Skip to comments.So, the Democrats say the states have a right to defy the federal government. Is this a bad thing?
Posted on 01/08/2019 3:39:19 PM PST by Jim Robinson
The democrats say the states have a right to defy the federal government when it comes to NOT enforcing immigration laws they don't like.
Does this mean the more conservative states have a right to defy the federal government in regards to enforcing laws they don't like? 'Legalized' abortion on demand or same-sex marriage, for example. How about gun control laws?
Is there any federal law that states MUST enforce even if they don't like it?
Can cities and states pass sanctuary one man, one woman marriage laws? Sanctuary pro-life laws? Sanctuary gun rights laws? Sanctuary free religion laws? Sanctuary don't have to bake the homosexual cake law, etc.
This could be a good thing. Especially when the states believe the federal government has overstepped its constitutional bounds or limits and or infringed on states or individual rights.
It is a good thing, but the Democrats will only apply it to their current fads.
I’d love to see a state declare itself sovereign on the issue of full automatic weapons.
That’d be sweet!!!
They’re going to be for this until they get one of their microbes in office, and then they will be against it.
It’s a ploy, and perhaps useful for the right if we had any inclination at all to hold them to precedent. I remember DOMA being the law of the land at one point, for example.
It will either be contested in court. Or by trial of fire.
Well the Obama Admin sued Arizona (and WON) when AZ tried to enforce the immigration laws that the Obama admin wasnt enforcing! What a total SNAFU!
Its bad when the states are overrun by socialist, islamists and communist radicals
” NOT enforcing immigration laws they don’t like. “
Liking it isn’t a requirement.
If the RATs are in power, they would not be for this type of states rights. Rules and laws and the Constitution are optional when a republican is in power, especially one who is being conservative.
Good or bad?
IMHO, it depends. Generally, if its a Tenth Amendment issue, I’m OK with the states throwing sand at the Federal Government. For example, take pot... or abortion... those could be addressed at the state level, and since they aren’t in the Constitution, are among powers reserved for the states.
But, immigration is not a Tenth Amendment issue, because border control, and protection from invasion is one of the issues specifically addressed in the Constitution and allotted to the Federal Government. Moreover, California’s lax border and sanctuary policies affect other states. An illegal who enters through California can go anywhere in the US afterwards.
This is called Political Judo.
It’d be one time liberals would love to use nuclear weapons, for a breakaway conservative productive state.
Those states are sources of tax slaves and the liberal utopian world has to have some kind of support.
“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”
US Constitution, Article I, Section 9
Just missed the cutoff - by 211 years.
I don’t think the States have to enforce Federal laws.
When you are out and about with your Class III firearms, it’s not Vermont that’s gonna get ya. It’s the BATFE (the Feds).
When you launder US currency, it’s not the State of Georgia that’s after you - it’s the Treasury police (the Feds).
And so on.
IF Trump can frame the illegal immigration (invasion, actually) as a national emergency, then the federal authority to protect the NATION ‘trumps’ the demon rats’ idiocy.
Hypocrites. They didnt like Arizonas illegal immigration law and they didnt think she had a right to not follow the federal standard.
You cant have it both ways.
The doctrine of “NULLIFICATION.”
According to Vice President John C. Calhoun, the federal government only existed at the will of the states. Therefore, if a state found a federal law unconstitutional AND detrimental to its sovereign interests, it would have the right to “nullify” that law within its borders. Calhoun advanced the position that a state could declare a national law void.
Democrats believe in states rights - as long as its THEIR state rights that are upheld:
Relative to the obscene act of abortion it is the decision of each and individual state. The real hell of it many many federal laws are an usurpation of each individual states rights.
The Civil War was not only about slavery. Those that owned slaves in the South were a small minority. It makes one ask why did the men of the South that did not own slaves fight for the South. The major factor was State Rights and many others that were economically related.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.