Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter, YouTube
The title of the story in the Hartford Courant read: “Connecticut Senate Democrats pass tighter restrictions on ICE agents, right to sue agents.” And the lede said everything worth saying: “HARTFORD, Conn. — Prompted by shootings and heavy-handed tactics [by ICE], the [neo-progressive Democrat controlled] state Senate voted on party lines Tuesday night for a new state civil rights law that would allow Connecticut citizens to sue federal immigration agents…The controversial measure would permit civil lawsuits against federal officials if citizens believed that their civil rights had been violated.”
That is to say: Neo-progressive Democrats in Connecticut, leading by the nose a disappearing remnant of liberal state Democrats, intend, through constitutionally questionable legislation, to remove partial immunity from federal law enforcement agents – so that non-citizens of the United States may sue in court federal agents who wish to detain them. Connecticut’s new “civil rights law” might be constitutional, were it not for the Supremacy Clause, a provision in Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution that establishes the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties as the supreme law of the land, overriding conflicting state laws binding upon state judges.
The Supremacy Clause reads: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing (sic) in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”
Most historians and legal scholars agree that the Supremacy Clause was included in the U.S. Constitution to remedy weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation. The Articles lacked a mechanism to enforce federal law over state law. By establishing federal supremacy, the U.S. Constitution provided a legal framework for resolving conflicts between state and federal legislation and ensured a uniform application of federal law across all states.
According to Constitution Annotated: “The Supremacy Clause was a response to problems with the Articles of Confederation, which governed the United States from 1781 to 1789. The Articles conspicuously lacked any similar provision declaring federal law to be superior to state law. As a result, during the Confederation era, federal statutes did not bind state courts in the absence of state legislation implementing them. To address this issue and related political difficulties, the Confederation Congress called for a convention in 1787 to revise the Articles. While the Supremacy Clause was not a source of major disagreement at the Constitutional Convention that followed, it generated intense controversy during debates over the Constitution’s ratification. But advocates of federal supremacy prevailed. The Constitution was ratified in 1788 with the Supremacy Clause.”
Under the Supremacy Clause, state courts are legally bound to follow federal law. The clause enforces the principle of judicial review by permitting courts to invalidate state or federal statutes that violate the US Constitution. Federal statutes and treaties must conform to the constitution; they may not exceed the powers granted to the federal government.
At the insistence of leftist Democrat State Senator Gary Winfield, who represented Connecticut’s 10th District, the Democrat dominated General Assembly earlier enacted the Trust Act. The Act, according to a memo produced by Attorney General William Tong’ office, barred police from detaining someone solely for immigration issues. The bill allows local governments to detain an individual at the request of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) only if the person has a serious or violent felony conviction.
“A section of the bill [supported by Winfield] that abolishes partial immunity for all police officers in the state,” Connecticut Commentary noted at the time, “has been roundly criticized by Connecticut Republicans, police chiefs and some few Democrat legislators who believe that holding municipalities and individual police officers legally responsible for suits filed against officers, frivolous or merited, will severely reduce police recruitment, especially in large Connecticut cities such as New Haven.” That prediction proved true for obvious reasons: What candidate seeking employment as a police officer would choose to ally himself with a police organization that would permit a suit attaching his private assets?
The Supremacy Clause is the broad-shouldered constitutional provision upon which judicial review rests. Without the Supremacy Clause, there would be no constitutional authority vested in superior courts that allows justices to strike down legislative provisions the courts deem unconstitutional.
Senate Bill 397, which passed muster in the state senate, has been energetically promoted by Governor Ned Lamont and state Attorney General William Tong.
“Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney, a liberal Democrat from New Haven,” the Hartford Courant noted on April 14, “said that Connecticut residents have been ‘appalled’ by the ‘abuses committed by ICE.’ As a result, the [Democrat legislative] caucus crafted the 40-page Senate Bill 397 with the assistance of Gov. Ned Lamont and state Attorney General William Tong.”
Looney has not yet told us whether his constituents would be similarly appalled by his thus far successful attempt to subvert the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause without first making the slightest gesture to repeal the offending provision in the time-honored fashion.
“Senate Republican leader Stephen Harding of Brookfield, the Courant reported,“ said that there are ‘barrels of case law in favor of overturning [Senate Bill 397].’ After the smoke clears and the debate ends, Harding said, ‘All we’re left with is another anti-cop bill from Hartford.’”
Republicans generally trust that appellate courts will not permit Connecticut’s neo-progressive legislators to remove by statute a constitutional authority under the Supremacy Clause that allows justices to overrule laws they regard as constitutionally subversive.
As usual, state senator Rob Samson, one of the state’s legislative jewels in Connecticut’s crown of neo-progressive thorns, got it exactly right.
Samson blasted Senate Bill 397 as “extremely offensive” in its treatment of law enforcement, according to the Courant.
“I would call it a Trojan horse, anti-police bill,” Sampson said on the Senate floor. “It cannot be overstated just how important they [ICE law officials] are to maintaining law and order. … Most of this bill is patently unconstitutional. … Immigration policy falls under the federal government. It’s the United States, not the state of Connecticut, that makes immigration policy.”
Stay updated with the latest in the Constitution State with The CT Centinal
