Mayor: City would ignore legislation if it were to pass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jeffrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jeffrey

Guest
Hmmm… maybe the Feds will cut off Federal Aid to SF then?

Justin Jouvenal, The Examiner
**Apr 7, 2006 9:00 AM (7 hrs ago)SAN FRANCISCO - Mayor Gavin Newsom said Thursday that The City will not comply with any federal legislation that criminalizes efforts to help illegal immigrants.

The mayor also denounced a bipartisan congressional proposal that would beef up border security and allow as many as 12 million illegal immigrants to gain legal status.

Newsom, who has not been afraid to wade into controversial national issues such as gay marriage, appeared with a group of elected officials on the steps of City Hall to support immigrants, “documented as well as undocumented.”Newsom also signed a resolution sponsored by Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval, and passed unanimously by the Board of Supervisors, urging San Francisco law enforcement not to comply with criminal provisions of any new immigration bill.

More…

examiner.com/Top_News-a70996~Mayor__City_would_ignore_legislation_if_it_were_to_pass.html
**
 
Bit of a loose canon in SF. No one is above the law, even the mayor of SF. 😃
 
well… IF what they mean is help them as in live-saving charity like Card. Mahoney is doing. they are doing nothing wrong as a civil law cannot compel one to do somthing immoral. BUT i have a feeling that they mean a bit more than just that.
 
IMO Mahoney is in the wrong… he is sending the wrong msg… as for SF… I’m sure they’d take it to the extreme… as usual.
40.png
Brain:
well… IF what they mean is help them as in live-saving charity like Card. Mahoney is doing. they are doing nothing wrong as a civil law cannot compel one to do somthing immoral. BUT i have a feeling that they mean a bit more than just that.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
gilliam:
Bit of a loose canon in SF. No one is above the law, even the mayor of SF. 😃
Click to expand...
Isn’t he the same one that started handing out “gay” “marriage” licenses? Or was that a judge from there?
 
40.png
Jeffrey:
IMO Mahoney is in the wrong… he is sending the wrong msg… as for SF… I’m sure they’d take it to the extreme… as usual.
Click to expand...
I agree on all points.
 
His statement is probably not true. He would probably enforce it if it were the Catholic Church doing it.

PF
 
Well it is nice to see that some good can come from the bay area.

What I would like to see is a state or municipal statute that would allow police to arrest any person who violates another person’s human rights and to deliver them directly to the International Criminal Court in the Hague. And I don’t mean INS and Border Patrol agents. ( Everything that I have heard tells me that they DO NOT violate human rights and are, as a rule, very humane in their treatment of captives.) My beef is with the border itself, not those that patrol it.

Sadly I cannot say the same about corrupt judges and prosecutors, abusive prison officials, dirty cops, CPS Nazis or scores upon scores of politicians. Even if the city or state could not actually enforce it, it would be nice for some jurisdiction to take a stand on human rights.
 
40.png
richbansha:
Well it is nice to see that some good can come from the bay area.

What I would like to see is a state or municipal statute that would allow police to arrest any person who violates another person’s human rights and to deliver them directly to the International Criminal Court in the Hague. And I don’t mean INS and Border Patrol agents. ( Everything that I have heard tells me that they DO NOT violate human rights and are, as a rule, very humane in their treatment of captives.) My beef is with the border itself, not those that patrol it.

Sadly I cannot say the same about corrupt judges and prosecutors, abusive prison officials, dirty cops, CPS Nazis or scores upon scores of politicians. Even if the city or state could not actually enforce it, it would be nice for some jurisdiction to take a stand on human rights.
Click to expand...
So, are you suggesting that we violate the Constitutional right to due process and kidnap a person and send them to a court that has absolutely no authority over US citizens?

Any person who does that should be charged with sedition along with kidnapping.

PF
 
Interesting. Respect for the law may cut off at the point where it decides you cannot help people based on their nationality. But then, it might not happen. If it does, and he stands up for what he beleives in, good for him.

For those talking about being above the law, you forget there is a lot of talk around here about what laws based on your beleifs should be in the book. I distinctly remember a poll in which a significant number of voters stated they would make skipping sunday mass illegal.
 
40.png
WanderAimlessly:
So, are you suggesting that we violate the Constitutional right to due process and kidnap a person and send them to a court that has absolutely no authority over US citizens?

Any person who does that should be charged with sedition along with kidnapping.
PF
Click to expand...
I didn’t say kidnap. I said arrest. As an advocate for human rights, I cannot possibly support random arrests without probable cause. I can and do push for the arrest of anyone who violates the state or city law against violating human rights – a warrant issued and served on that basis, legally.

