« | »

City To Defy Feds By Enforcing Renter Ordinance

From an spittle flecked Associated Press:

Neb. city prepares to enforce immigration rules

By GRANT SCHULTE | February 12, 2014

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — Officials in a small Nebraska city were preparing Wednesday to enforce voter-approved illegal immigration rules, despite the threat of costly federal lawsuits after the measure goes into effect.

Fremont officials said that police will start enforcing the measure 30 days after the results of a special city election are certified. Nearly 60 percent of voters decided Tuesday to keep the ordinance, which requires renters to get a $5 permit and swear they have legal permission to live in the U.S.

Fremont City Council President Jennifer Bixby said officials would respect the voters’ decision on the measure, which was first approved by a smaller margin in 2010. Critics pushed for the new vote, saying the housing restrictions would be ineffective and might cost Fremont millions of dollars in legal fees and lost federal grants. They also said it was hurting the city’s image…

Just as a thought experiment, imagine if Fremont had voted to make itself ‘a sanctuary city,’ and declared they would no longer enforce the US immigration laws that are on the books? (Like San Francisco and so many other cities and states have done.)

Or, what if Fremont had declared that they allow allow its city officials to marry people of the same sex, in defiance of the state and (former) federal statutes (like DOMA)? Wouldn’t they be cheered? Why is this case so different?

Amy Miller, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, said her group will keep close tabs on the city and will consider a new lawsuit if tenants report discrimination. A federal appeals panel upheld the ordinance in June but left an opening for future lawsuits if people can show that the rules have resulted in discrimination…

In other words, what Fremont is doing has been upheld by a federal appeals court as perfectly legal. And yet the US government and the ACLU are still threatening to bankrupt the city with frivolous lawsuits. How wonderful.

After all, why should the residents of any city have any say in how their city is run? That is the job of the federal government and the lawyers from the ACLU. Not its taxpayers.

When Fremont first adopted the ordinance, the city was thrust into the national spotlight partly because it acted shortly after Arizona’s strict immigration law made headlines. A few other cities, such as Valley Park in Missouri, have modified or abandoned ordinances in the face of court challenges and dissent.

You see? Intimidation works!

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Thursday, February 13th, 2014. Comments are currently closed.

4 Responses to “City To Defy Feds By Enforcing Renter Ordinance”

  1. captstubby

    Steve; this was to be a reply under Rustys Divorce post, but seems to be closer to yours.

    The Covenant between Citizens and the Elected , that both to adhere to The Constitution, has been trashed, and does indeed appear to be grounds for separation.

    Aristotle said;
    “To involve all those entitled to have a say and to vote ..meant cumbersome numbers, too many meetings, and frequent rotation of offices.” We now call this ‘direct democracy’, as contrasted to our ‘representative democracy’ when all most of us do is vote for representatives at, to the Greek mind, dangerously long intervals. Theirs was what has been called a ‘face-to-face society’. Indeed they did not believe that democracy was possible except in relatively small city states where everyone knew intimately what was going on. Aristotle even said that a city should be no larger than that the Voice of the stentor, the herald or town-crier could be heard from one side of the city to the other, nor larger than that every citizen could know the character of every other citizen’.

    Direct democracy (also known as pure democracy) is a form of democracy in which people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on, etc.) policy initiatives directly, as opposed to a representative democracy in which people vote for representatives who then decide policy initiatives.Depending on the particular system in use, it might entail passing executive decisions, the use of sortition, making laws, directly electing or dismissing officials and conducting trials.

    Direct democracy was not what the framers of the United States Constitution envisioned for the nation. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities. As a result, they advocated a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional republic over a direct democracy. For example, James Madison, in Federalist No. 10 advocates a constitutional republic over direct democracy precisely to protect the individual from the will of the majority.

    “[A] pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. ”

    Unfortunately our “representative democracy ” elected office holders have become exactly that.

    Despite the framers’ intentions in the beginning of the republic, ballot measures and their corresponding referendums have been widely used at the state and sub-state level.
    In various states, referendums through which the people rule include:
    Referrals by the legislature to the people of “proposed constitutional amendments”
    Referrals by the legislature to the people of “proposed statute laws” (constitutionally used in all 50 states –
    Constitutional amendment initiative is a constitutionally-defined petition process of “proposed constitutional law”, which, if successful, results in its provisions being written directly into the state’s constitution. Since constitutional law cannot be altered by state legislatures, this direct democracy component gives the people an automatic superiority and sovereignty, over representative government.
    Statute law initiative is a constitutionally-defined, citizen-initiated, petition process of “proposed statute law”, which, if successful, results in law being written directly into the state’s statutes. The statute initiative is used at the state level in twenty-one states.
    Statute law referendum is a constitutionally-defined, citizen-initiated, petition process of the “proposed veto of all or part of a legislature-made law”, which, if successful, repeals the standing law. It is used at the state level in twenty-four states.
    The recall is a constitutionally-defined, citizen-initiated, petition process, which, if successful, removes an elected official from office by “recalling” the official’s election.

    from various online sources.

  2. canary

    I see no lawsuit problem as long as all applicants are required to do the easy application requirements.

    Sounds like a quaint little old town.

  3. BannedbytheTaliban

    Ignore the lawsuits. Don’t send anybody to defend the statue and keep enforcing it. The courts have no power to force the city to do anything. The only power they have is granted to them by the respect for the rule of law, which Obama has declared war on.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »