- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Not true Cap. The tenth amendment specifically allows for nullification. In fact, the legalization of marijuana in the western states is showing just that, the states are contending that the federal cannot prevent them from legalizing marijuana and are doing so as we speak. The federal are not contesting it with any success. Also, up until about 20 years or so my state was the last to change the drinking age to a universal 21 and up, one could consume in public at a class B establishment as long as they were 18 or over. The federal had to threaten the withholding of highway funds to force compliance because they had no legal recourse under the Supremacy clause, they couldn't legally force states to adhere to the federal 21+ law so they tied in money, that is coercion.
No, the supremacy clause is not a catchall available to the federal, they must have that power reserved to them. Personally, I would like to see the states start sticking it to the federal on that and forcing losses in court. I also wouldn't mind in lieu of fair decisions calling a state convention and kicking the legs out from under this runaway federal.
No, the Supremacy Clause over rules the 10th on this issue, because the 10th doesn't apply. If the federal government connects the law to the Constitution, then the 10th is irrelevant to the issue. As far as the drinking age issue, I do not believe that the Supremacy Clause could be applicable in that case.
And you and I certainly differ on where the power in this country should lie. I would prefer to see the individual powers of the states quelled so we don't have 50 little fiefdoms.