The UN resolution that created the court also extends its jurisdiction to all persons everywhere. That the US flouts its international obligations is beside the point.

I doubt that you have anything to worry about. To actually deliver a prisoner to the court would be extrordinarily difficult, if not impossible. Even if the court got a hold of one of these criminal suspects, Noam Chomsky asserts ( I don’t know his source) in his book “Failed States” that there is a congressional resolution that authorizes the US to invade Holland and sieze the court and its officers by military force.
 
40.png
richbansha:
I didn’t say kidnap. I said arrest. As an advocate for human rights, I cannot possibly support random arrests without probable cause. I can and do push for the arrest of anyone who violates the state or city law against violating human rights – a warrant issued and served on that basis, legally.

The UN resolution that created the court also extends its jurisdiction to all persons everywhere. That the US flouts its international obligations is beside the point.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but if I remember right, the US has not recognized the authority of the so-called “World Court”. Therefore, any “arrest” and transfer to the “World Court” constitutes kidnapping.

PF
 
40.png
WanderAimlessly:
Sorry, but if I remember right, the US has not recognized the authority of the so-called “World Court”. Therefore, any “arrest” and transfer to the “World Court” constitutes kidnapping.

PF
Click to expand...
The US doesn’t have to recognize it. Only the state or city concerned. Since I know of no legal precedent that prohibits a state or municipality from honoring an international treaty, the Supreme Court would have to rule on such a case to render the law unconstutional – or maybe uphold it??? Who knows these days?

Also, there is nothing to stop the suspect from entering an immunity plea or otherwise challenge his detention under international law. The US Government could also file an amicus brief on the suspect’s behalf. If all else fails, they could go to war with Holland and the rest of NATO.
 
40.png
richbansha:
The US doesn’t have to recognize it. Only the state or city concerned. Since I know of no legal precedent that prohibits a state or municipality from honoring an international treaty, the Supreme Court would have to rule on such a case to render the law unconstutional – or maybe uphold it??? Who knows these days?
Click to expand...
Wrong again. The US does not recognize it, therefore it is impossible for any other juristiction in the US to recognize it. That is sedition.

PF
 
40.png
WanderAimlessly:
Wrong again. The US does not recognize it, therefore it is impossible for any other juristiction in the US to recognize it. That is sedition.

PF
Click to expand...
Show me. It is important that this information is widely available. If you can prove me wrong, I will not only concede the contest here but will post it on my own website.
 
40.png
richbansha:
Show me. It is important that this information is widely available. If you can prove me wrong, I will not only concede the contest here but will post it on my own website.
Click to expand...
SEDITION - Conduct which is directed against a government and which tends toward insurrection but does not amount to treason. Treasonous conduct consists of levying war against the United States or of adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

The raising commotions or disturbances in the state; it is a revolt against legitimate authority.

The distinction between sedition and treason consists in this, that though its ultimate object is a violation of the public peace, or at least such a course of measures as evidently engenders it, yet it does not aim at direct and open violence against the laws, or the subversion of the Constitution.
 
Here is the actual law.

18 USC 2385
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or
teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of
overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or
the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession
thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by
force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any
such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any
such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates,
sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed
matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity,
desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any
government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts
to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society,
group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the
overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or
violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any
such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes
thereof -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by
the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five
years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in
this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for
employment by the United States or any department or agency
thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms ‘‘organizes’’ and
‘‘organize’’, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of
persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes,
and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
Click to expand...
I propose no such activity.
 
40.png
richbansha:
Show me. It is important that this information is widely available. If you can prove me wrong, I will not only concede the contest here but will post it on my own website.
Click to expand...
States are not independent, sovereign entities. Therefore, they can’t legally agree to abide by a treaty’s stipulation, only the Federal government can.
 
40.png
LRThunder:
States are not independent, sovereign entities. Therefore, they can’t legally agree to abide by a treaty’s stipulation, only the Federal government can.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken. Constitution 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...
There is no provision in the Constitution that forbids a state from passing any law that conforms to an international treaty. I believe you are basing your contention on Article I Sec 10:
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
Click to expand...
This article forbids a state from formally entering into a treaty by itself. But it does not forbid a state from making a law that is derived from a treaty that it is not party to. For instance, the US has repudiated the Kyoto Accords but that did not prevent California from making tough regulations on automobile emissions. By the same token, a state can make and enforce human rights laws that the federal government can choose to ignore. In fact, many states already have. Hate crimes laws fall into this catagory. So does capital punishment. Even though the national government does not choose to abide by international law prohibiting capital punishment, many states still refuse to impose it and Congress cannot mandate that they do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top