Here are a couple of noteworthy opinion pieces in the papers:

SF Chrontrarian Debra Saunders has a column on the SF "sanctuary" policy noted in today's News Scan. She notes "the concept started as a way of letting otherwise law-abiding residents know that they could report crimes to police, send their children to school and see a doctor - without fear that local authorities would turn them into federal authorities." But it didn't stop there.

It was only a matter of time before gang members, including foreign-based drug cartels, figured it out - that no matter what they did in San Francisco, no matter how serious the offense, they need not fear deportation. They knew that The Special City's special politics would shield them.

The worst of it is: Prosecutors went along. The courts went along.

Violent repeat offenders were getting an easy ride. In Ess Eff, that was business as usual.

Steven Calabresi, NWU law prof and co-founder of the FedSoc, has this op-ed in the ChiTrib. What if the Supreme Court read the constitutional age limit for President the same way it reads the Eighth Amendment? (Hat tip: Volokh Conspiracy)

Barack Obama is too young to be president. Yes I know he is 46 and the Constitution sets the presidential age qualification at 35 or higher, but Obama has said that we ought not to interpret the Constitution woodenly and formalistically. Perhaps we should look deeper at the presidential age limit. If we do, we will find that Obama really is too young to be president.

Of course these "purposive" and "pragmatic" interpretations are nonsense in my opinion for reasons that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and legal scholar Robert Bork have long made clear. The framers said 35 in plain English and 35 it is. If Obama wins the election, the courts should not find him barred from serving as president by reason of his youth—notwithstanding the evolving standards of mental acuity that mark the progress of a maturing society as to presidential eligibility.