​The Graham-Cassidy reform-and-perhaps-replace-but-not-really-repeal plan has earned praise from a fair amount of analysts on rightish side of center, and it does indeed use a vigorous federalism as it’s guiding principle, kicking the debate down to the individual state level.

This is really chasing the emerging reality. Texas already delivers health care in ways that are different from New York or California. Graham-Cassidy would give states more room to work out their own solutions by block-granting money that would have gone to Medicaid expansion or premium tax credits under the Affordable Care Act. You want single-payer and high taxes? Move to California. You want affordable premiums and higher-deductible plans that mean you pay more for day to day health care but you’re covered for the larger expenses you may face? But lower taxes and more jobs? Move to Texas.

Their plan is a reasonable solution to what is becoming an unbridgeable gap between Democrats who now increasingly pledge their allegiance to single-payer systems (until they find out what rationing is like when it comes to healhcare) and Republicans who want real choice and real competition in the health insurance market.

Ah, the health INSURANCE market. Yes, insurance industry lobbyists have been a constraint on innovation you might say. But, health CARE is so much more than just insurance premiums. That is not a clarion call for big spending, by the way. It’s merely to point out that a major factor in increasing premiums is often lost in the current debate:

Hospitals in America are producing very high-cost products and services and are a supported by powerful lobbyists that do their share of whispering and bending ears to ensure that innovative competitive solutions do not threaten their cozy, coast-to-coast oligopoly.

One reason for this is the employer-based plans where customers don’t see the true cost and thus the true price of the health services they select. So the big and fat and getting fatter hospital networks can keep raising prices far beyond what almost any other industry is able to get away with. And if money from employer-based plans is not enough to cover the increases, why there’s always the federal government.

So let’s hope that if Graham-Cassidy can get passed into law – and it perhaps just might – then the next step would be to look at freeing up healthcare in America from the welter of self-serving regulations that keep competitors at bay. And maybe the state level is indeed the best place to attempt those types of innovations

​It seems we were all hasty, according to Byron York. In a cautionary tale, he gives a warning well worth listening to in his recent piece in The Washington Examiner. Despite the AP headlines about an imminent deal between the White House and Pelosi, Schumer & Aides Inc. it may be that the tweeting was hasty, as tweeting is wont to be.

Here’s the statement or note Pelosi passed to her Democrat colleagues in Congress the morning after the infamous dinner:

“We agreed to a plan to work out an agreement to protect our nation’s DREAMERS from deportation.”

Ok. So they agreed to a plan to work out an agreement. That’s at least 3 degrees of separation from an actual, bona fide, signed in soya sauce on a linen napkin agreement.

You agree. To a plan. To work out. An agreement. To protect. DREAMERS from deportation.

Pelosi, Schumer & Aides Inc. couldn’t have covered their alleyways any better. But neither AP, nor NeverTrump’ers, nor Angry Trump supporters, nor the rest of us, got that detail right. The point being that the suspicion that a deal with Democrats on anything on the part of the president, might be possible after the initial pivot is what triggered much of this reaction.

Here’s the thing. Trump doesn’t need to stop tweeting. That’s impossible. He needs to have someone helping him to get out in front with his tweeting. You do dinner with Nancy and Chuck, you have a few options on what you tweet. And you tweet before they do. Or you put up with their tweets. Rather than chase their tweets from behind, like a angry Top Gun chasing a Chinese surface to air missile, which is what President Trump was forced to do.

So after the big UN week in Manhattan. And after the speculation about whether UN Ambassador Haley is already gunning for Tillerson’s job at State. And after Hurricane Maria hits Puerto Rico and the island territory demands billions more in aid. After all that, we will still have the White House and Congress with a packed agenda this fall. And both sides of the aisle matter in whatever deals get done and whatever bills get passed. Even if it’s to ignore one side or the other on any specific issue.

President Trump needs to weaponize his tweeting impulses. No he hasn’t done that yet. They have been more like loose ordinance so far, causing smoke and debris to scatter around. He needs instead to target his tweets like well-aimed missiles, aimed straight at the narrative media groups like AP or Democrat Senators construct on a daily basis.

Should the Constitution be a Living Document?

© 2017 Steve Feinstein. All rights reserved.

Although President Kennedy’s inaugural speech in January 1961 is more famous (“Ask not what your country can do for you….”), President Eisenhower’s farewell speech from January 1961 contained many themes and ideas that could still be thought of as being quite relevant, even today.

