If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   People who hate the federal government preempting state laws have no problem with state governments preempting local laws when it comes to guns   (theatlantic.com) divider line 267
    More: Obvious, state governments, federal government, state law, Missouri General Assembly, Sedgwick County, residential community, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Ohio Governor  
•       •       •

1472 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Mar 2014 at 11:33 AM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



267 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-06 02:34:52 PM  

sprgrss: cameroncrazy1984:

Correct, they are all not sovereign at all as they are superseded by the federal government.

only in specific limited areas, those areas where the Federal Government is authorized to act.  Otherwise, they have all the sovereignty as they like unless the US Constitution or their state constitutions limit it.


I'm gonna go ahead and believe the USSC over you. Thanks for your, uh, opinion, though.
 
2014-03-06 02:36:18 PM  

sprgrss: only in specific limited areas


Like anything at all that affects interstate commerce in any way whatsoever.   For example, the federal government can make a law that makes it illegal for you to go wheat on your own land for your own personal consumption, because that affects interstate commerce, in that you will no longer be purchasing wheat on the open market which affects the interstate commerce of wheat.

Basically everything you do everyday affects interstate commerce in some fashion and thus is subject to the interstate commerce clause.

/So says current case law anyway.
 
2014-03-06 02:39:33 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

Its not my fault you said something thats demonstrably inaccurate regardless of its context.

[31.media.tumblr.com image 500x238]

Have you bothered to read the rest of the thread?  Because you are making a fool of yourself to anyone who knows what they are talking about.


Didn't read the thread or article but sorry guy as I said your statement is demonstrably wrong and nothing in thread or article will change what you said. I guess we're at stage two, first denial then projection and next comes irrational anger.
 
2014-03-06 02:41:23 PM  

TwistedIvory: Funny then how Colorado and Washington don't mind superseding federal drug laws.


1. It's not as simple as "federal law always wins".  Federal law wins when it's an issue that affects the nation on a scale exceeding the intra-state, they actually have a distinct jurisdiction from the state governments and while there are points of overlap there are plenty of places where the feds  don't have jurisdiction or that jurisdiction is in dispute.  There's a legal rationale/loophole they've been using to do whatever they want in the interstate commerce clause but actually the courts have been slowly killing off that interpretation and there are limiting (and outright contradictory) precedents.

2. Related to the above, there are a lot of things that the feds can  assist with but are actually legally and practically under the purview of the states.  For instance, the feds actually  cannot build or maintain highways, despite it being the "federal highway system".  They can supply monetary assistance, and they can tie that assistance to a contract, but they can't outright dictate what the states do with their roads.  And as of the early 2000s, how much pressure they can apply with those contracts/financial contributions on state policy is legally restricted.

3. Similarly, for things that are purely federal, the feds can legally demand  cooperation, but they cannot force state agencies to dedicate manpower or resources to federal programs.  States usually  do since everyone working together is helpful, but if a state decides that its state police officers aren't going to waste state money enforcing federal drug crimes and will only provide information to the DEA when a warrant's produced, that's... completely, entirely, 100% legal.  They aren't allowed to actively help the drug-dealers, but they're under no obligation to do the feds' job.

// Albeit, this is all an aside from TFA, since the point is that municipal and state jurisdictions  aren't distinct jurisdictions, municipalities are a subsetof the state (their charters are state-issued, among other things) so states  do always win, barring judicial rulings against them.
 
2014-03-06 02:46:49 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

Its not my fault you said something thats demonstrably inaccurate regardless of its context.

[31.media.tumblr.com image 500x238]

Have you bothered to read the rest of the thread?  Because you are making a fool of yourself to anyone who knows what they are talking about.


Also not for nothin' you're the one being called out by half a dozen people so tell me who is really making a fool of themselves here? Just because you feel like you're winning doesn't mean you are.
 
2014-03-06 02:47:02 PM  

d23: max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.

...which is how we got the Constitution in the first place.

Another thing they don't do is read history.



