Sanctuaries for constitutional amendments? Really?

This post was originally posted in the Wilson Times on March 7, 2020.

The Wilson County Board of Commissioners has joined a number of other local governments in passing a resolution declaring the county to be a “Second Amendment Sanctuary.” Local governments in North Carolina and other states have passed sanctuary resolutions at the urging of a nationwide movement to declare the Second Amendment in need of sanctuary, refuge, haven, shelter, safety, protection (to list several of the synonyms for sanctuary in a thesaurus). This newspaper has weighed in with its support of the resolution.

I’m still wondering: Why?

The Second Amendment is, after all, a key element of the U.S. Constitution, which North Carolina ratified Nov. 21,1789. The Second Amendment has withstood 231 years without embellishment or special protections. Some county commissioners pointed out that they had sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution (including the Second Amendment).

If Second Amendment advocates are getting cities and counties across the country to impose a “sanctuary” status for one amendment, will fans of other amendments demand sanctuary for their favorite amendments? As a religious person as well as a long-time journalist and loudmouth, I am partial to the First Amendment. Does it need sanctuary? Well, why not?

The Second Amendment is pretty narrowly written. It protects the right to “keep and bear arms” because “a well-regulated militia” is “necessary to the security of a free state.” Supreme Court decisions of the past 50 years have pretty much ignored the militia clause and focused on the “keep and bear arms” alone. But this interpretation that broadens the amendment and extends the right to bear arms to those not in the militia. So why does it need sanctuary status?

It seems to me the First Amendment is in far more imminent danger than the Second Amendment. The president of the United States has declared journalists to be “the enemies of the people” and routinely calls respected news organizations “fake news.” Polls show that younger people, in particular, don’t think a free press or free speech is very important. They say it would be OK for the president to shut down newspapers he doesn’t like, the way dictators do. A lobbying group works to protect Americans “from religion,” instead of the First Amendment’s freedom of religion. Without the support of voters, freedom of the press is in real danger.

Maybe sanctuaries should be declared for the Third Amendment because, despite a surge in appreciation of military members and veterans, no one wants the government to quarter soldiers in private homes without the owner’s permission. The military is facing a housing shortage and lawsuits over toxic substances in military housing, so dumping the Third Amendment might seem sensible to Congress.

Fourth Amendment injunctions against unreasonable searches and seizures cause frequent controversies and criticism. Many are certain that accusal is tantamount to conviction, so why worry about how evidence was obtained?

This sanctuary city/county movement started in response to crackdowns on illegal immigration. Some churches offered sanctuary to illegal immigrants because ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) was reluctant to force its way into houses of worship to make arrests. Some cities went further. They refused to cooperate with ICE or allow agents to make arrests.

I thought the tragic war of 1861-65 settled the primacy of federal law over local and state statutes. The States’ Rights crowd lost that war, but 150 years later some cities are determined to defy the federal government.

Sanctuary for constitutional amendments do not violate the Constitution and aren’t likely to lead to war, but they are and would be redundancies and distractions from more imminent threats.

Advocates for these sanctuaries should remember, as I’ve written many times, that the rights enumerated in the Constitution are not absolute. Freedom of the press is limited by libel laws and privacy. Free speech is limited by laws against slander and inciting a riot.

Even the Second Amendment (with or without sanctuary) can be limited by the scale of “arms” one wishes to bear. The courts are not likely to allow people to “bear” an atomic bomb, a B-52 or a shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile. A local “sanctuary” won’t change that.

Sanctuary Cities follow familiar strategy

Does the "Sanctuary Cities" strategy sound familiar? It should. It's little different from the "nullification and obstruction" strategies adopted by recalcitrant Southern states to oppose the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision declaring racial segregation in education unconstitutional.

Both strategies were hatched to subvert federal laws. Fifty years ago, the despised law required school assignments to be made without regard to race. In the 21st century, the despised law allows federal agents to deport persons who are in this country illegally. Sanctuary cities, such as San Francisco, have declared that their law enforcement and criminal justice officials will not cooperate with federal authorities. They will not turn over illegal aliens to federal authorities or detain them until federal agents can take custody.

Cities are essentially telling the federal government "you don't have authority over us." But that claim of state sovereignty was fought over and settled 150 years ago. Federal law takes precedent over state laws.

Fifty years ago, some Southern states sought to avoid integrating their schools by withdrawing state funds from public schools and providing those funds to private, racially segregated schools. That tactic and other efforts to avoid integrating schools (such as "freedom of choice," allowing students or their parents to choose which school they would attend) succeeded for a while but ultimately were defeated by federal courts.

When some local governments sought to fight illegal immigration by establishing their own arrest and removal policies, immigrant advocates argued that border security and immigration enforcement are federal issues. Now, they argue that cities should be able to stop the federal government from enforcing federal immigration laws within cities' jurisdictions.

The Sanctuary Cities movement may be headed for a showdown, but it need not be as violent as the showdown over school desegregation. The federal government can withhold federal funds from uncooperative cities and may even be able to arrest city officials if they violate federal law. Make no mistake: federal law takes precedent over local and state laws.