Moved by data, not doctrine.
AFter the ruling from the judge today in ARizona (that essentially there is no illegality in being illegal), we need to do something radical. If enforcements agents of the state cannotbe required to enforce federal law, then, I'd conclude that a locality cannot require its enforcement agents to enforce state laws.Doesn't this mean then that my local cop cannot give me a ticket for not having a vehicle registration tag on my automobile, something required by the state?When laws cannot be enforced by the ruling of a judge, we have a society that promotes anarchy.So, let's roll.
Mr Jefferson's interpretation of "we" wasn't very literal.
Actually, I guess it means that I don't even need to give my local cop who pulls me over for a traffic infraction my driver's license.True, my town has a right to require me to follow local traffic laws, but if I follow the "logic" of this judge's ruling, my town doesn't have a right to require the local officer to demand my driver's licence after he pulls me over since in CA it's the state that requires possession at all times of a valid and up-to-date driver's license and proof of insurance as well as vehicle tags. It's the state that issues all those things as well.Wait. I am not even sure that the traffic laws are "local laws." They are, actually, state laws. So, again, according to this judge's ruling, doesn't this mean no local authority, local or county, can enforce any laws governing the driving of a car?I hope this affects all election results. I'd vote for a duck over anyone with a "D" by his or her name.
Post a Comment