It amazes me how people of average intelligence completely lose their minds after drinking the Republitard Kool-Aid. Just this morning, I informed a right wing Facebook friend that Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk. His response was "Did you know him? Wow!" I informed him about the invention of the printing press and that we can do fancy book learnin' now.
 
2014-03-06 02:48:45 PM  

ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ikanreed:

Because the States are sovereign.

"Because [arbitrary distinction that has nothing to do with the principle]"

We understand that the distinction exists, we're asking you to justify it.

Because people like to operate on a straw man that someone how federalists are small government all the time.  It completely ignores that Federalists are small national government because the national government is a government limited authority and the States are not.  You may call it arbitrary, but it is a fundamental aspect of the American legal system.

[citationneededuk.files.wordpress.com image 850x226]


Citation needed?

OK -- James Madison (aka, "the Father of the Constitution"), in Federalist No. 45.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

It's sort of famous.  You can look it up.
 
2014-03-06 02:53:02 PM  

Phinn: ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ikanreed:

Because the States are sovereign.

"Because [arbitrary distinction that has nothing to do with the principle]"

We understand that the distinction exists, we're asking you to justify it.

Because people like to operate on a straw man that someone how federalists are small government all the time.  It completely ignores that Federalists are small national government because the national government is a government limited authority and the States are not.  You may call it arbitrary, but it is a fundamental aspect of the American legal system.

[citationneededuk.files.wordpress.com image 850x226]

Citation needed?

OK -- James Madison (aka, "the Father of the Constitution"), in Federalist No. 45.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

It's sort of famous.  You can look it up.


Where is that codified law? Like I said to the other guy address what I said not what you wish I said.

Oh wait a minute aren't the derp who got me a ban because I didn't buy your supposed legal credentials?

*ignore*

Don't bother replying, sorry I don't play with poor sports.....
 
2014-03-06 02:54:59 PM  

Phinn: OK -- James Madison (aka, "the Father of the Constitution"), in Federalist No. 45.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

It's sort of famous. You can look it up.


You understand he wrote that before the 9th and 10th Amendments were proposed (legislatively speaking) or ratified, yes?
 
2014-03-06 02:56:33 PM  

monoski: TwistedIvory: Funny then how Colorado and Washington don't mind superseding federal drug laws.

Sort of related; was funny how the citizens of CO blew a gasket when their own state officials passed some gun control after the movie theater shooting. When it comes to guns in CO there be no reasonable response.


None of the laws the Dems passed would prevent another James Holmes from buying a weapon. Combine that with how they handled the public comment portion of the 'debate' and you get recalls and election problems for the Dems. It ain't hard to understand.
 
2014-03-06 02:57:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: sprgrss: cameroncrazy1984:

Correct, they are all not sovereign at all as they are superseded by the federal government.

only in specific limited areas, those areas where the Federal Government is authorized to act.  Otherwise, they have all the sovereignty as they like unless the US Constitution or their state constitutions limit it.

I'm gonna go ahead and believe the USSC over you. Thanks for your, uh, opinion, though.


Everything I've said is in direct line with the Supreme Court of the United States and every other court in this country and anyone who has actually studied the law.
 
2014-03-06 02:58:47 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Phinn: OK -- James Madison (aka, "the Father of the Constitution"), in Federalist No. 45.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

It's sort of famous. You can look it up.

You understand he wrote that before the 9th and 10th Amendments were proposed (legislatively speaking) or ratified, yes?


And those two amendments do nothing to counter what Madison wrote in the Federalist papers.
 
2014-03-06 02:59:58 PM  
ScaryBottles:

Where is that codified law? Like I said to the other guy address what I said not what you wish I said.

Oh wait a minute aren't the derp who got me a ban because I didn't buy your supposed legal credentials?

*ignore*

Don't bother replying, sorry I don't play with poor sports.....


Honest question, have you ever bothered to read a single supreme court case that deals with federalism?  Or have you ever bothered to read the federalist papers?  Because do you want to know who relies upon the federalist papers?  The courts.
 
