Under the order, private businesses can choose to display signage indicating that ICE cannot enter without a warrant—thereby designating “their property as part of a city-wide network of community spaces that stand together in affirming the safety, dignity, and belonging of all of our residents,” the mayor said.
Johnson touted the order for building “a broad civic shield that limits the reach of harmful enforcement practices. It strengthens neighborhood solidarity and it reaffirms Chicago’s role as a welcoming city.”
The will of citizens comes second to the rights of all people. It wouldn’t matter if 90% of the country wanted this. It would still be an unconstitutional infringement of rights.
100%. The whole point of the document was to put guardrails to override the “3 wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner” scenario.
Laws/rights are just thoughts and words. If 90% of the population wants something—barring some extreme use of force—they’re going to get their way.
Simply declaring something unconstitutional or illegal is a paper shield.
That’s not to say that there isn’t value in codifying these things. It helps maintain long term positions/policies when the government swings across the centrepoint, but they only work because the majority of the population agrees with them.
Most specifically, it’s to provide a framework so that small changes are orderly and big changes deliberate.
Laws provide a framework that tries to resist change to the maximum degree possible, with the benefit that it’s generally agreeable enough to enough people that it’s preferable to the danger and force involved in not having them.
Law and rights are only valid if you can enforce them by force of arms. In the end, might does make right and the biggest gun wins.
~90% of Americans wanted universal background checks after Sandy Hook. That didn’t happen.
Good point. I guess it should be “90% of the population takes any meaningful step towards”