Excerpts follow:

Throughout America’s adventure in free government, such basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle – with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties:

- A huge increase in the newer elements of our defenses

- Development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill

- A dramatic expansion in basic and applied research

 These and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

Although Eisenhower was obviously referring to Soviet-backed communism with his use of the phrase “hostile ideology global in scope, ruthless in purpose, insidious in method,” that phrase could just as easily refer to current Islamic terrorism or Iranian/North Korean nuclear adventurism.

Additionally, his opining that there might be a great, overreaching hope of a “miraculous solution” to the problems facing the country is evidence of the tempting thought that pursuing successful Government-sponsored outcomes—no matter how questionable their chances for success—was just as prevalent 55+ years ago as it is today.

All of which brings up the question of how useful are older documents and thoughts—past speeches, old papers, even the Constitution—in providing useful, relevant guidance and example to current situations?

Many conservatives are quick to state that the Constitution remains perfectly relevant, that the principles laid out by the Founding Fathers are timelessly brilliant and insightful, and that the basic rights and guidelines established by the Constitution and its amendments are still applicable today, even to situations not specifically envisioned by the Framers.

Similarly, many liberals are of a different mindset completely, thinking that while the Constitution and other older documents and speeches are interesting and worthy of academic study, they can’t necessarily be taken in their totality as serious guides for today’s actions. Those who question the Constitution’s modern-day relevance often cite that although it may be a useful teacher for presenting issues and philosophies that were in effect at the time of its enactment (late 1700’s), the pace of change in society continues to accelerate, sometimes so fast that the Constitution—while perhaps worthy of review and contemplation as an historical document—is simply not equal to the task of providing a useful legal roadmap, or in too many instances, of providing any substantive guidance to modern culture and law at all.

Inherent in modern-day liberals’ dismissal of the notion of the “wisdom of the Founding Fathers” is their (liberals’) feeling that the societal norms that were in effect at the time of the Constitution’s authorship (such as widespread slave ownership, rampant sexism by current-day standards— exemplified by the lack of women’s voting rights and their not being allowed to hold elective office–along with profound gender, racial and ethnic inequality in professional and educational opportunities, etc.) render invalid any legally-binding positions offered by the Founders.

In a fascinating question-and-answer event in 2005 between Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer, the question was broached as to when and how the concept of a “living” Constitution came to be. Scalia opined that the Court first began employing relativism to a significant degree starting around 1945, right after World War II. As Scalia says,

“…the Court adopted the notion that the Constitution is not static. It doesn’t mean what the people voted for when it was ratified. Rather, it changes from era to era to comport with—and this is a quote from our cases, “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” I detest that phrase, because I’m afraid that societies don’t always mature. Sometimes they rot. What makes you think that human history is one upwardly inclined plane: every day, in every way, we get better and better? It seems to me that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to prevent change, not to foster change and have it written into a Constitution.”

Expanding on Scalia’s worry that “societies don’t necessarily mature,” there is ample evidence on both sides of that argument. Advanced technology has certainly made many facets of current American life better than our forbearers could have envisioned in their wildest dreams. But while professional, societal (choice of housing location, religious freedom, recreational associations, etc.) and educational equality and opportunity have improved immeasurably in the United States since the late 1700’s, many aspects of American society have demonstrably not “evolved and progressed.” The unquestioned rise in public coarseness and vulgarity, the frighteningly high percentage of out-of-wedlock births, the precipitous decline in formal religious practice and the resultantly concomitant drop-off in the practice of ethical, compassionate behavior towards one’s neighbors, co-workers and schoolmates, the rise in addictive drug use, the truly horrifying increase in personal violence and sexual assaults, the indifference to the environment, the valuing of material acquisition over personal integrity and kindness, these are all unequivocal indications of a society that is not evolving and progressing. Technological advancement does not equate to societal evolution.

So, the question remains: Are we a society that is guided by timeless, unique, permanent principles of basic rights as put forth by the Founding Fathers, or are our founding and guiding documents “living” documents whose meaning should change as dictated by current circumstance and outside consensus?

The Constitution has proven uniquely prescient and durable in its ability to anticipate and provide a bedrock for our legal guidelines. Although some may say the question of living vs. static unfairly characterizes things as being an either/or situation, others will be just as quick to point out that evolving standards and ‘living’ documents add up to no standards at all.

Global Warming: The Classic Liberal vs. Conservative Argument

 

© 2017 Steve Feinstein. All rights reserved.

