COMMENTARY: The 28th Amendment

We are witnessing the rise of a new “right” which, if liberals had prevailed in the recent election, might have been glorified in the form of a constitutional amendment. It would read something like this:

“The 28th Amendment: A state, city, or individual may choose which laws they wish to obey and which laws they wish to disregard without risk of legal consequences.”

For example, let’s say that the mayor of New York City decides that murder is no longer a crime. “If you commit murder in Chicago,” the mayor might declare, “come to New York and you will not be prosecuted.” Or let’s consider the possibility, as hypothesized by Mark Levin, that anyone who commits murder will be exonerated if they are raising a family.

“New Yorkers value the importance of family over all other considerations. If you commit murder in New York, you will not be prosecuted if you can demonstrate that you are raising a family.”

Sounds completely insane, don’t you agree? But this is exactly what is happening with “sanctuary cities.” The mayors of New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and many other cities have decided that they are not obliged to enforce federal immigration laws. Undocumented aliens will not be challenged by local law enforcement nor will such persons be turned over to federal authorities as required by law, even if that person is a felon. Sanctuary cities oppose Kate’s Law, which would impose mandatory harsh sentences against undocumented immigrants who commit felonies. And why do they support the defiance of federal immigration laws? On the grounds that people who break these laws are trying to raise their families and we just can’t destroy the sanctity of the family. Hallelujah!

On today’s O’Reilly Factor, a guest argued that sanctuary cities are justified because immigrants contribute to our society. When it was pointed out that many immigrants are here illegally, the response was the usual doubletalk that attempts to sidestep the legal issue altogether. The problem we face, like it or not, is that when it becomes acceptable to disobey one law, the door is opened for disobeying all laws. If you can enter the country illegally without consequences, then why can’t you commit murder or any other crime without consequences?

Our elected public officials take an oath to defend our system of laws. It is irresponsible and criminal when they encourage disrespect for the laws they are sworn to defend. It all starts at the top. President Obama, reacting to the violent protests after the recent election, refused to speak out against the violence. Instead, he actually encouraged people to continue to break the law. If the president can do this, why can’t a mayor or a governor? What kind of precedent is being set?

The solution for progressives is the 28th Amendment. Let’s institutionalize anarchy. That may sound like a contradiction in terms, but anarchy is what we are going to have if the rule of law is ignored. We can’t have it both ways. Either we are a country of laws or we are nothing.

Ed Brodow is a negotiation expert, political commentator, and author of In Lies We Trust: How Politicians and the Media Are Deceiving the American Public.

Ed Brodow

Ed Brodow is a negotiation expert, political commentator, and author of In Lies We Trust: How Politicians and the Media Are Deceiving the American Public.

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

Facebook Comments

Disqus Comments

Trending Now on Daily Surge

Send this to friend