It’s been said the federal, state and local government does not apply law according to true process; they merely pick and choose which laws to defend and those to oppose.
The recent letters to the editor opposing Routt County Sheriff Garrett Wiggins’ interpreted comments articulately express the individuals’ indignation at this picking and choosing at the local level. They are right, this picking and choosing of what state laws an elected official will enforce and which are not to be enforced should not be an option; however, it is. It has been an option and has been debated since the Constitution was drafted more than 200 years ago: federal law vs. state law vs. local law.
For example, the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution decrees federal law to be the highest form of law in the United States legal system, that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and state law. However, the state of Colorado recently picked and chose not to follow federal decree on marijuana laws. We also see the reverse: Federal government and elected officials chose not to trump states’ marijuana rulings but are choosing to try to trump states’ immigration laws.
In all levels of government, budgeting of monies to enforce one area of law more than another is picking and choosing which laws to defend, uphold and make priority.
Is this right? No, but when our highest level of government does not apply law according to true process, legal precedence has been set, even sometimes contrary to our beloved Constitution. It has been said, lead by example; however, look at our highest levels of leadership. Are these honorable examples? You decide, not based on party affiliation but one vote for integrity at a time.