Here is the classic Liberal vs. Conservative Global Warming argument. I started it off with this shot across the bow:

“Global Warming is an irrelevant non-issue. One can believe the Warming alarmists at face value or believe it to be a made-up bunch of politically-driven junk science as you want.

But the fact remains that long before any man-caused “warming” has a permanent negative impact on the world. we’ll be well on our way to using non-CO2-producing energy on a large enough scale that any minuscule amount of “warming” or “higher sea levels” that have occurred in the next few decades will stop and be reversed.

The anti-business, anti-conservative, anti-Western crowd is going to have to fabricate a new boogeyman, because “warming” isn’t it. By the way, the non-CO2-producing energy that solves and eliminates the threat of “warming” is being discovered and developed by conservative Western businessmen. Deliciously ironic, no?”

To which my liberal friend replied:

“For an ‘irrelevant non-issue,’ you’ve written thousands of words on the topic over the years!  Something doesn’t quite compute.  

I know of no evidence supporting your “global warming reversal” conclusion, but I hope you’re right.

Also, what’s “deliciously ironic” about a businessperson, regardless of political affiliation, doing a 180 when there’s a buck to be made?  It’s the oldest game in the book! Thanks.”

I replied—

“It’s Irrelevant in terms of the actuality of it happening, not irrelevant in terms of how significant and emotional a topic it is to many.

The actuality of Global Warming’s long-term permanent negative effects is irrelevant. All the worst-case studies—if you even can believe them at all—say things like, ‘By the end of the century….’ or, ‘In the next few hundred years….’ etc. The Big Cure of non-CO2-emitting energy is coming fast, real fast. A major chunk of car fuel will be non-CO2 within 10-30 years. There are dozens of new technologies or refined existing technologies that are coming on-line in the next few decades and will be deployed/distributed on a widespread enough basis to displace a big portion of fossil fuels and their greenhouse gas emissions. As I said in a recent article, it’s estimated that electric cars alone will replace the equivalent of Saudi Arabia’s entire oil output by 2040. That’s 23 measly years from now.

2040 is pretty far away from ‘next century,’ no? The Warming ‘problem’ goes away, for good, very soon. That’s the absolute definition of ‘irrelevant in actuality.’

Not irrelevant emotionally, however. The Warmers/NY Times/CNN/anti-conservatives love this topic and try to hang every weather-related calamity that happens on conservatives. It’s just that all their dire predictions have failed to come true. Manhattan is not under water like they said in 2008 it would be by 2015, they have no explanation for the 20-year ‘pause’ in the rise in global temperatures, the supposed rise in temps was going to give rise to a wave of pests and bugs that would decimate our food production but that hasn’t happened, the polar bears were going extinct but in fact, their numbers have increased, and the numerous scandals and faulty/fraudulent data put forth by the IPCC is truly staggering. The liberal press covers none of this, of course, but the facts are the facts. Still, I’m not disputing the existence of anthropogenic warming, nor protesting your right to believe it. Knock yourself out. It’s merely irrelevant.

To answer your doubt about my ‘it will reverse’ assertion: When it rains for 3 days straight, the ground is soaked. When it stops raining, the situation reverses and the ground reverts to being dry. When it’s really, really cold, ice forms and precipitation takes the form of snow, not rain. When the situation reverses and it becomes warm again, it doesn’t continue to snow. It rains. But ok, just for the sake of this conversation, let’s posit two things:

  1. Measurable, actual warming has occurred thus far.
  2. When the warming stops, the thus-far effects will not

Well, as we’ve seen from the missed predictions of disaster and the fraudulent data (not all of it has been fraudulent, but a significant amount has been, enough to cast doubt on the ‘unquestionable objectivity’ of the IPCC) that’s been foisted upon us for 15 years, the actual effects of warming have been extremely moderate to date, so moderate that even if those effects were cemented in place for all time, it wouldn’t amount to a hill of beans in terms of negatively impacting anyone’s life here on earth.

And don’t you love how the liberal snoberati live such hysterically hypocritical lives, as they luxuriate in their 3000 sq. ft. air-conditioned homes with multiple big-screen TVs, driving their gasoline-powered vehicles (maybe even SUVs!) and buying all manner of the latest gadgets and fashions, while jetting off on vacation on polluting 737s owned by big corporations. I have yet to encounter a liberal in my life who walks the energy/warming walk, but they sure do love to talk the talk. Talk is cheap.

