Silly sheriffs.

Don't they know that local, county and State governments have long since been dissolved, and that all police are now just foot soldiers for the Centralized Authoritarian Regime?

Obey your Commander In Chief, soldiers.

Ricardo Klement: They think those federal programs that benefit THEM are ok

Such as... ?

clancifer: I wonder if these treasonous morons still proclaim they're 'proud to be an American'?


Whar "treason"???

Whar?

I live in the US.

And I'm asking you which Federal programs you think "Constitutionalists" like, as opposed to the ones they think are "an unconstitutional seizure of their money."

Examples?

adamgreeney: Amos Quito: I live in the US.

And I'm asking you which Federal programs you think "Constitutionalists" like, as opposed to the ones they think are "an unconstitutional seizure of their money."

Examples?

Federal disaster aid, money to build and repair infrastructure, and money for the departments seems a-ok with them. but tell them they can't racially profile, sell a bazooka at wal-mart and have to follow Miranda rules and it's fascism. that's what we see here.


Sounds like we're off to a rational start.

Oy.

Self-important wankers have convention to wank, feel self-important.

That's what these militia movements are mostly about. Sitting around talking about how patriotic you are and even though you aren't doing anything important now you're ready just in case you need to overthrow a tyrannical government. They are one step below LARPers because LARPers generally know they're playing make believe.

BiblioTech: Its sponsors included the John Birch Society, the Gun Owners of America and the Front Sight Firearms Training Institute. Advertisers included survivalist businesses, anti-IRS proponents, purveyors of gold-buying secrets and one company that sells a guide, "How to Turn Your Home into a Fortress."

Kind of says it all right there.

El Paso County Commissioner Peggy Littleton, who attended with El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa, gave a presentation that took another tack. She told how her county recently passed a resolution to nullify the National Defense Authorization Act.

How much does anyone want to bet that they only want to nullify the 'Obama can arrest anyone' part of the law, while still being completely happy to take any money appropriated through it for border enforcement or reserve units stationed in the county?

Amos Quito: Silly sheriffs.

Don't they know that local, county and State governments have long since been dissolved, and that all police are now just foot soldiers for the Centralized Authoritarian Regime?

Obey your Commander In Chief, soldiers.

Congratulations. You've now made the transition from Orange 1 to Grey 1.

Convention to discuss the pitfalls and problems that come about when local agencies have to deal with fed agencies? Good!

Sponsored by the John Birch Society and apparently everyone who advertizes on Glenn Beck TV? Skullfarkingly bad.

You may as well have a biology convention run by Young Earth Creationists and cryptozoologists.

Oh I knew this was going to be a fun thread because I knew all of the usual liberal suspects would be ranting and raving about this.

And a month from now they will be on the other side screaming that the fed can't come in and arrest people after a state legalizes marijuana... And then turn right around and say that the fed can stop a state from enforcing laws it has passed concerning immigration.

So are you for states rights or against them? Make up your mind and be consistent please. As for myself?

1. A state can pass its own marijuana laws and enforce them and the federal government can butt the hell out.
2. A state can pass its own immigration laws and enforce them and the federal government can butt the hell out.
3. A state can pass any law not forbidden by the Constitution and the federal government can butt the hell out.

In the even that the federal government decides it doesn't want to "butt the hell out", I fully support a states rights to start arresting people who are breaking state laws, no matter who sent them.

randomjsa: words

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause (pops)

randomjsa: Oh I knew this was going to be a fun thread because I knew all of the usual liberal suspects would be ranting and raving about this.

And a month from now they will be on the other side screaming that the fed can't come in and arrest people after a state legalizes marijuana... And then turn right around and say that the fed can stop a state from enforcing laws it has passed concerning immigration.

So are you for states rights or against them? Make up your mind and be consistent please. As for myself?

1. A state can pass its own marijuana laws and enforce them and the federal government can butt the hell out.
2. A state can pass its own immigration laws and enforce them and the federal government can butt the hell out.
3. A state can pass any law not forbidden by the Constitution and the federal government can butt the hell out.

