Dear
MaryL
I believe CCJones answered your question indirectly.
That type of liberal political interpretation of the Constitution as justifying violations
is WHY we don't have consistent Constitutional law enforcement. People like CCJ just
don't believe those policies are illegal, and in this case, even exist. (Same with arguments
that ACA mandates violated freedom of choice in health care. CCJ also believes no choices
were violated or taken away by forcing taxpayers under penalty to buy insurance or pay tax fines.)
With the liberal half the country interpreting the Constitution as optional, in order to use the govt for politically projecting their beliefs and opinions
through the system of legislatures and courts, the policies pushed by Liberals, Democrats and Progressives are NOT bound by Constitutional limits on govt.
They are only limited by what can be voted in by majority rule, issued by court order, and not struck down by judicial ruling.
So in order to STOP unconstitutional violations (such as Sanctuary cities and overreaching LGBT policies that don't belong in govt),
the opponents must not only SUE in court but WIN their cases and obtain a ruling that strikes down the unconstitutional policy!
The legal costs are prohibitive, as well as the monopoly on judges and lawyers by connections with campaign funding through parties and political donors.
Perhaps if the Libertarians, Republicans and Constitutionalists would unite, the combined
efforts could compel enforcement of Constitutional rules and process.
But this would likely take place through the MEDIA by public pressure and education on Constitutional law enforcement.
If it could be pursued through the courts, one Libertarian lawyer HAS offered to set up "class action lawsuits"
for citizens suffering the wrongful death of a loved one to lax immigration policies in Sanctuary cities.
And I would gladly team up with other Constitutionalists to due Democratic Party members for damages
and debts caused by a string of unconstitutional violations where govt was abused to establish political beliefs
that violated the rights and beliefs of other citizens, discriminated by creed, and regulated on the basis of religion.
If the only standards the Democrats will listen to are court orders and rulings,
then if lawsuits are required, the Party responsible for incurring that cost should have to pay for those legal costs as well.
Had they LISTENED when citizens objected to their policies as unconstitutional, and refrained from violating those beliefs,
the wrongs, debts and damages could have been prevented. But to require lawsuits and court rulings before agreeing
to cease and desist from violating civil rights of others, that added cost to taxpayers should be part of the grievances and restitution owed.