So, have I written a lot about it? Yup, I have. I have the ability to put forth exceptionally well-worded arguments that infuriate the other side and are close to being unarguable. It’s kind of like rubbing a Yankees fan’s nose in the memory of them being up 3 games to none vs. the Red Sox in 2004 and us coming back to humiliate them, 4 games to 3. It never gets old and I never get tired of doing it.

As for the irony, I think you misinterpret where the irony is. Warmers hate conservative (read: Republican) businessmen, because they (the Warmers) think that conservative businessmen (yes, men) are the cause of all the warming problems because of their ruthless pursuit of immoral profits while willfully ignoring the harm they’re inflicting on the environment.

The irony comes from the fact that it is the very pursuit of these horrible, immoral profits that is producing the cure for Warming. The Warmers’ sworn enemy is solving the problem. Ironic indeed.

My gut feel is that the Warmers would rather some permanent harmful effects be inflicted on the earth than have to admit that 1) Warming was never that big a deal in the first place and 2) Conservative Republicans solved it.

I am 97% sure I’m correct about everything.”

This was a fun dialogue.

​It won’t be single-payer! It won’t be single-payer!

Sorry for shouting at Senator Sanders out here on the sidewalk. Here’s what I mean.

Like in the case of gay marriage or de facto open borders, the Democratic Party is shifting hard to the left on health care, and dragging some moderate or RINO Republicans with them.

Yes, this has to do with Bernie Sander’s surprisingly successful campaign, which ignited millennial interest and brought Scandinavian-style socialism to the doorstep of American politics in a way that previous hard left groups were unable to do. And attitudes are shifting. Whether attitudes are following or leading Sanders’ efforts to introduce single-payer health care in America is something that perhaps the wonks at 538.com can figure out.

But today we hear about Sanders’ plan. And here’s why it will never be truly single-payer.

To achieve single-payer it’s not Trump supporters whose corpses you will have to bulldoze out of the way. They tend to be open to entitlement goodies including government healthcare which in America mostly means Medicare.

It’s the wealthy and solidly upper middle class blue voters in places like NYC and San Francisco that will never, ever, ever give up their employer-based health insurance. To let go of a system that allows them a wealth of choices with regards to their daily health care needs and that their employer mostly foots the bill for, is asking far too much of righteous, well-paid lawyers, accountants, techies, and managerial level workers. They won’t do it, and people like Pelosi and Schumer know this perfectly well because they feel exactly the same way, because that’s also who they are.

So, if over the next few years single-payer becomes a real possibility, how do you preserve employer-based insurance and how the heck do you pay for single-payer? Goodbye corporate tax-cuts? Goodbye tax cuts period, is more like it.

And what model does America look to to consider ideas for Medicare-for-all-except-us-wealthy-liberals?

Here’s a suggestion that President Trump can use in his bargaining with Canada over the northern neighbor’s terms for a revamped NAFTA:

You want to preserve some form of NAFTA up in Canada, on which your wealth greatly depends? You get to send us a committee describing how your single-payer system works. Wait. Wait. Don’t smile. AND. We get to set up employer-based insurance policies for all of you (fairly) wealthy, liberal Canadians. Think of it this way:

Ivanka gets photo ops with their Prime Minister. Smiliing about her universal daycare policy with a rainbow of adorable little kids scattered around them on the White House lawn.

Jared gets photo ops with the CEO’s of Unitedhealth, Wellpoint Inc., Kaiser Foundation Group, Humana, and Aetna. In Ottawa. Smiling next to whoever is in charge of leading Canada’s brave new revamping of it’s creaking government healthcare system.

So Medicare for all can smooth Canadian feathers by asking for their wisdom on how to let government run health care. And American enterprise can uproot Canada’s government monopoly on healthcare and give Canadians something magical … choice of healthcare plans. All in exchange for preserving some form of NAFTA.

And Senator Sanders? He gets to work away in committees on the Hill, arguing over how much to raise taxes on wealthy liberals to pay for his scheme. Unfortunately those raised taxes won’t just be on wealthy liberals, will they?

​”It comes from a recognition that the country largely hates the GOP.”

Who said that and why?

Ben Domenech, publisher of The Federalist and The Transom newsletter. Not a Democrat. Possibly populist leaning in some areas. Accused visciously by NeverTrumpers of being racist in the aftermath of Charlottesville because he said the same as what about 2/3’s of America thinks about pulling down statues across the country. And which he has been saying for years.

Just to be clear about who it is who wrote those words above.