2014-03-06 03:01:02 PM  

bgilmore5: d23: max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.

...which is how we got the Constitution in the first place.

Another thing they don't do is read history.


It amazes me how people of average intelligence completely lose their minds after drinking the Republitard Kool-Aid. Just this morning, I informed a right wing Facebook friend that Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk. His response was "Did you know him? Wow!" I informed him about the invention of the printing press and that we can do fancy book learnin' now.


Grant wasn't that big of a drunk.  He played up that angle, but in reality he wasn't.
 
2014-03-06 03:02:44 PM  

sprgrss: cameroncrazy1984: sprgrss: cameroncrazy1984:

Correct, they are all not sovereign at all as they are superseded by the federal government.

only in specific limited areas, those areas where the Federal Government is authorized to act.  Otherwise, they have all the sovereignty as they like unless the US Constitution or their state constitutions limit it.

I'm gonna go ahead and believe the USSC over you. Thanks for your, uh, opinion, though.

Everything I've said is in direct line with the Supreme Court of the United States and every other court in this country and anyone who has actually studied the law.


Ok show us where the USSC explicitly says state authority supersedes that of itself.
 
2014-03-06 03:04:02 PM  

ScaryBottles: sprgrss: cameroncrazy1984: sprgrss: cameroncrazy1984:

Correct, they are all not sovereign at all as they are superseded by the federal government.

only in specific limited areas, those areas where the Federal Government is authorized to act.  Otherwise, they have all the sovereignty as they like unless the US Constitution or their state constitutions limit it.

I'm gonna go ahead and believe the USSC over you. Thanks for your, uh, opinion, though.

Everything I've said is in direct line with the Supreme Court of the United States and every other court in this country and anyone who has actually studied the law.

Ok show us where the USSC explicitly says state authority supersedes that of itself.


weren't you the one who was just crying about:  " said to the other guy address what I said not what you wish I said. "
 
2014-03-06 03:06:03 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

Where is that codified law? Like I said to the other guy address what I said not what you wish I said.

Oh wait a minute aren't the derp who got me a ban because I didn't buy your supposed legal credentials?

*ignore*

Don't bother replying, sorry I don't play with poor sports.....

Honest question, have you ever bothered to read a single supreme court case that deals with federalism?  Or have you ever bothered to read the federalist papers?  Because do you want to know who relies upon the federalist papers?  The courts.


Okay for the third time now:

THE ONLY THING I AM ADDRESSING IS YOUR STATEMENT THAT STATES ARE THE FINAL AUTHORITY ON ANYTHING.

Anything else is you putting words in my mouth and I thought I asked you not to do that.
 
2014-03-06 03:07:15 PM  

ScaryBottles: Phinn: ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ikanreed:

Because the States are sovereign.

"Because [arbitrary distinction that has nothing to do with the principle]"

We understand that the distinction exists, we're asking you to justify it.

Because people like to operate on a straw man that someone how federalists are small government all the time.  It completely ignores that Federalists are small national government because the national government is a government limited authority and the States are not.  You may call it arbitrary, but it is a fundamental aspect of the American legal system.

[citationneededuk.files.wordpress.com image 850x226]

Citation needed?

OK -- James Madison (aka, "the Father of the Constitution"), in Federalist No. 45.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

It's sort of famous.  You can look it up.

Where is that codified law? Like I said to the other guy address what I said not what you wish I said.

Oh wait a minute aren't the derp who got me a ban because I didn't buy your supposed legal credentials?

*ignore*

Don't bother replying, sorry I don't play with poor sports.....


I've never reported anyone to anything in my life.  If you got banned, it's because the modmins caught your act and did it on their own.

Where is it codified law?  It was codified in the 9th and 10th Amendments.  And in a few dozen Supreme Court opinions over the centuries.


Dr Dreidel: You understand he wrote that before the 9th and 10th Amendments were proposed (legislatively speaking) or ratified, yes?


