John Binder at Breitbart:
"During a speech to the National Sheriffs’ Association Winter Legislative and Technology Conference, Barr announced that the DOJ was filing lawsuits against the State of New Jersey, New Jersey Democrat Governor Philip Murphy, and New Jersey Democrat Attorney General Gurbir Grewal for the state’s sanctuary policy that bans officials from sharing state records with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency."Barr blasted such policies as 'neither lawful nor sensible.' He went on to say, “today is a significant escalation in the federal government’s efforts to confront the resistance of ‘sanctuary cities ...We will consider taking action against any jurisdiction that, or any politician who, unlawfully obstructs the federal enforcement of immigration law.”
Das Wiki recounts a brief history of nullification:
"Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws. None of these efforts were legally upheld. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century, including Ableman v. Booth, which rejected Wisconsin's attempt to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts.The foundation for nullification was based on the idea that the states created the federal government (true), so the states can determine the limits or overreach of the federal government. This is also true. It's called 'The U.S. Constitution', a charter of negative rights - what the government cannot do. It was ratified by the 13 original states as the supreme law of the land. To join the union, future states had to sign on to that compact.
In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification and interposition to prevent integration of their schools. These attempts failed when the Supreme Court again rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, explicitly holding that the states may not nullify federal law."
Conversely, a state or states can't then go rogue and declare this or that federal law of no effect within its borders - particularly when the federal power is expressly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. IE: Immigration, border control, and national defense. The U.S. Constitution and Congressional statute grants the Executive (president) near plenary power to do whatever the heck he/she wants in regards to immigration and border control, and denies such federal power to the states.Yes, really.
This held true in recent examples when Obama issued his travel bans and immigrant restrictions via Executive Order, and it held true (after several SCOTUS opinions) when Trump issued his travel bans and immigrant restrictions via Executive Order.
Additionally, ten years ago, Obama successfully sued Arizona to stop that state's enforcement of federal immigration laws. Why? The court opined that immigration, border control, and national defense are federal powers expressly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. These powers cannot be usurped by the states - even when Obama refused to enforce those laws.
That same legal principle holds true, if for different motives. The recent attempts by rogue states and Democrat politicians to nullify the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency are lawless. AG Barr is correct to prosecute those officials.
