We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
One of the points Codevilla makes is that America is so diverse geographically, culturally, and attitudinally that one-size-fits-all constructed by the elites, the "anointed," in Washington will be certain to make many people feel ignored if not oppressed.
Consider sanctuary cities (and states). Some hundreds of cities in America have declared that they are taking no part in enforcing national immigration laws. The government of great big California has set up an executive office to figure out all the ways in which to evade or just to stiff anything it does not like coming from the Trump Administration. And why not? Practically speaking, the federal government doesn’t have the power to make local officials enforce its rules, or even court judgments, against significant popular opposition. Yes, nowadays every federal agency has its SWAT team. But state or city officials, backed by the voters, can nullify or simply ignore a federal law, regulation, or court order, because countering peaceful nullification is hard—and usually unwise, too. Sending paramilitaries to arrest elected officials or citizens who comply with local law or policy is a blind alley. Yes, President Eisenhower sent the 101st airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957 to enforce school desegregation after Brown v. Board of Education. But that symbolic act (no resistance, no force, no arrests) succeeded because the government then enjoyed a moral authority that it has since squandered. Nothing like that will ever happen again.
The reality is that, today, the people of California and Massachusetts continue to diverge from those of Texas and the Dakotas in so many ways that applying the administrative state’s formulae to them requires ever more force. Substituting administrative force for waning consensus makes for less national unity, not more. Why not, then, deal with the problem by accepting reality?
Practically speaking, the federal government doesn’t have the power to make local officials enforce its rules, or even court judgments, against significant popular opposition.
The Commandeering Doctrine, based on the Tenth Amendment, means that the federal government can't make states enforce most federal mandates. However, the states can't interfere with federal government enforcement.
For instance, in Prigg vs. Pennsylvania, the Court found that Pennsylvania couldn't prevent slaves being sent back to slavery under the Fugitive Slave Act, but it also found that the federal government couldn't force Pennsylvania to cooperate in this action. This has been reaffirmed in more recent decisions.
But state or city officials, backed by the voters, can nullify or simply ignore a federal law, regulation, or court order, because countering peaceful nullification is hard—and usually unwise, too.
It's not nullification to not cooperate. Federal officials are free to enforce federal law, even in sanctuary jurisdictions.
Yes, President Eisenhower sent the 101st airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957 to enforce school desegregation after Brown v. Board of Education.
In this case, the 14th Amendment gives the federal government power over states with regards to equal protection of the law.
Texas passed a law that, in effect, closes down most of its abortion clinics. The U.S. Supreme Court struck it down. What if Texas closed them nonetheless? Send the Army to point guns at Texas rangers to open them?
More typically, hold specific officials in contempt. If necessary, issue a writ, and have the officials brought by federal marshals to federal court.
For that matter, what is the federal government doing about the fact that, for practical purposes, its laws concerning marijuana are being ignored in Colorado and California?
If the federal government wants to enforce federal law, they can do so.
Regarding sanctuary cities, the federal government can, and should, withdraw whatever money such jurisdictions receive from the federal government for the functions in question.
Per the Commandeering Doctrine, as noted in South Dakota v. Dole and affirmed in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the federal government can encourage, "but the amount of funding withheld cannot be coercive."