Hypocrite & Insurrectionist Rod Taylor cites Supremacy Clause

Coos County Commissioner Rod Taylor has proposed a proclamation expressing the county’s support for honoring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer requests. The proclamation emphasizes the supremacy of federal law over state law, acknowledges the role of ICE detainers in public safety, and asserts a commitment to cooperating with federal immigration enforcement, even in the face of state laws that may limit such cooperation.

In Oregon, the Sanctuary Promise Act (House Bill 3265), enacted in 2021, strengthens existing sanctuary laws by prohibiting state and local law enforcement and public agencies from participating in immigration enforcement without a judicial warrant. This includes honoring ICE detainer requests, which are considered voluntary and not legally binding. Compliance with such detainers without a judicial warrant has been found to potentially violate the Fourth Amendment, leading to legal liabilities for local jurisdictions.

Similar proclamations supporting ICE detainer requests have been considered or enacted in other jurisdictions, particularly in states without sanctuary policies. For instance, in 2017, Texas passed Senate Bill 4, effectively banning sanctuary cities by requiring local law enforcement to comply with federal immigration detainer requests and imposing penalties for non-compliance.

However, in sanctuary states like Oregon, such proclamations are less common due to state laws that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The proposed proclamation by Commissioner Taylor appears to be an attempt to challenge or circumvent Oregon’s sanctuary policies by asserting the county’s support for federal immigration enforcement efforts.

It’s important to note that while local jurisdictions can express support for federal immigration enforcement, they remain subject to state laws governing the extent of permissible cooperation. Any action taken by Coos County in response to this proclamation would need to be carefully evaluated for compliance with Oregon’s Sanctuary Promise Act to avoid potential legal challenges.

Let us not forget Taylor’s participation in the January 6th insurrection raises serious concerns about his commitment to democratic principles and the rule of law. His involvement in an attempt to overturn a lawful election through violence and intimidation undermines his credibility when advocating for “law and order” policies, such as his ICE detainer proclamation. It is especially hypocritical for him to invoke the Supremacy Clause to justify federal immigration enforcement while having actively participated in an event that sought to defy federal authority and subvert the Constitution. His actions on January 6th call into question his fitness for public office and his selective allegiance to federal law when it serves his political agenda.

Taylor’s reliance on the Supremacy Clause in his proposed ICE detainer proclamation while simultaneously advocating for county control over federal lands reveals a fundamental inconsistency in his reasoning. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution) establishes that federal law takes precedence over state and local laws when conflicts arise. If Taylor truly embraced this principle, he would have to acknowledge that federal land management policies—governed by agencies like the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)—also take precedence over any local or state desires to control federal lands.

Hypocrisy in Taylor’s Position

1. Selective Application of Federal Authority
   • When it comes to immigration enforcement, Taylor argues that local and state governments must defer to federal law and cooperate with ICE, even if state laws prohibit such cooperation.
   • However, when it comes to federal land management, he argues that local counties should have the power to override federal control and exploit resources like timber to fund county services.

   → He cannot have it both ways—either he respects federal supremacy across all issues, or he must acknowledge the role of state and local governance where permitted.

2. Ignoring Federal Mandates on Land Use
   • Public lands managed by USFS and BLM are governed by federal laws like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), which require sustainable management for multiple uses (e.g., recreation, conservation, grazing, and resource extraction).
   • Taylor’s push for local control over federal land contradicts these laws and federal agencies’ established authority, making his appeal to the Supremacy Clause highly inconsistent.
3. Misunderstanding the Purpose of Federal Land
   • The U.S. government manages federal lands for the benefit of the entire nation, not just individual counties. Allowing local jurisdictions to unilaterally exploit these lands would prioritize short-term economic interests over long-term national environmental and economic considerations.
   • If Taylor truly accepted federal supremacy, he would recognize that decisions regarding resource extraction on federal lands belong to Congress and federal agencies, not local governments.

Flaws in His Reasoning

1. Legal Inconsistency
   • If local governments must comply with federal immigration laws because of the Supremacy Clause, then they must also comply with federal land-use laws that govern USFS and BLM lands.
   • Taylor’s argument for increased local control over federal lands directly contradicts the very constitutional principle he is using to justify mandatory compliance with ICE detainers.
2. Potential for Legal and Constitutional Challenges
   • Courts have repeatedly ruled against local and state attempts to take control of federal lands, affirming that federal land belongs to all Americans, not just the counties where it is located.
   • Example: The 2016 case involving Ammon Bundy and the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge demonstrated that attempts to seize federal land under the pretense of “local control” do not hold legal weight.
3. Ignoring Economic and Environmental Consequences
   • Sustainable land management requires balancing economic, ecological, and recreational interests.
   • If counties were allowed to harvest timber freely to fund services, it would lead to unsustainable logging practices, harming ecosystems and creating long-term economic instability.
   • Moreover, federal lands already generate revenue for local governments through Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and revenue-sharing programs from logging, grazing, and recreation fees.

Conclusion

Rod Taylor’s position is logically inconsistent, legally flawed, and economically shortsighted. If he truly believes in the Supremacy Clause, he must accept federal authority over both immigration enforcement and federal land management. His attempt to selectively apply federal supremacy when it suits his political agenda while rejecting it when it conflicts with his local control ideology reveals blatant hypocrisy.

Ultimately, his stance undermines legal consistency and demonstrates a misunderstanding of both federal authority and land management policies. If Coos County were to challenge federal land management, it would face serious legal opposition—just as Oregon would if it openly defied federal immigration law.