Those Amendments confirmed what Madison (and Hamiliton, and the others) were describing in the Federalist Papers.  Madison believed the Amendments were unnecessary, that the structure of the Constitution and its delegation of enumerated powers was enough, but the Bill of Rights came later, since people began to realize that Congress could violate the rights of the people, even when arguably acting within the scope of an enumerated power.
 
2014-03-06 03:07:35 PM  
ScaryBottles:

Okay for the third time now:

THE ONLY THING I AM ADDRESSING IS YOUR STATEMENT THAT STATES ARE THE FINAL AUTHORITY ON ANYTHING.

Anything else is you putting words in my mouth and I thought I asked you not to do that.


You can keep screaming out that straw man, but it doesn't make anything other than a straw man.
 
2014-03-06 03:09:17 PM  

sprgrss: Dr Dreidel: Phinn: OK -- James Madison (aka, "the Father of the Constitution"), in Federalist No. 45.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

It's sort of famous. You can look it up.

You understand he wrote that before the 9th and 10th Amendments were proposed (legislatively speaking) or ratified, yes?

And those two amendments do nothing to counter what Madison wrote in the Federalist papers.


Yes, except that the 10th specifically was/is/has become the vehicle for expanding Federal power.

The number of powers the Feds have is a defined number, and smaller than the number of powers a State has. The scope and reach of those limited powers is MUCH stronger at the Federal level. So we're left with "Would you rather have a more work to do, or a longer list of chores?"

While Madison may still technically be correct, the scope of Federal power is larger than the scope of State power.

// I was incorrect to bring up the 9th
 
2014-03-06 03:11:44 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles: sprgrss: cameroncrazy1984: sprgrss: cameroncrazy1984:

Correct, they are all not sovereign at all as they are superseded by the federal government.

only in specific limited areas, those areas where the Federal Government is authorized to act.  Otherwise, they have all the sovereignty as they like unless the US Constitution or their state constitutions limit it.

I'm gonna go ahead and believe the USSC over you. Thanks for your, uh, opinion, though.

Everything I've said is in direct line with the Supreme Court of the United States and every other court in this country and anyone who has actually studied the law.

Ok show us where the USSC explicitly says state authority supersedes that of itself.

weren't you the one who was just crying about:  " said to the other guy address what I said not what you wish I said. "


Well you said your opinion is based on the USSC precedents did you not? I may not know the finer points of constitutional law but I'm pretty sure I would have heard of them acknowledging that states have power that supersedes their own. Nice try chief but you have fallen for the most insidious of LIEbral strategies, quoting you verbatim.
 
2014-03-06 03:18:03 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

Okay for the third time now:

THE ONLY THING I AM ADDRESSING IS YOUR STATEMENT THAT STATES ARE THE FINAL AUTHORITY ON ANYTHING.

Anything else is you putting words in my mouth and I thought I asked you not to do that.

You can keep screaming out that straw man, but it doesn't make anything other than a straw man.


So you didn't say that? You've skipped right past anger to revisionism. That should save us some time.
 
2014-03-06 03:18:13 PM  
ScaryBottles:

Well you said your opinion is based on the USSC precedents did you not? I may not know the finer points of constitutional law but I'm pretty sure I would have heard of them acknowledging that states have power that supersedes their own. Nice try chief but you have fallen for the most insidious of LIEbral strategies, quoting you verbatim.

I don't even know what you are trying to say.

But if you are asking what I think you are asking, then, outside of Constitutional law and federal law, the Supreme Court of the United Stats has no authority in interpreting laws.
 
2014-03-06 03:19:17 PM  

ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

Okay for the third time now:

THE ONLY THING I AM ADDRESSING IS YOUR STATEMENT THAT STATES ARE THE FINAL AUTHORITY ON ANYTHING.

Anything else is you putting words in my mouth and I thought I asked you not to do that.

You can keep screaming out that straw man, but it doesn't make anything other than a straw man.

So you didn't say that? You've skipped right past anger to revisionism. That should save us some time.