In the even that the federal government decides it doesn't want to "butt the hell out", I fully support a states rights to start arresting people who are breaking state laws, no matter who sent them.

That would make each state its own country, beholden only to the constitution. Doesn't work that way. Federal law trumps state law trumps municipal law trumps HOA law trumps "you live in my house you obey my rules" law.

Is this 1850?

If most constituents knew that their sheriff went to this convention, they'd be so outraged that they'd only let them keep the office for another three terms.

randomjsa: I fully support a states rights to start arresting people who are breaking state laws, no matter who sent them.

So, a state can make it illegal to be gay?

Sorry, the Federal Government is more responsive and trustworthy than Officer Obie. The only people who want him in charge, are those that benefit from local corruption.

Ricardo Klement: BiblioTech: I wonder how that will fly when they have a forest fire to deal with?

No one has a stronger sense of entitlement than "constitutionalists". They think those federal programs that benefit THEM are ok, but those that benefit others an unconstitutional seizure of their money.

I may be Republican, but I'm not an imbecile.

/Granted, that distinction is not easy these days.

nice handle, bro.

Nazis. Tee Hee.

Another threatening to bring out his SWAT team to go up against a federal government SWAT team

Yeah, good luck with that.

It's all fun and games until the SEALs show up.

and


VS.



I predict a horrendous crash.

Who footed the bill for this junket?

Give me a break, in the lives of the average citizen it is state and local law enforcement trampling constitutional rights above and beyond the federal gov't. Be it harassment, illegal searches, brutality, prosecutorial misconduct, or horrific prison conditions, states have *nothing* to crow about in this respect.

Kumana Wanalaia: randomjsa: words

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause (pops)

I think this says it all.

A Federal Law automatically overrides any contradictory state laws (unless the federal law in question has a built-in mechanism to allow states to opt out). I might think a Federal law is stupid, but it still overrides any state law on the subject until it is repealed.

If a Federal Law is unconstitutional, then it's up to the Supreme Court to declare it as such, not the individual states.


Now does this mean State laws permitting marijuana are in violation of the Supremacy clause, unfortunately yes. I support legalization, but I believe it must happen on the Federal level. Either by congress passing a measure legalizing it outright, or by the Supreme Court ruling the commerce clause does not allow the Federal government to ban marijuana grown, sold, and consumed within a single state.

Crosshair: Don't Troll Me Bro!: I remember reading something about that. It seemed to me the feds realized that while they were waving their cocks back and forth against these hillbillies there were people dying. Then after they realized this they decided to take a more productive action instead of escalating this further. Afterwards the hillbillies thought they stood down the feds.

No, they weren't scared of you, inbred hicks. They were smart enough and mature enough to realize what was happening was asinine and innocent people were paying the price.

Um, the Feds were quite clearly being stupid beyond belief, taking out the EMERGENCY RADIO REPEATER. Police and other emergency services tend to work most effectively when they have radio communications. Or are you saying that it's best to have local emergency responders blind and dumb for a few Feds can keep in touch? It was the Feds who were impeding and hurting the people by sabotaging local emergency responders.

On a semi-related note, I should also point out what the supremacy clause actually says, since I know some Zombies (new window) are going to cite it in regards to this story.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land

Only constitutional laws are the law of the land, unconstitutional laws are null and void and their enforcement illegal. (Which includes most of what the Federal Government does today, much of which the states could do.) Citing the supremacy clause simply is circular logic and shows that a person don't even understand the question being asked.

State Nullification FAQ (new window)

Utterly worthless as the acknowledged supreme authority in issues of constitutional law is the Supreme Court. A federal entity, if I recall. If a constitutional challenge is made to a federal law, it goes before a federal court. While a state can bring forth such a challenge, it doesn't get to second-guess the supremes.

Even before I saw it was Las Vegas I'd already been thinking of Hunter S. Thompson.