Description
Question 1.)
Drawing from Bardes (Chapter 4), please discuss and analyze the Supreme Court ruling in Miller v. CA. (1973). What was the court’s ruling with regard to obscenity as speech under the First Amendment?
Question 2)
Now that we have covered both Nation-Centered & State-Centered Federalism, let’s apply it to immigration, specifically, the federal Trump Administration’s expanded ICE policy of more indiscriminate search & deportation policy versus California and other states’ “sanctuary” policies (this essentially means the state requiring state & local law enforcement agencies to NOT cooperate with ICE and NOT give them information and access to undocumented immigrants in jails and communities).
(1) Argument 1: State & local law enforcement agencies must be required to cooperate and provide ICE with information. Federal law is the supreme law of the land and, accordingly, state laws and practices must be consistent with, and have the same purpose as the federal law/policy. What interpretation of federalism is this consistent with? Please provide the evidence from the Constitution, as covered in modules.
(2) Argument 2: States have every constitutional right to create “sanctuary” laws. Each state has the authority to create its own police powers. This means that each of the states has the power to create its own law enforcement priorities. If state & local law enforcement agencies feel that cooperating with ICE will have a chilling effect on immigrant communities, then these said communities will not cooperate with state & local agencies in solving the real threatening crimes that the state & local agencies have deemed top priority.
What interpretation of federalism is this consistent with? Please provide the evidence from the Constitution, as covered in modules.
