You likely keep hearing the phrase that Tennessee should become a “sanctuary state” particularly now that Biden-Harris are President and the Democrats control Congress. There is a strong argument that Tennessee should not aspire to be a “sanctuary state” but that it should have higher aspirations and purposes.
First, the 2nd Amendment and 10th Amendment are express prohibitions on federal (and now state) infringement of the right of citizens to keep, bear, possess, use, own, carry, practice with, etc., any kind of “arms” that a soldier would want or need or that would be useful in a military or militia engagement.
Second, and in contrast, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution expressly authorizes Congress to regulation immigration and naturalization.
The original terminology “sanctuary” state or more often city arose, if I recall, from progressive, Democrat, socialists areas where people decided that they would hide, shelter, aid and abet criminals who were illegal aliens. As such, these individuals and governments that aided them were trying to block enforcement of laws, regulations and/or order in an area where the Constitution expressly gaves Congress authority. Indeed, those”sanctuary”advocates should have been criminally prosecution for obstruction or facilitation but the federal government did not do so – a separate soap box talk.
In contrast to the immigration issue, the Constitution expressly prohibits federal infringement relative to “arms”. Therefore, a state or local government refusing to enforce or aid in the enforcement of such federal laws, regulations or orders is not a criminal “sanctuary” act. NO!
It is to the contrary the express duty of such states and local government to raise the shields of the 2nd and 10th Amendments to block unconstitutional and ultra vires federal laws, regulations and orders over issues where the Constitution itself prohibits federal authority or action.
Consequently, it is constitutionally inaccurate to characterize 2nd and 10th Amendment based bills as “sanctuary” bills. They are not. They are not acts to frustrate the legitimate constitutional exercise of federal power. They are acts by Sovereign States to shield their citizens from unconstitutional federal activity.
We must stop using the term “sanctuary” in any context to reference the citizens’ fundamental right to arms and the constitutional prohibition against government infringement of that right.
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.