marry their sisters.
Do you think states should be in the business of introducing bills that seemingly violate the constitution as interpreted by the courts?
Do you think states should be in the business of introducing bills that seemingly violate the constitution as interpreted by the courts? Certainly the question of national citizenship is not a state matter.
I would appreciate answers about "state's rights" and procedures, not opinions about anchor babies. Is Arizona legally and morally right in trying to pass this law?
Sanctuary cities seem to be a very easy way for a city to get around a law. I'm not aware of many other issues of this size where whole cities have policies to just ignore certain laws. They didn't have to create a bill or law for that. They simply needed to go to the enforcers and tell them not to enforce the particular laws.