Newsom Says "Screw The Law!"

[red states rule]

Why do some Dems think they are above the law?


San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom Says City Will Ignore Immigration Laws

Mayor Gavin Newsom has said that San Francisco would ignore any immigration laws put in place that criminalizes illegal aliens. The first time this occurs I hope that the mayor is put in jail for refusing to enforce federal laws. In this day and age with the flooding of America with illegal aliens, for a single man in a position of power, to decide that his city should ignore any attempts by the federal government to crack down on the problem is outrageous.

Instead the mayor would rather saddle his city's residents with all of the taxes and burdens that come with illegal immigration including: crime, health risks due to lack of inoculations, the further overcrowding and destruction of the education system, the closing of hospital emergency rooms and traffic congestion.

Who does this man think he is? Isn't this mayor the same one who ignored the California Constitution over gay marriages? Why yes, yes he is. Newsom definitely deserves the boot for his continued ignoring of the laws of the state and the federal government.

Examiner

Mayor Gavin Newsom said Thursday that The City will not comply with any federal legislation that criminalizes efforts to help illegal immigrants.

...

Newsom ... appeared with a group of elected officials on the steps of City Hall to support immigrants, “documented as well as undocumented.”Newsom also signed a resolution sponsored by Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval, and passed unanimously by the Board of Supervisors, urging San Francisco law enforcement not to comply with criminal provisions of any new immigration bill.

“San Francisco stands foursquare in strong opposition to the rhetoric coming out of Washington, D.C.,” Newsom said. “If people think we were defiant on the gay marriage issue, they haven’t seen defiance.”

It is not the first time San Francisco has weighed in on the immigration issue. In 1989, the Board of Supervisors made San Francisco a “City of Refuge.” The ordinance forbids city resources from being used to enforce federal immigration laws or to gather or disseminate information regarding the status of residents of The City. The Board of Supervisors passed a resolution reaffirming the ordinance in January.


http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/001651.html

 

[Diuretic]

Explain to me the culpability of the Mayor.

 

[red states rule]

Explain to me the culpability of the Mayor.

How about saying publicly he will ignore Federal law?

It was this asshole who made gay marriage an issue in the 04 election

This could be history repeating itself

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I agree again with rsr. Here is a mayor through his own ignorance who will pick and choose what laws to follow, hey, if he can do it, why cant i ?

 

[Diuretic]

How about saying publicly he will ignore Federal law?

When was the First Amendment repealed? I missed that.

It was this asshole who made gay marriage an issue in the 04 election

So what?

This could be history repeating itself

History always repeats itself, it's because us dumbarse humans never learn from our previous fuckups.

 

[maineman]

When was the First Amendment repealed? I missed that.



So what?



History always repeats itself, it's because us dumbarse humans never learn from our previous fuckups.

bravo! very succinctly stated!

 

[William Joyce]

But he's not really "ignoring" the larger, and more important, law. The most important law in America is that of political correctness. Obey it, and you need not concern yourself with actual statutory law that conflicts. Disobey it, and be warned that even actual compliance with written law means nothing.

 

[red states rule]

When was the First Amendment repealed? I missed that.



So what?



History always repeats itself, it's because us dumbarse humans never learn from our previous fuckups.

Very true - libs NEVElearn from their mistakes

They continue to make them over and over again

 

[red states rule]

bravo! very succinctly stated!

What libs should say then, "Why have borders at all, and why have citizenship?"

 

[Gunny]

How about saying publicly he will ignore Federal law?

It was this asshole who made gay marriage an issue in the 04 election

This could be history repeating itself

The mayor represents his constituency. If he wishes to make an issue of any current political event of the day, he is doing no less than any other politician.

Stating he will disobey a law is within his First Amendement Rights under the US Constitution. It is not inad and of itself a crime. He must first disobey the law, be charged with the crime and convicted by a jury of his peers PRIOR TO any pronouncement of guilt.

