Is it acceptable for a state and/or locality to counter federal law?

11Bravo said:

the issue is, its not incorrect.

Click to expand...

The Issue is do the rights of the Feds override the rights of the States, or can the States ignore the Feds. Some seem to think that when they agree with the State the Feds can go screw themselves but if they disagree with the State the Feds need to step in or punish the State. Yes, common affliction with those that do not know where they stand.

States having authority over the Feds is a double edged sword.

Good in some laws and bad in others.

Fortunately, we have 50 choices to make in this regard and can choose the state that most fits our ideas.

Some overall federal mandated laws are just plain stupid, and are against all others hold dear.
Lobbyists and others can sway a rep to vote for a law his constituents find repulsive.
That is why I feel state laws should be able to override federal laws when they are repulsive to that state.

Each edge of that sword cuts equally as deep.

Right now the issue is sanctuary cities thumbing their nose at existing federal law.
How many that support this would be against it if there was another issue on the table?

That is why I feel each state should be able to judge their compliance with the feds.

if they love their illegal immigrants, then let them pay for them out of their own pockets.

However, if the issue was some massively overreaching gun control law and Texas thumbed its nose at the feds, (like they have), then you can just bet those in CA would be siding with the feds.

This is why it is best to let the states decide which federal laws they feel like supporting and obeying.

of course this same issue was brought forth in 1860 also, and it ended badly for the Federals in Texas.

BrewerBob said:

Voted yes. As for the example in the op there is nothing remotely illegal about a city or state offering free legal services, even to criminals. Also, there is nothing illegal about state and local governments ignoring federal requests. If it is a federal order then they have to comply or challenge it in court.

Click to expand...

Himmm....Also nothing illegal in the federal government cutting off certain funds to Sanctuary cities and California if they enact Sanctuary policies. Just like when Arizona tried to pass a law to enforce illegal immigration laws, the Obama justice department and the left went bat**** crazy but some how communities not allowing ICE to enforce immigration laws that are on the books and access to illegals criminals is total hypocritical.

Now about the free services...didn't Obama say many, many times that illegals would not be allow to access the ACA?

After Jan 20th I see that fight in court and sanctuary policies sweep aside, especially when the new SC is in place.

when I first saw this, I thought it was in reference to marijuana

It would generally be unConstitutional unless the Federal government makes laws in areas it has no business under the Constitution. Even if the Supreme Court agrees with the Feds, it being a part of the Feds.

In addition, having studied the 14th Amendment and its bogus ratification which does not comport with the requirements to amend under our Constitution, I would say ANY law using this impostor amendment as its basis could be ignored legally by any state that so chose.

Cardinal said:

It's kind of hard for me to be sympathetic to the notion of state rights when the only time the topic ever comes up is almost invariably related to when a state wants to suppress the rights of its citizens.

Click to expand...

IMO, that is the only time when the federal government should get involved. I think the country would be better off if more power was transferred to the states. For instance, if California wants to become a liberal socialist utopia then let them, the problem is using the federal government to push that agenda on the rest of the States.

It depends.

Very much a case-by-case basis thing.

I'm not much for states' rights, since it's hardly ever preached for any good reason, but there are times....

Nap said:

IMO, that is the only time when the federal government should get involved. I think the country would be better off if more power was transferred to the states. For instance, if California wants to become a liberal socialist utopia then let them, the problem is using the federal government to push that agenda on the rest of the States.

Click to expand...

But the federal government has stepped on state's rights many times....most recent I can remember is voting rules and educational rules.

Hmm...I think I voted too quickly.

antiquity said:

But the federal government has stepped on state's rights many times....most recent I can remember is voting rules and educational rules.

Click to expand...

I was saying that the government "should" give power to the states, not that they do. My view is that unless a state tries to do something like slavery or Jim Crown type stuff they should largely stay out of the way.

I voted, No, it isn't. I moved to Colorado recently, and I'm for the legal sale of Med and Rec weed, BUT, it's also true the State IS disregarding Fed Laws on this issue, and they do so at OUR risk.

Imagine, waiting patiently for your crop to come in, and the FBI shows up and busts you down a week before harvest.

My main point here IS there are too many inconsistencies in interpretation, application, and enforcement of the Law, e.g the local/county Police are usually over-zealous, and IF you need one, 10 show up.....I've heard from many that the Highway Patrol are mostly the exact opposite, and in one of my 2 experiences w/ the CHP I could've easily been ticketed, but he didn't write me up, and in fact, he WAS THE coolest LOE I've EVER met, (few believe me when I tell this story) he gave me a "Greeting Card", and he even joked that it was so I could call in an tell them what a brute he was.....

Also, the Legalization advocates promoted the idea that BIG $$$ would then be saved on Law Enforcement, but now due to the MANY Illegal growers here, the costs are even greater....and some of these Growers have come from FL, NY, etc. and even from Foreign Countries to cash in. LEO's have now made these Growers MORE of a priority, and I think they're doing the right thing here....gotta play by the rules, whatever they may be.






After the passage of the READ ID Act, Colorado, (and most states) are ignoring/disregarding the U.S. Constitution's Article 4 Sect. 1, (plz see my thread for more : http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-co...-faith-and-credit-clause-us-constitution.html ).

IMO, the FEDS passed the READ ID Act, knowing full well the ppl's paperwork would NOT meet the new stricter requirements, and the states took full advantage, sending us on a completely unnecessary paper chase, (yes, It's ALL about the money.)

The Dept. of Homeland Sec's website 'reasoned' that it was, "...in the interests of common-sense Law Enforcement..." NOT even close...what a mess they've made.

reinoe said:

During prohibition there was never official opposition to the alcohol ban, just non-cooperation with the law.

This sanctuary city nonsense is beyond the pale. I look forward to an entire state being denied federal funds. Californians seem to have ignored that a very conservative Supreme Court nominee is on the way.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%...how can they possibly expect the LEGAL U.S. Taxpayers to foot the bill here. Esp. considering he FEDS have created this problem by REFUSING to secure our Borders...the inconsistencies, and dbl-standards in Law application, etc. are too numerous to list.

I'm ALL for Judge Nap in the SC, time to get back to common-sense Law.
(I'll nominate J. Arpaio for FED AG, Loretta L. is NO better than that loser Holder.....they both should be sharing a Jail Cell w/ A. Gonzoles.)

Common Sense 1 said:

If the state wants to go to federal court that is fine but just to decide they are not
going to enforce a certain federal law is not acceptable. That would be the definition of
chaos.

Supremacy Clause
The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied.

Click to expand...

Thanks, read my mind....Fed Law is supposed to supercede State every time.