Op-ed views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

To understand why the Democrat Party believes they have a right to “sanctuaries” from our common law and why,  I thought it wise to consult directly the sources of our nation’s foundations to discover how a single party can act as if it can be a separate government.

I was led to begin with the source of “our” Constitution’s underpinnings as a social compact, a document that ensures our freedoms and individual rights as citizens under law, and so began with John Locke, the philosophical godfather of our country, who wrote in his “Two Treatises on Government.”

“It is not every compact that puts an end to the state of Nature between men, but only this one of agreeing together mutually to enter into one community and make one body politic.”

So we are, as American citizens, one body politic joined by one document of law, The United States Constitution, which notes “our” compact’s first duty – in the first sentence: “We the people…in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,  provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty…”

Locke further designed that ”thus all private judgment of every particular member being excluded, the community comes to be umpire… authorized by the community for their execution, decides all the differences that may happen between any members of that society concerning any matter of right; and punishes those offences which any member hath committed against the society with such penalties as the law has established.”

As citizens, we are bound by “our” common law.

“The legislative was so placed in collective bodies of (assembly) by which means every single person became subject equally… to those laws…nor could anyone, by (their) own authority, avoid the force of the law, when once made…by any pretense of superiority.”

Free peoples governed by such social compacts of law are so, because, as Charles Montesquieu, the reputed father of constitutions, who our constitution’s framers studied more than any other author, attested in: “The Spirit of the Laws,” that “the legislative power should reside in the whole body of the people.” And that obedience to legislation is not submission, it is a necessary condition for freedom and stability. Freedom can only exist “when every citizen lives under stable, known laws that apply equally to all.” If citizens disregard laws, the system collapses into chaos.

In the Federalist, founders Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison wrote: “a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it.”

Not even if they are Democrats.

Our founders further stated: “The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government.”

In our Constitution, the means of passing laws is defined in Article I, Section Seven:

“Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve, he shall sign it.”

The supremacy of “our” federal law is defined in Article VI, Clause Two

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States…, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

The Immigration and Nationality Act was passed by constitutional process in 1952 by a Democrat House and Senate and signed by a Democrat President. Many amendments have been added by Houses, Senates and Presidents of both parties, but it stands today as the law of the United States and its citizens.

So, why do 11 blue states and 18 blue cities set themselves as “sanctuaries” where our common laws are confronted by state officials?  What makes them so special… or so heinous? The reasons are both superficial and profound.

The more dependency there is in “our” country, the more Democrat dominated agencies, states and cities are funded, not by the number of citizens, but by the number of illegal aliens too. From welfare, to housing, to healthcare, to food stamps, to education, to the EPA – the funding from taxpayers to dependents goes out in bulk; since the advent of the “Great Society” legislation, $23 Trillion has gone the same way…

But today there is more to protect, in addition to murderers and rapists, these “sanctuaries” protect thieves operating on an industrial scale to steal taxpayer’s hard earned incomes, to the tune of $18 Billion in Minnesota alone… and counting.

What can a nation do? The Constitution prescribes voting bad officials and policies out of office.

Enter the Save Act, to stop fraudulent votes from being counted.  Prediction: Democrats will not supply one vote for passage. They have lost too much fraud money supplied by DEI, by ESG and the Green Energy scams.

They are down to the elections, they steal and the billions from dependency programs.

The Constitution be damned.

• About
• Latest Posts

Richard Lyons

Richard C. Lyons, author of The DNA of Democracy: Volume I and Shadows of the Acropolis: Volume II is a third generation printer, whose early career centered on religious and special education publishing. Lyons has since engaged in literary pursuits as a poet, essayist, screenwriter and indie publisher.

Latest posts by Richard Lyons (see all)

• Who do you think you are? - February 27, 2026
• Glory on the Fourth - July 4, 2025
• Birth rights and due process - April 25, 2025

Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.