A Most Curious Notion, Or

When Laws Are Optional

In this experiment called government, there are a few trifling matters which, in theory, should be settled without fuss—one is that laws get obeyed. However, in Nevada, a new and most peculiar doctrine has emerged–laws, it seems, are more like friendly suggestions, and duty is whatever is deemed convenient.

The latest performance in this ongoing farce features Attorney General Aaron Ford and Governor Joe Lombardo, two men squaring off over the delicate matter of whether law enforcement officers should enforce the law. Mr. Ford has provided Nevada’s sheriffs, police, and public institutions with a comprehensive set of “model policies” regarding immigration enforcement—policies that seem to be binding.

He assures us that they are suggestions and do not create a “sanctuary” for criminals, which is an excellent thing to claim–if one ignores the fact that these same policies seem designed to ensure that no one in uniform is troubled by the dreary business of actually enforcing immigration laws.

Meanwhile, Governor Lombardo, having discovered that the laws of the United States are under review by the esteemed bureaucrats of Nevada, was quick to declare that as long as he holds office, the state will “follow federal law.” It is a bold and remarkable stance. One might suppose that adherence to the Constitution would be an assumed duty rather than a dramatic pronouncement, but these are not ordinary times.

The sheriffs and police chiefs of Nevada, who one might assume exist to uphold the law, have also weighed in with an interpretation of their duty, which amounts to “not our job.” The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department has assured the public that immigration violations will not be of concern unless a particularly disagreeable criminal wanders into their jail. Even then, they shall require the federal authorities to file the proper paperwork, lest the dignity of local law enforcement get inconvenienced by enforcing the very laws that Congress—an institution presumably still in the business of governing—has already passed.

As the matter stands, it would appear that we are in the peculiar position of having laws without enforcers, enforcers without duty, and bureaucrats and politicians who will gladly argue over everything except the simple proposition that the Constitution is not a buffet from which one may pick and choose. One might dare to hope that a governor and an attorney general—both of whom swore an oath to uphold the Constitution—would settle this not with grandstanding and declarations but by recognizing that the laws of the land are not mere suggestions, nor are they to be enforced only when it pleases those in office.

Then again, hope has never been a great success in the halls of government.