Talking about two separate subjects.
The other comment regarded the "sanctuary cities" comment.
I have explicitly stated the two are different scenarios.
I explained WHY they are different scenarios.
I'll explain further now as well.


Uphold the constitution.
It does NOT say "enforce every federal law". Sanctuary cities are refusing to enforce immigration federal law.
Until there is an immigration constitutional amendment requiring enforcement, there is no parallel.

Kim Davis is violating the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment requires an equal application of rights. Kim Davis is refusing to recognize marital rights, violating the 14th amendment (as SCOTUS already recognized and court judges have reaffirmed in hearing her case).

What federal constitutional provision is being violated when a city employee refuses to enforce federal laws on immigration?
Hint: NONE.
Because federal law is not the same thing as federal constitution. And there is a difference between upholding the constitution (which is often about protecting rights) and upholding federal law.

To reiterate, I do NOT agree with sanctuary city implementation.
But regarding the comments made here, I am pointing out there is no real parallel.


On another level, it should give people pause to question WHY the sanctuary cities are not being prosecuted by federal government...
Such an investigation would arrive at some of the comments made above.
But I know for some it's just too easy to jump to the false conclusion that it's because right-wing causes don't see justice...

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln