The Second Civil War …

That’s what’s shaping up, folks. 

The first one was fought over slavery and states’ rights. Everyone remembers the slavery part, but few on the left remember the states’ rights part. 

When some states opted to secede, rather than give in to Federal authority on a variety of issues including slavery, a real war started. The South lost, mostly because it lacked the industrial might and population of the North. A clear message was also sent that states couldn’t decide which Federal law, regulation or ruling to obey, nor could any state law supersede those.  

States’ rights came up again in the battle to desegregate parts of the South in the 1950s and 60s.  Some states in the South claimed the Federal government had no authority to overturn state laws that segregated blacks from whites. Defending those states’ position were a large number of prominent Democrats in Congress, many who also opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Ultimately, the Federal government sent troops to enforce desegregation, and it took Democrat Presidents – with the overwhelming support of Republicans in Congress and scant support from their Democrat counterparts – to buck their own party and pass the Civil Rights Act. 

It’s still surprising to me that so many people see Democrats as the champions of civil rights. Perhaps their American History classes never covered the shameful role of so many Democrats during the fight for civil rights.  Those classes apparently now focus more on America’s disgraceful treatment of Native Americans, our internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, our role in subverting democratically elected governments during the Cold War, our legacy of slavery, and the role of women and minorities in the American Revolution.

On social issues there’s probably more coverage about the power of the modern Federal government – especially the courts – to do “the right thing.” Even when states disagree. 

States really can’t pass and enforce laws – no matter how popular in their particular state – with the goal of thwarting Federal authority. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) has always been held to mean that when state laws or even state constitutions conflict with Federal law or Federal court decisions, Federal law prevails. 

That’s the basis of Federalism. 

The Supremacy Clause is also a back door activists like to use especially to kill state laws and regulations they don’t like.  Instead, they often go for Federal court decisions to win the day.  They know if a state law outlawing same-sex marriage is overturned by U.S. Supreme Court then all fundamentally similar state laws are invalid. If the Supreme Court rules that women have the right to an abortion then abortion cannot be made illegal by any state law. If they can persuade a majority on the Supreme Court that a state voter ID law is discriminatory, then they can stop other states from enforcing a similar law, even if those laws were approved by a public referendum.   

That’s how the left and liberals deploy the Supremacy Clause. 

Except when they don’t want to. 

Which brings us to today. 

There are long-standing Federal laws against illegal immigration.    

Those laws can only be changed by an act of the U.S. Congress.  Those laws have not been changed by Congress, so those laws are still in effect. And because of the same Supremacy Clause the left so loves for other matters, those laws are still applicable to every state and every locality therein. 

You might think it’s a settled matter – after all doesn’t the Supremacy Clause make it clear that Federal law supersedes any state law or local law to the contrary? 

However, all of a sudden politicians in several left-leaning states are enthusiasts of states’ rights; the same people who wave around the Supremacy Clause when it suits them.

The California Senate has approved a bill (SB54) preventing their state and local law enforcement agencies and other public institutions from cooperating with Federal agents attempting to execute lawful orders to find, detain and deport illegal immigrants.

Major cities across the country, such as New York, Chicago and San Francisco, and hundreds of others, are passing similar laws and asserting that as sanctuary cities they will no longer assist Federal agents in catching and deporting illegal immigrants – even those with repeated felony convictions.  Recently, an Oregon judge hearing the case of an illegal immigrant facing deportation by ICE helped that immigrant to escape through a side door to avoid Federal agents. 

They claim it’s a states’ rights issue. They also claim it’s a civil rights issue.  Because they don’t feel the current Federal laws are moral and just, they don’t have to abide by Federal law on immigration, nor do they have to assist Federal agents trying to enforce Federal law. 

California politicians – and the mayors of the sanctuary cities – are openly defying the Federal government to do anything about their flaunting of Federal immigration laws.

There’s even a nascent movement in California to secede from the United States.

Let’s hope California succeeds with that. I for one would not miss California one bit.  I believe a lot of people in the rest of this country would be happy to see them go. We could close up all our military bases there saving billions and allow the new Socialist Republic of Mexifornia to defend itself.  Plus, we wouldn’t have to listen to Nancy Pelosi ever again. 

Still, if the overall nullification logic – if not the precise circumstances – seems eerily familiar, it’s because it echoes the sentiments of slave holders in the South leading up to the Civil War: the Federal government has no legal authority to overturn state and local laws in conflict with Federal laws. In this case it’s not slavery, but illegal immigration. But the logic is the same. 

Ah, so much for the Supremacy Clause.  Apparently, it only applies when you want it to apply, and when it suits your purpose.      

Under Obama, nothing happened. However, under Trump a lot could.  

He’s certainly no Abraham Lincoln or JFK, but as President he has the same authority to use Federal troops if necessary to enforce Federal law. 

Make no mistake: there are Federal laws concerning illegal immigration; laws some states and hundreds of so-called sanctuary cities are openly defying.  The Federal government has the ultimate authority on immigration according to the Constitution, and the President has an obligation under his oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of the United States – something Obama ignored. 

Right now the left is cheering the defiance of Federal law on illegal immigration. They particularly like the resistance to any of Trump’s immigration orders.  Once again they are cherry-picking Federal courts to halt Trump’s orders, setting up a final battle in the U.S. Supreme Court.   

When that case does get to the Supreme Court, it will probably hold that, as President, Trump has the legal authority to issue restrictions on immigration. It will also probably hold that Federal immigration laws supersede state and local laws that conflict.

Then what? 

If I were the current sanctuary states and cities, I wouldn’t push back too hard.

Trump’s not Obama.