 

[Gunny]

**chirp**

 

[Edward]

What crime will he be charged with? Not enforcing federal law? When that becomes a crime than it is time for another Revolution. Quoting Patrick Henry, "But now, Sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country to a powerful and mighty empire: If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your Government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together: Such a Government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism: There will be no checks, no real balances, in this Government: What can avail your specious imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances?" Patrick Henry was one of the greatest liberals who has ever lived and his words of "give me liberty or give me death" still sound in the ears of Americas today. If a Mayor of a city can be charged with a crime for not enforcing federal law than our country is not free and we have become one "great consolidated empire" and I for one do not intend to live in a country where freedom and liberty are only imaginary and where our votes mean nothing but are only intended to keep us in check and to fool us into being sheep to be led about.

 

[red states rule]

The mayor represents his constituency. If he wishes to make an issue of any current political event of the day, he is doing no less than any other politician.

Stating he will disobey a law is within his First Amendement Rights under the US Constitution. It is not inad and of itself a crime. He must first disobey the law, be charged with the crime and convicted by a jury of his peers PRIOR TO any pronouncement of guilt.

So if a constituency of a Mayor said they did not to obey the Federal speed limt law - what would happen?

For starters, they city would lose all Federal funding - which should happen in this instance

If any politican does not agree with a law, change it through the legislative process

Sure he has a right to speak out. But one must be willing to accept the consequences

 

[red states rule]

What crime will he be charged with? Not enforcing federal law? When that becomes a crime than it is time for another Revolution. Quoting Patrick Henry, "But now, Sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country to a powerful and mighty empire: If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your Government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together: Such a Government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism: There will be no checks, no real balances, in this Government: What can avail your specious imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances?" Patrick Henry was one of the greatest liberals who has ever lived and his words of "give me liberty or give me death" still sound in the ears of Americas today. If a Mayor of a city can be charged with a crime for not enforcing federal law than our country is not free and we have become one "great consolidated empire" and I for one do not intend to live in a country where freedom and liberty are only imaginary and where our votes mean nothing but are only intended to keep us in check and to fool us into being sheep to be led about.

One thing you forgot to mention - they already broke the law by being here in the first place

 

[Diuretic]

But he's not really "ignoring" the larger, and more important, law. The most important law in America is that of political correctness. Obey it, and you need not concern yourself with actual statutory law that conflicts. Disobey it, and be warned that even actual compliance with written law means nothing.

Well no, you can't be indicted for being or not being pc. So that's meaningless.

 

[red states rule]

Well no, you can't be indicted for being or not being pc. So that's meaningless.

But you will be savaged by the liberal media which plays the role of Judge and Jury

 

[Diuretic]

Very true - libs NEVElearn from their mistakes

They continue to make them over and over again

Have you ever had an original thought? Stop fucking piggybacking on me and get back to Gutbusters or whatever your talking points source is.

 

[Diuretic]

So if a constituency of a Mayor said they did not to obey the Federal speed limt law - what would happen?

Nothing.

For starters, they city would lose all Federal funding - which should happen in this instance

Way to go. That'll make the locals happy.

If any politican does not agree with a law, change it through the legislative process

Fair point.

Sure he has a right to speak out. But one must be willing to accept the consequences

Consequences of the right to free speech? He's hardly inciting and he's not slandering anyone, those are a couple of reasonable limits to freedom of expression I can think of off the top of my head. Is Thoughtcrime in the US yet?

 

[Diuretic]

But you will be savaged by the liberal media which plays the role of Judge and Jury

That's actually true - Indymedia will go to town.

 

[red states rule]

The point is, this Mayor is telling the Federal government and the law to fuck off.

Illegals are costing the taxpayers of CA billions and the number is growing.

He did the same thing when the voters in CA, voted to state the the CA Constitution marriage is between a man and a women

It was a disaster for him and the Dem party. This time is is hurting everyone