It was bound to happen. The feds, by some accounts, have been falling down on the job of border protections for well over a two decades now. But that's not the point. The point is borders are in the federal sandbox and they don't want anyone playing there except themselves.
Although, it seems to me that they've sort of been absent from that sandbox for a long time and the toys are just sitting there going to waste and all the other kids are getting kinda angry about it.
But I do have a point here. The Arizona law does not enact any new laws. It only allows local law enforcement to enforce those federal laws that the federal government has failed to enforce. And here's where I get confused. See, it used to be that the federal government didn't have any enforcement branches. Any laws it passed had to rely on the states for enforcement. I doubt any of you are old enough remember, but when the FBI was originally established they weren't allowed to carry guns. Why? Because they were only supposed to be an investigative aid to local law enforcement. When the FBI was first established most people still looked to local and state governments for most things, and a federal anti-crime agency was looked on with suspicion.
So, why do the feds have a problem now with Arizona stepping up to enforce laws the feds have passed?
Well in the last 100 years since the FBI was founded, we've allowed the federal government to enact, or create whole gigantic enforcment agencies or just plain usurp whole areas of law enforcement. We've got the FBI, DEA, NEA, CIA, ATF (or BATFE or whatever), plus a whole slew of others. Hell, even the U.S. Dept. of Education has an enforcement branch with armed agents. Puts a whole new light on truant officers doesn't it. And we even have federal laws that state that if it's a federal agency, it's people can be armed. H'Ray for National Endowment for the Arts and it's jackbooted armed thugs... wait...
So, more and more power in the form of law enforcement has been transferred from local and state authority to federal authority. Which in the short term looked great. The local governments didn't have to pay for that anymore. (They neglected to realize that the feds now pay for it and the money still comes from the taxpayers, but that's a different rant.) At first it was "please, let us do this. It'll be easier on you and you won't have to worry your pretty little head about it." Now it's, "How dare you try to take authority for this. We'll show you in court that it's ours!" How far away can we be from, "That's ours, and this gun pointed at you proves it."
The path from freedom to tyranny is sometimes hard to see, till hindsight kicks in.
I know this post isn't all that clear or well written. Fact is, the idea behind it is still sort of misty and amorphous in my mind. The idea is there though. We, as a people, got complacent and lazy and allowed the start of our falling away from freedom and democracy, we fast approaching the time when even if we pull the ripcord on the parachute we'll still slam into the ground of tyranny and oppression.
6 comments:
yeah, but you got the main point... I had a go round with a guy at lunch trying to get voters to sign a protest letter against the AZ bill as racist. I pointed out to him that it mirrored Fed law and SPECIFICALLY prohibited racism. You know what his answer was? Well, I'M RACIST... sigh...
racism has become the "cry wolf" of the liberal moonbats.
This is my first time commenting here, so let me say first off that I enjoy your blog. Airplane and gun talk will surely attract my attention!
Anyhoo....
The federal law enforcement trend began with the Progressives and the 17th Amendment. As originally constructed, the U.S. Congress represented two distinct political bodies: the people (House) and the states (Senate). When the state legislatures were stripped of the power to elect senators, the states as political entities lost representation in their own union.
The end result of this is that the power of the federal government has grown dramatically at the expense of the states because the states no longer have any direct involvement in the federal government. The system worked just fine until the voters allowed the Progressives to break it. It's beyond my understanding how three-fourths of the states willingly voted to ratify away their own power, except to note how much clout the Progressives wielded (18th Amendment, anyone?). Now, the U.S. Senate operates as if it were a House of Lords, beholden to no one.
If politicians want to restore some balance to the federal/state relationship, they might consider a repeal of the 17th Amendment. It'll never happen, though, because the general public has no idea how the system was originally set up to work and will see it simply as "They want to take my vote away!"
I see no reason for any fed to be armed, the military excepted. I'd move the CG under the Department of the Navy as a solely coastal element except in time of declared war.
The Border? I'd make it the responsibility of the individual state NGs and force the states to enforce the law or lose all federal funding at all levels.
Welcome Brandon. It always freaks me out a little that people read my blog. But, well said on the comment. And yeah, no government has ever voluntarily made itself smaller.
I'm kinda interested to see how the courts play this one....get the right judge and who knows...maybe Arizona wont get slapped for trying to enforce Federal law.
Post a Comment