The Great Flag Debate Continues
Here's a quick follow-up on the Pahrump, NV ordinance banning flying foreign flags alone. Locals Bob and Liese Tamburrino flew an Italian and and a Polish flag on their garage in direct opposition to the new ordinance. First, mad props to the Tamburrino's. But I'm saving the biggest props for Nye County Sheriff Tony DeMeo who said that he has no plans to ever enforce the ordinance as he thinks its unconstitutional.
"The sheriff is a constitutional office," he said. "My job is to make sure when we enforce something there's a constitutionality behind it."Then later in response to an ordinance calling for restrictions on service to illegal immigrants,
"The Nye County sheriff's office dispatch center is not going to ask someone's national status before we send a police car to their residence."Beautiful. Sheriff of the year in my humble opinion.
While in Pahrump, NV you can't fly a foreign flag alone, CO's House (sorry for the CO focus today, hitting the Denver Post web site) is getting ready to vote to remove legal restrictions against permanent displays of other nation's flags at the State level, and pushing the issue to the local school boards. First, great job by the CO House giving up authority and letting the locals decide. Yes, this isn't the biggest issue, but here at the H-Blog we applaud any movement towards more local control (and my "we" I mean "me").
The "flag flying issue" is an example, however small, of the power of the US system. Each state is free to decide what's best for its state, resulting in many simultaneous experiments. In theory, states should pick and choose from those successful experiments, while avoiding the negative ones. The more the Feds assume nationwide laws, the fewer opportunities for experimentation.
So, lets all keep our eyes on Pahrump, NV and the newly freed (hopefully) CO school districts to see who's handling the foreign flag issue more successfully.
Posts
3 comments:
I agree that this is a silly law. But whether or not it is unconstitutional is a matter of opinion that changes with the jurists on the courts. I’m not sure a sheriff should be weighing in on constitutional matters or deciding which laws he wants to enforce. Sounds like a recipe for abuse of power.
Right outcome, wrong process?
(Was this a test?)
While you've stumbled on to the most important aspect of US policy, "the process," here it is very interesting. In fact, right as I posted this post (I wish I were a real writer so I could call it a column) I thought the same thing you did.
Here's my real-time opinion. I think its the duty of all of us to carry the constitution. While I haven't seen the actual oath of the Pahrump Sheriff's department, I assume he swore to "uphold the constitution" making his obligation direct. While it may be his job description to enforce the law, if the law counters the constitution, then he must revert to his oath. By way of example, think of Abu Ghraib, or Mei Lai. Soldiers are duty bound to obey orders, but they should not when the order is "wrong." Clearly, you don't want every cop randomly enforcing laws, nor do you want cops thoughtlessly carrying out their duty.
I think selective enforcement is a larger problem when that selectivity also goes against the USC. For example, allowing whites to do something while punishing blacks. It's also a problem when cops start creating laws.
In this case, any bonehead can see that flying a flag is a protected event (Keep in mind, I also thought that Kelo was a no brainer, and lost that one).
The "process" here is every individuals right and obligation to the USC. Civil disobedience is one strong way of the people saying that a law is "bad." The Sheriff is clearly using a mild form of civil disobedience, and he could lose his job outright, or the people could not elect him next term. If neither happens, the elected officials receive a strong message that the citizens do not support the law.
Being a US citizen is not a spectator sport.
I have no obligation to USC now that it is clear Reggie Bush took money from boosters.
I agree with your stance in principle. We all should "do good" even if the laws are bad. Roe v Wade is a ruling that I believe strongly is unconstitutional. However, if I am a sheriff should I arrest abortionists? Granted one court said abortion is protected by the USC, but another can just as easily say the opposite. So do I base my actions on current court opinions? Or do I base it on my own reading of the USC?
Affirmative action laws are another touchy subject that to me are clearly unconstitutional. Discrimination is wrong no matter what "good" purpose one is attempting to put it to. Let's assume half the people felt as I do and half disagreed. We'd have a hodgepodge of laws either for or against discrimination and then scores of officials either enforcing said laws or ignoring them. It would be quite confusing for someone who is trying to abide by the law.
As much as I like the "follow your own conscience" approach, if we all did it society would become anarchy.
Post a Comment