Why those words? Because it seems that Trump Triangulation is a real – if uncertain – possibility. Yes, after his ambush of Ryan and McConnell on Wednesday, the president has the possibility of focusing on issues like infrastructure and trade and NOT on small government. And yes, the GOP is even lower in the polls than the president. Whether Trump has the discipline to triangulate between Democrats and moderate Republicans remains to be seen.

But it’s about more than discipline. Trump seems to need a policy framework. Bannon is gone and Jared and Ivanka are hardly going to provide him with a populist but centrist style of nationalism. And his increasingly establishment qua military White House is hardly the kind to provide him with a recognizable, independent view of America’s and the World’s political issues.

But the question is: does the lack of a consistent policy framework really matter? To his base, the president is a man of character – THEIR kind of character. They don’t need policy frameworks. They are more concerned about results. But the president needs more than his base and thus triangulation.

Here’s where a fascinating article in American Affairs written by Rob Ford’s ex Chief of Staff, G. Mark Towhey, is so relevant. Yes, THAT Rob Ford – Toronto’s ex-mayor.

Here’s the gist of it. A growing number of people are results oriented (a majority has arguably always been) and not ideologically oriented. Think of it this way:

Imagine on the x-axis (horizontal) of a graph you have ideology – to the left is the Left. To the right is … you, guessed it! The Right. Now look at the y-axis. Towards the top of the graph along that vertical line are the ideologically inclined. Towards the bottom of that line are the pragmatists. Now imagine all sorts of little dots scattered around all 4 quadrants of the graph. Upper Right Hand are Right Wing Ideologues. Lower Left Hand quadrant are Left Wing Pragmatists. I will assume you are more than capable of filling in the remaining two quadrants.

Now … draw a long elongated stretched-out circle at the bottom of the graph that gathers in tiny dots on a portion of the Left and much of the Right side, but both sides being pragmatists who want results in their daily lives and don’t give much thought to ideology. You’ve just corralled Trump’s base. Congratulations!

While we raise a storm about a few hundred fascist Neo Nazi’s in Virginia, the real Trump supporters are not about those sort of positions. Does anger at America’s changing and uncertain economic and social fabric matter to them? Of course it does. Are there a small, bigoted minority who want to use Trump to push their agenda? Of course there are. Should Trump have been a little clearer after Charlottesville (and I don’t mean about statues)? Of course he should have.

But if Trump can somehow expand that circle and stretch it out to the left (think of ex Obama voters who voted for him) by achieving measurable, concrete results (no he hasn’t done much yet thanks to Congress mostly; but yes there have been shifts due to executive orders undoing some of Obama’s orders) then triangulation could really work for Trump.

And Towhey’s model also explains the behavior of Trump-supporting evangelicals. They know full well of Trump’s behavior, but they feel his methods – his lack of politically correct hostility – will give them breathing room to live and worship as Christians in America. They are pragmatic when it comes to Trump in order to live as their faith prescribes. That is, they play the top and the bottom of the y-axis.

In other words, behind the theatrical tweets, the president might just prove much more of a centrist pragmatist than either Republicans or Democrats or most of the media give him credit for.

Oh yes. There’s Trump’s policy framework, by the way. A centrist pragmatist who uses populism to keep his base fired up. But who needs to triangulate to get things done. It’s about the y-axis stupid!

​Let’s say that climate alarmists are mostly right and that their meteorological models are reasonably accurate and that after Irma another huge storm hits the Gulf or East coast. So that 3 large storms hit the USA including Harvey in a matter of weeks.

Would the Senate use Irma and Benjy (the name of our theoretical third storm) as excuses to pass otherwise controversial or at least debatable legislation? Amost certainly yes.

Because that’s what they’re doing with Harvey. The Senate has just attached an increase to the debt ceiling to the House bill providing aid for Texas, an aid package that passed in days if not hours in the lower chamber. You want to provide an aid package for Harvey’s victims? Raise the debt limit please. It is thought that the amended bill will be approved anyway by House Republicans when it lands back on their front porch in a day or two.

But it doesn’t stop there. Democrats are insisting that action on DACA accompany any relief package for Texas. You can imagine the language:

The administration will tear these hard-working young Americans from their homes and dump them in countries they don’t know where life is hard and often dangerous!

Democrats can’t stop the aid package, but they sure can ride it for all it’s worth.

In other words an opportunity for avoiding debate on the debt ceiling increase in the case of Senate Republicans, or an oppotunity for provoking partisan name-calling rather than real constructive debate on the part of Democrats in both houses, is what a devastating storm has provided for them.

Now imagine that Congress gets to work – grumpily, divisively, and chaotically – on some sort of revised DACA that deals with these 800,000 young residents who were brought to the counrty illegally. Imagine Hurricaine Irma is as bad as the predictions are saying it will be and that, say, South Florida is hit as hard as Texas, with perhaps more lasting damage because … well they’re not quite Texas and they might not quite have the engineering in place to handle Irma. But then again, South Florida knows hurricanes like almost no other place in America.

More tragic photos. Young kids clinging to parents. Boats with grim looking first responders. Cuban Americans helping elderly retirees from say NYC. Stories of heroic efforts by young Americans who just happen to be DACA beneficiaries.

How does Senator Cotton shoehorn his RAISE Act into the DACA reform process now? He has to give way and live to fight another day, most likely. And that would hold – in this theoretical – for any modest enforcement of immigration law presented as a quid pro quo for giving DACA beneficiaries permanent residence.

Finally, imagine Huricane Benjy (our theoretical third storm) hits the mid-Atlantic seaboard during a mild spell in late October and the photos are of the Potomac overflowing and Trump fleeing in a helicopter to his golf course in New Jersey. Finally after a few days, he tours the still-wrecked Mar a Lago (thanks to Irma) and rambles about how:

A lot of good people … you should them, they’re just great. I mean they are so strong …. this is a disaster … we’re going to get together and solve this, they’re such good people. We have to fix this …

And the president – helped by Ivanka and Jared – proclaims climate change to be the greatest threat ever to mankind and promises a 2 trillion infrastructure bill to build dams, highways, bridges, and everything else under the sun.

And the bill passes both houses with LOTS of pork handed out across the land, as Time Magazine runs a cover of the president looking worried but almost statesmanlike with a title something like:

Trump Turns Against his Deniers.

Doesn’t it seem that Congress loves a good disaster? That every perceived or (in the case of Harvey and most likely Irma) very real disaster is an opportunity that can’t be left to waste. If you’ll forgive the metaphor if you’re shoveling out wet drywall from your home in Houston.

When you paint the world in apocalyptic terms – as climate change narratives tend to do – then a complete lack of deliberation is one consequence – whether untintended or intended. Suddenly we’re all Noah, and everyone’s got climate change religion and a monstrous mega-Ark made by the government is our only last living hope.

Yes, Congress loves a good disaster.

​Donna Carol Voss makes a good point in The Federalist. Sheriff Arpaio was about to go to be sentenced this coming October for defying a judge’s order that set limits on the Arizona police chiefs practice of sweeping up Latinos in traffic stop and searches. He was judged by most people on both sides of the aisle as having broken the law. Specifically for having ignored a judges ruling on what local police can do with respect to immigration law.

Joe Arpaio disagreed with the law, or the judge’s interpretation of the law (which is the same thing really) and refused to obey it. He was roundly condemned by many on both the left and the right.

Sanctuary City Police Departments in places like San Francisco and New Orleans, and Chicago, mandate clearly and specifically against any local police or other official assisting the enforcement of federal immigration law. Section 1373 of the U.S. Code states that local officials may not prohibit or restrict communication with federal immigration officials.

Sanctuary city officials disagree with the law, and they refuse to obey it.

Has anyone charged San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee?

Hardly, but there is talk in Washington DC – especially by AG Sessions – of trying to cut funding for policing for some sanctuary cities. But not even President Trump has as of yet (I think) openly spoken of trying to have, say, Rahm Emanuel charged. Or any of his staff or local police chiefs.

And if one uses the idea of devolving power back to the local and state level as a justification for sanctuary cities’ rejection of parts of the federal law they don’t like, then logically you could use that same reasoning to justify Joe Arpaio’s behavior.

Yes, some matters definitely should be moved closer to home, as it were. Taxation (high, low, any way a state sees fit) and healthcare seem to be candidates for devolution. But immigration?

Let workers and voters decide what state they want to live and work in based on that state’s taxes and healthcare system. But have them decide based on a state’s immigration system? Based on a city’s immigration system? That’s the de facto result of sanctuary cities. And the problem of how to move around inside America becomes a nightmare in an America where immigration policy is decided locally.

So while the left sees sanctuary cities as heroic, they are really just beneficiaries of unstated, rolling pardons. Whether by a President (Obama) or not (Trump).