Wally Wonders Why > Subject to jurisdiction
Subject to jurisdiction
John Stark at the Herald writes an article today describing an issue with liquor law compliance at the Nooksack Casino that should , but probably won’t, affect the license for the new Lynden Casino. I am glad the Herald was willing to run an unpopular topic especially one that favors a conservative issue. The issue I see is bigger than the casino or it’s liquor license. The issue is people living within the borders of our nation without being subject to our laws.
…then casino manager Mike Wootan “has repeatedly demonstrated through his actions/comments to us over the years that despite holding a liquor license with the state of Washington, he/they do not recognize the board’s lawful authority to regulate liquor sales at this casino.
…deny the tribe’s liquor license for the new casino unless tribal officials formally accepted the state’s jurisdiction over liquor sales there.
…the Nooksacks have questioned the state’s authority to regulate liquor sales on Indian land, and as a result, the liquor board has scaled back enforcement activity at tribal liquor sales outlets,
People living in the US yet refusing to be subject to the jurisdiction of our laws is a big problem. Our Consititution touches on the issue.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
At least we know that to be a citizen you need to be subject to the jurisdiction of State laws; but what do we call those who won’t subject themselves to jurisdiction? In the old days there was a word for those who chose to live outside the law. They called them outlaws. Today we have several outlaw groups living among us; the tribes, illegal immigrants, legal immigrants such as Muslim extremists and your garden variety homegrown won’t follow the rules outlaw. Again, in the old days where outlaws were outlaws, the sheriff knew how to deal with them. In this day we are to politically correct to actually do what needs to be done and it is a problem.
“That’s discriminatory law enforcement,” Elfo said. “It creates a huge issue for public safety.”
Yes, I agree that enforcing laws for one group or individual and not for another group or individual is a problem. Will the Sheriff call for a show down at noon? Or will he mount a posse to go deal with the problem. Alas, he probably won’t do either because this “discriminatory law enforcement” is the work of socialist Democrats who rely on many of these groups to keep them in power.