A concrete guide to Mark Levin's "Just Say No" Plan

On his radio show recently, Mark Levin had an answer to Obama's plan to create a racial database that would conclude, by statistics only, that towns and organizations and companies are racist, opening up the floodgates for spurious lawsuits.

Mark Levin's answer: "Just say no."  By that he means that towns and companies should not provide racial information to the federal government.  If the federal government asks a school for the racial breakdown of suspended students and/or students in the gifted programs, the school should say no.  If the government asks a company about the racial composition of its employees, the company should say no.  If the government asks a town for a breakdown of low-income housing by  neighborhoods, the town should say no.

The federal government may withhold aid as a response.  It may even sue (even if there are no legal requirements to provide this data).  But here's the key point: if enough companies and schools and towns refuse to provide this data, the federal government will not have the resources to sue them all.  Suing one town will take years.

Look at the example of Levin's Landmark Legal Foundation when it sued the EPA.  LLF sued the EPA to find out about pending regulations and also whom the EPA was talking to in formulating such regulations.  This lawsuit has been going on for three years, and the EPA still hasn't provided the information.  Can you imagine how long, and how many resources it would take the government to sue 50 towns that wouldn't comply?  Five hundred towns?

Now, of course, defending against such lawsuits would cost money, and even Levin notes that property taxes might have to be raised to cover such costs.  But the costs would be worth it if it prevents this unprecedented federal intrusion into local life.

This is how Obama and his administration operate.  They do whatever they like, and they say, "You don't like it?  Catch me if you can, and sue me!," knowing it will be years and years before anything results from it.  We should learn from his behavior, and we have the advantage of numbers.  Even if a few hundred towns, schools, and companies resist, it could clog up the courts for years.

What Levin suggests is that citizens get involved at the local level.  Go with a group of parents to your school board and tell them not to release this information to the federal government.  Go with a group of residents to a council meeting and tell your town not to comply.  Speak up in your workplace and encourage your bosses not to comply.  That's how the civil society can resist tyranny on the local level.

I also wonder if Levin's idea couldn't be expanded into other areas.  In Phyler v. Doe (1982) the Supreme Court issued a clearly unconstitutional ruling that children of illegal aliens were entitled to a primary school education.  How could children of illegals have any rights when they weren't supposed to be here in the first place?  This decision opened the door to stripping states and localities of the right to defend themselves against illegal immigration.

Purely as a thought experiment, I wonder what would happen if a school district required proof of citizenship for students to attend its school.  The school would be sued, of course.  I also wonder what would happen if 50 or 100 schools refused.  What if, after years of litigation, a school lost, but complied by providing a much lesser level of education to illegals in separate classes?  The school would have to be sued again, and more years would pass, and the school could take some corrective measures, but those corrective measures would have to be evaluated, and still more years would pass, and so on.

Practically speaking, if a school refused to educate illegals, chances are the illegals would move somewhere else.  They would "self-deport," at least from that community.  The problem might solve itself, long before the federal lawsuit had resolved.

This article was produced by NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.