Strawman is still strawman.
 
2014-03-06 03:21:23 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

Okay for the third time now:

THE ONLY THING I AM ADDRESSING IS YOUR STATEMENT THAT STATES ARE THE FINAL AUTHORITY ON ANYTHING.

Anything else is you putting words in my mouth and I thought I asked you not to do that.

You can keep screaming out that straw man, but it doesn't make anything other than a straw man.

So you didn't say that? You've skipped right past anger to revisionism. That should save us some time.

Strawman is still strawman.


i.ytimg.com
 
2014-03-06 03:23:20 PM  

Serious Black: So why not do federalism at the state level? If a small number of democratic experiments is good, why wouldn't a larger number of democratic experiments be better?


Ask the European Union that question.
 
2014-03-06 03:26:10 PM  

sprgrss: Serious Black:

Your response doesn't answer my counterfactual question. All you're doing is saying what would have to happen for a city or county to secede and what different groups could do to stop it from happening. Forget all that. I'm telling you in this counterfactual world, it has already happened. Weld County has successfully removed itself from Colorado and created the state of Weld in a manner recognized by the federal government. Is the Weld state government now causing prob ...

In this instance, Weld County would be its own state and as such would have general police powers and the ability to create and uncreate local governments and afford those local governments powers.  Colorado would not longer have authority over Weld County as Weld County would not longer be part of Colorado.


That's great! But it does sort of belie your point from earlier in the thread that letting smaller jurisdictions have general police powers would strip the country of uniformity in laws and make it impossible for people to know that activity X is legal in one area but illegal in another area.

Hell, we don't even need to do a hypothetical. Look at Rhode Island. It's about 2,700 square kilometers in land. Now look at Anchorage, Alaska. It's about 4,400 square kilometers. It's apparently okay for a smaller jurisdiction to have general police powers than a larger jurisdiction even though the smaller one arguably will cause more problems for people with variability in laws and an inability to figure out the legality of activity X.
 
2014-03-06 03:26:51 PM  

Dr Dreidel: sprgrss: Dr Dreidel: Phinn: OK -- James Madison (aka, "the Father of the Constitution"), in Federalist No. 45.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

It's sort of famous. You can look it up.

You understand he wrote that before the 9th and 10th Amendments were proposed (legislatively speaking) or ratified, yes?

And those two amendments do nothing to counter what Madison wrote in the Federalist papers.

Yes, except that the 10th specifically was/is/has become the vehicle for expanding Federal power.

The number of powers the Feds have is a defined number, and smaller than the number of powers a State has. The scope and reach of those limited powers is MUCH stronger at the Federal level. So we're left with "Would you rather have a more work to do, or a longer list of chores?"

While Madison may still technically be correct, the scope of Federal power is larger than the scope of State power.

// I was incorrect to bring up the 9th


No, it hasn't.  The 10th Amendment grants no powers.

The expansion of federal power has come about primarily by way of a delusional reading of the Commerce Clause.  FDR's hand-picked judicial whores re-wrote it in 1937.  When it was first written, the CC authorized regulation of interstate commerce (and thus prohibited restrictions on interstate commerce by the states individually).  You know, controlling the way that goods cross state lines.  Since 1937, it supposedly means the power to control anything having to do with commerce anywhere.  That self-appointed arrogation of power has been the means by which almost all federal legislation has been rubber-stamped as though it were within the federal govt's enumerated powers.  (That's what happens when the federal government is the arbiter of its own power.)

The scope of federal power is not larger than the states.  It's supreme as to some critically important functions -- military/war declarations, international relations, and so forth.

But the range of functions available to the States is unlimited. They have the power to do whatever they deem fit for public welfare, subject only to the delegations of certain powers to the feds (e.g., Texas can't make a treaty with France, or charge a tariff on imports from Louisiana), and of course the inability to violate certain key individual rights of a free people in the process.

