The Tennessee Legislature has passed a falling bill — or should fall. It provides criminal penalties to local civil servants who vote for sanctuary policies that local governments refuse to cooperate with federal immigration policies. This law will be attacked by the centre of the representative government.

The right to vote and the right to express is one of the most important rights of all Americans. Any appropriate limits require the most rigorous scrutiny.

Individuals running for civil service run with the understanding that they represent their members. Some believe this task is to function as merely as a mouthpiece for district members (representative view), while others believe it is to exercise their own independent judgment (trustworld view). Some people do. In either case, as representatives, they are the voices of their members, and they may choose to re-elect them or further deny them the time they have in office.

Are we going to chain these representatives now? What if it’s a crime to voting for a measure offered by Democrats? Or Republican? Or because of a policy that refuses to recognize Christianity as an official national religion? Or for those who vote against the approval of their local charter school? Or a new sports franchise?

This law sets a terrible precedent. If you start jailing a civil servant for voting for one law, what will stop you from being jailed by a vote in another law? Furthermore, this law comes when you enter Trump vs. United States (2024), the US Supreme Court recently expanded the US President’s protection against official conduct. A president who can put the entire country at risk is immune, and local officials may be fined and sent to prison.

Voting for immigration sanctuary policy: “Constitutional Suspects”

Even after the provision of all freedom of speech and press before the First Amendment to the US Constitution, members as well as the drafters of the constitution as described in Article 6, Article 6, have said, “Rebellion, In all cases except felony, violations” Peace is given privileges from arrest during attendance, but “they are asked elsewhere in either house for any speech or discussion. there is no”. In a similar way, Article 13, Section 2 of the Tennessee Constitution provides that members of the state Senate or House are not “” for speeches or discussions in either House. . . You will be asked elsewhere. ”

If you take away such privileges from a local entity, what will you find next?

Gov. Bill Lee argues that state law adopted in 2018 against the establishment of immigration reserves is lacking in teeth. House majority leader William Lambers said the new law applies to city councils, county boards, school boards and city and county mayors.

To be very clear, this law is content-based and therefore angers first amendment’s freedom of speech. Representatives are free to vote against the Sanctuary Act, but not for them. In this case, we proceed from criminalising the entry of non-citizens to criminalising the representatives and express the views of their constituents.

There is considerable irony in the fact that a state of great appreciation of the right to go to war with the union is largely conscious of the will of officials within its own region, simply asking for no limit to the scope. Their authority throws their opponents into prison.

It may be slower, but there is a fully constitutional way for the state to enforce the law. If the area adopts a sanctuary policy banned by the state legislature, then legislatures can bring the matter to court. If a state issues constitutional policy, the courts will hamper deviant local policies without penalty or being in prison.

I am debating on behalf of the holiness of votes. If Republican-controlled Congress can punish officials for voting for sanctuary status, then democratic-controlled Congress can punish them for not doing so.

The preamble to the US Constitution proudly boasts that it is the work of “our people.” Article 1 of the Tennessee Declaration of Rights declares that “all powers are unique to the people, and all free governments are based on their powers.” Furthermore, people declare that they have “the right to change, reform or abolish government as it always appears appropriate, and to remain undeniable.”

The Tennessee Legislature has decided to limit this when it comes to voting on immigration treatment. What is next?