- Argentina beats Dutch in shootout to reach World Cup final
- Tanard Jackson suspended indefinitely by NFL — again
- FAA investigating fireworks drone flights
- Pentagon: We’ll give Obama a drone strike with al-Baghdadi’s name on it
- Marine in Mexican custody to get day in court after 101 days
- Senate OKs San Antonio mayor as housing secretary
- NFL star likely fooled by Marine impostor who accepted first-class plane ticket
- Sen. Ted Cruz tweets Obama directions from fundraisers to border towns
- Israel hits key Hamas targets in Gaza offensive
- Ten-year sentence for New Orleans’ Nagin on graft charges
EDITORIAL: Obama wrong on immigration, Panthers
The Democrats’ Justice Department coddles lawbreakers
Question of the Day
The Obama administration is terminally confused about the role of local law enforcement. Or worse, it’s purposely hypocritical.
In one case, the administration argues that the federal government should defer to a local cop who is untrained in federal law and doesn’t attempt to enforce it. In another case, it says a state may not enable local cops to enforce the exact provisions of federal law. In both cases, federal law goes unenforced. Yet the administration claims completely contradictory justifications for nonenforcement: in the first, by deferring to local authority and in the second, by denying local authority.
The self-contradictory reasoning is powerful evidence of improperly politicized justice.
The cases at issue involve two of the Obama administration’s least popular decisions. The first is a key part of the administration’s abandonment of voter-intimidation charges involving members of the New Black Panther Party. The second is the president’s excuse for trying to overturn Arizona’s law cracking down on illegal immigration. Neither one makes sense.
From the Civil Rights Commission’s report last week on the voter-intimidation case, here’s what Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez said in written testimony about why the Justice Department dropped charges against Black Panther Jerry Jackson: “The Department placed significant weight on the response of the law enforcement first responders to the Philadelphia polling place on Election Day. A report of the local police officer who responded to the scene … indicates that the officer interviewed Mr. Jackson, confirmed that he in fact was a certified poll watcher, and concluded that his actions did not warrant his removal from the premises.”
Fine: The officer merely had no evidence Mr. Jackson had broken local laws. However, Mr. Jackson’s status as poll watcher was irrelevant to the later federal charges. Poll watchers have no more right than anybody else - indeed, they probably have less excuse - to threaten or menace voters.
Justice Department attorneys, meanwhile, have a special duty to enforce federal voting and civil rights laws, which originally were passed specifically to override the intransigence of racist local law enforcement officials such as Birmingham, Ala.’s, infamous public-safety commissioner and Democratic National Committee member, T.E. “Bull” Connor. For Obama Justice officials to drop an already-won civil rights case because a local official hadn’t considered civil rights laws is for them to undermine the very reason such federal laws exist.
Conversely, there is nothing wrong with local laws that mirror and effectively implement federal laws, as long as those local enforcement efforts don’t contradict acts of Congress. As Arizona argued in its brief in the immigration case, the state’s law only “adopts federal law as the policy of Arizona.” The law “merely requires, in limited circumstances, that Arizona’s law enforcement officers exercise their existing authority to communicate with the federal government regarding possible immigration violations.”
The Obama administration’s position appears to be that when the federal executive branch, “in the exercise of discretion … may decide not to apply a specific sanction” otherwise specified in federal law, a state is somehow forbidden to adopt the federal law’s own standard.
Under the Arizona case, a state may not instruct its officers to enforce federal law, but with the Black Panther case, the feds will drop all penalties if a local officer doesn’t take it upon himself to enforce federal law. The local official has discretion - except where he doesn’t. As a legal standard, this is nothing but mush. When the law is mush, pure politics rules - and that’s how the Obama administration likes it.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
- EDITORIAL: What’s Obama hiding at illegal-alien 'refugee' camps?
- EDITORIAL: No free pass on gun rights for red-state Democrats
- EDITORIAL: iFiasco in the classroom
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Douglass would abhor affirmative action
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Obama's voter bloc of 'entitlement' illegals
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
By Ted Cruz
Banning speech with a constitutional amendment is playing with fire
Get Breaking Alerts
- GOP: Lerner warned IRS employees to hide information from Congress
- White House plans for bowling alley upgrades abruptly canceled
- GORDON: Russia plays its own game away from the World Cup
- ISTOOK: Flying illegals home would be 99.5 percent cheaper than Obamas plan
- Colorado man offers Obama a toke of marijuana a Rocky Mountain 'high'
- Obama requests $3.7 billion to fight surge of illegals
- Facebook allows 'Kill Kendall Jones' page, but deletes her game hunting photos
- EDITORIAL: Whats Obama hiding at illegal-alien 'refugee' camps?
- Malaysian MP not sorry for tweeting 'long live Hitler' after Germany win
- Islamic militants aim to take Baghdad airport