The fact that so many of you FarkProgs don't understand this basic Constitutional structure is beginning to help explain a few things, such as why you blithely assume the federal government can do anything it wants, and why you get so upset whenever someone dares to suggest that there are limits on government power (even apart from the limits presented by certain guarantees of individual rights).
 
2014-03-06 03:29:57 PM  

Dr Dreidel: sprgrss: Dr Dreidel: Phinn: OK -- James Madison (aka, "the Father of the Constitution"), in Federalist No. 45.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

It's sort of famous. You can look it up.

You understand he wrote that before the 9th and 10th Amendments were proposed (legislatively speaking) or ratified, yes?

And those two amendments do nothing to counter what Madison wrote in the Federalist papers.

Yes, except that the 10th specifically was/is/has become the vehicle for expanding Federal power.

The number of powers the Feds have is a defined number, and smaller than the number of powers a State has. The scope and reach of those limited powers is MUCH stronger at the Federal level. So we're left with "Would you rather have a more work to do, or a longer list of chores?"

While Madison may still technically be correct, the scope of Federal power is larger than the scope of State power.

// I was incorrect to bring up the 9th


When has the 10th Amendment ever been used to expand federal power?
 
2014-03-06 03:30:06 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: monoski: TwistedIvory: Funny then how Colorado and Washington don't mind superseding federal drug laws.

Sort of related; was funny how the citizens of CO blew a gasket when their own state officials passed some gun control after the movie theater shooting. When it comes to guns in CO there be no reasonable response.

None of the laws the Dems passed would prevent another James Holmes from buying a weapon. Combine that with how they handled the public comment portion of the 'debate' and you get recalls and election problems for the Dems. It ain't hard to understand.


Yep, my comment was not intended to be on either side of the gun debate. More of it does not matter the source of the laws, don't touch guns in CO.
 
2014-03-06 03:33:28 PM  

ScaryBottles: Please do not put words in my mouth. The only thing I said was that the states are not the final authority on anything period. I could spend the rest of the day listing all the various situations where state authority is not absolute. Next time respond to what I actually said not what you wish I had said.


Don't take me to be disagreeing with you. I'm not. I'm just expanding on what you said.

The only phrase you need to explain why states are no longer "sovereign" in any domain, if they ever were in fact sovereign in any domain, is "the 14th Amendment." The 14th Amendment makes all states answerable to federal judicial oversight on equal protection and due process issues. Privileges and immunities issues too, but that's almost a footnote.

Some people are going to say I'm wrong on this because equal protection and due process don't cover all state actions. And they're right that In practical terms, there are many state actions that will never receive equal protection and due process scrutiny before a court because the outcomes of the analyses in those cases is practically certain.

But in principle, the law still applies, even to the obvious cases. Just because you choose to drive 60 mph on the interstate doesn't mean you're not subject to the speed limit. It just means the highway patrol won't be very likely to bother you. Neither will any person bother to bring an equal protection suit, for example, even though the statute discriminates in treatment of murderers vs. non-murderers.1

That's not because equal protection doesn't apply to state discrimination between murderers and non-murderers. It does. It's just that state discrimination between murderers and non-murderers so obviously relates rationally to a legitimate state purpose that the outcome of any such case is foreordained.

I explain this because too often I see righties making bogus statements like "states are sovereign within their spheres." But "sovereign" means "supreme."2 And no state is supreme on the equal protection and due process issues which govern every action they take.3


1All statutes of any kind discriminate in the literal sense of the word. That's the nature of language: it creates classifications. In law, those classifications exist for treating one class one way, and another class another way.

2"But X founding father said "states are sovereign within their spheres! So you're wrong!" Maybe they were sovereign in some domains prior to the Civil War. They have not been sovereign since.

3"But X Supreme Court Justice recently wrote that states are sovereign within X sphere!" He's wrong.4

4"That's so arrogant, thinking you're know more about the Constitution than a Supreme Court Justice!" Even Zombie Thomas knows more about the Constitution than me. But that has no bearing on the question of whether or not states wield supreme authority in any domain.
 
