ICE Officer Jonathan Ross Murders 37-Year-Old Renee Good in Minneapolis
Last August, I predicted that Trump could use the "absolute immunity" granted to him by the Supreme Court to use his paramilitary federal officers to murder Americans. Now that has started. After ICE officer Jonathan Ross murdered Renee Good in Minneapolis, J. D. Vance spoke at a press conference where he said: "That guy is protected by absolute immunity. He was doing his job."
Some MAGA politicians are predicting that ICE agents will be murdering more Americans. Randy Fine, a MAGA Republican congressman from Florida, has said: "If you impede the actions of our law enforcement as they seek to repel foreign invaders from our country, you get what's coming to you. I do not feel bad for the woman who was involved."
7 comments:
Dear Professor Arnhart, I think I understand your view about today’s America. It also stems from your idealistic, utopian vision of America (aka based on abstract ideals) as opposed to a realistic vision (aka based on both historical and cultural events and traits plus abstract ideals, themselves rather drawn from historical and cultural events).
Do people have a ‘right’ to protest what they are legally and morally obliged to accept? Minnesota is subject to the United States Government. Minnesotans are a part of the American people and are ultimately subject to their authority as expressed through the National government. Minnesotans’ have a legal /moral obligation to obey federal laws and to allow for their enforcement. It doesn’t matter whether or not they like those laws,they must comply and they must allow enforcement. They can rightfully advocate for the law to be changed or repealed. They have no right to expect or to demand the withdrawal of federal agents. If popular demand can rightly nullify the enforcement of some federal laws in one State , then it can rightly nullify the enforcement of any and all federal laws in any and all States, Red as well as Blue. Is this what you want?
We are not legally or morally obligated to allow federal agents to murder US citizens.
Nor are we legally or morally obligated to allow federal agents to arrest and detain people without due process of law. That is unconstitutional.
And, yes, we have a right to protest an unjust law. The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 made it a crime to interfere with federal agents who were kidnapping fugitive slaves and returning them to their owners. Helping fugitive slaves was illegal but moral.
And, of course, it violates the Second Amendment to say that federal agents can kill people at a protest if they are carrying a gun.
By the way, States and cities do not have a legal obligation to enforce federal law. As the Supreme Court has made clear (particularly, Scalia), the principle of concurrent authority makes this clear. It's called federalism. The Republican Party used to recognize this.
We are not legally or morally obligated to allow federal agents to murder US citizens.” I don’t know if the killings were justified or not. There is a procedure for determining that. If the individual agents involved are found to have killed without justification they will be punished.However such killings do not negate the federal government’s moral authority to continue to enforce federal laws in every square foot of US territory, and the obligation of all citizens to allow enforcement. Impeding,interfering with, assaulting, threatening, doxing law enforcement officers is not a right. “And, yes, we have a right to protest an unjust law. The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 made it a crime to interfere with federal agents who were kidnapping fugitive slaves and returning them to their owners. Helping fugitive slaves was illegal but moral.” To use the word “ protest “ to describe what is happening in Minneapolis is a stretch. Interfering with,impeding, obstructing, assaulting and doxing law enforcement is not legally protesting . But for the sake of argument we want quibble. We each can have our own beliefs about the morality of a particular law. We can each work to change or repeal the law. We don’t each have a right to interfere with the enforcement of a law we find immoral. If one group of citizens can appoint themselves guardians of justice against one law, any group can for any other law. If one group can oppose the enforcement of law X because they consider X immoral, another can,as rightfully,help law enforcement enforce X, or become the enforcers of X themselves. At some point only physical force will decide which group prevails.That’s a recipe for chaos.
“Nor are we legally or morally obligated to allow federal agents to arrest and detain people without due process of law. That is unconstitutional.” Do private citizens have the right to decide when due process has been denied? “And, of course, it violates the Second Amendment to say that federal agents can kill people at a protest if they are carrying a gun. “. He wasn’t killed simply because he was carrying a gun. The presence of the gun magnified the threat he posed from the perspective of the federal agents, and thus magnified their response. There was no way for them to know his intentions or whether or not he was still armed. Failure to comply with their orders, coupled with the possession of a weapon in a confrontational situation, rather than complying and then settling it in court, got him killed. “By the way, States and cities do not have a legal obligation to enforce federal law. As the Supreme Court has made clear (particularly, Scalia), the principle of concurrent authority makes this clear. It's called federalism. The Republican Party used to recognize this.” I agree that the states should not have to assist the federal government in enforcing federal law, by helping arrest the criminals,but protecting citizens from assault and harassment etc. is a duty of State and local governments and federal agents are citizens. They should be protected like any other citizen going about their business. I’m an old States’ rights man. But not only when it suits the Left and then back to stressing Federal Supremacy when they return to power. I view the opposition to the Trump administration now as just a continuation of what we saw after the ‘16 election, that is the Left’s unwillingness to accept a change in direction on domestic and foreign policy they don’t agree with.
Post a Comment