2014-03-06 03:34:09 PM  

Serious Black: sprgrss: Serious Black:

Your response doesn't answer my counterfactual question. All you're doing is saying what would have to happen for a city or county to secede and what different groups could do to stop it from happening. Forget all that. I'm telling you in this counterfactual world, it has already happened. Weld County has successfully removed itself from Colorado and created the state of Weld in a manner recognized by the federal government. Is the Weld state government now causing prob ...

In this instance, Weld County would be its own state and as such would have general police powers and the ability to create and uncreate local governments and afford those local governments powers.  Colorado would not longer have authority over Weld County as Weld County would not longer be part of Colorado.

That's great! But it does sort of belie your point from earlier in the thread that letting smaller jurisdictions have general police powers would strip the country of uniformity in laws and make it impossible for people to know that activity X is legal in one area but illegal in another area.

Hell, we don't even need to do a hypothetical. Look at Rhode Island. It's about 2,700 square kilometers in land. Now look at Anchorage, Alaska. It's about 4,400 square kilometers. It's apparently okay for a smaller jurisdiction to have general police powers than a larger jurisdiction even though the smaller one arguably will cause more problems for people with variability in laws and an inability to figure out the legality of activity X.


Because at a certain point in time, you have to have a period.  IT has been determined that the State is where that period is.  Why is that the case?  Because the several states came together and granted limited authority to a federal government and reserved the remainder of the authority to themselves.  Cities, counties, etc. being that they have always been creations of the states are limited in their authority based upon what authority the states grant.

You have to have workability and what you propose, by creating levels upon levels of federalism is unworkable.
 
2014-03-06 03:34:19 PM  
We got ourselves a good ol'fashion Fark Constitutional brawl.  It's been awhile.
 
2014-03-06 03:38:52 PM  

d23: max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.

...which is how we got the Constitution in the first place.

Another thing they don't do is read history.


There are those among our citizens who believe the states should have all the power and the federal government should provide only an Army, a Navy and a postmaster general, and nothing more. Those people are apparently unfamiliar with our history under a set of rules very similar to this arrangement.

You see, we tried being a loose collective of independent states under the Articles of Confederation, wherein the various jurisdictions (the states) maintained their individual sovereignty, made their own rules and laws, and only collaborated and cooperated with one another as a means of providing for common defense and pretty much nothing else. When that proved to be unwieldy and unworkable, we decided to form a constitutional republic of united states with a strong federal government. We agreed that this was a good form of government and drafted a Constitution, which was duly ratified. The Constitution includes a passage known as the Supremacy Clause which specifies that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And that's the way things have been for the last 220+ years.

If anyone wants a different arrangement, they have some options available to them:
1. Try to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Supremacy Clause.
2. Leave for some other country that has established and operates under a "better" system of government.
3. STFU & GBTW.

Since I haven't noticed a massive migration of Americans to other nations, nor have I been made aware of any recent amendments to the Constitution, I'm gonna have to tell those who think state law can nullify federal law to exercise Option 3.
 
2014-03-06 03:39:31 PM  

Baz744: ScaryBottles: Please do not put words in my mouth. The only thing I said was that the states are not the final authority on anything period. I could spend the rest of the day listing all the various situations where state authority is not absolute. Next time respond to what I actually said not what you wish I had said.

Don't take me to be disagreeing with you. I'm not. I'm just expanding on what you said.

The only phrase you need to explain why states are no longer "sovereign" in any domain, if they ever were in fact sovereign in any domain, is "the 14th Amendment." The 14th Amendment makes all states answerable to federal judicial oversight on equal protection and due process issues. Privileges and immunities issues too, but that's almost a footnote.

Some people are going to say I'm wrong on this because equal protection and due process don't cover all state actions. And they're right that In practical terms, there are many state actions that will never receive equal protection and due process scrutiny before a court because the outcomes of the analyses in those cases is practically certain.

But in principle, the law still applies, even to the obvious cases. Just because you choose to drive 60 mph on the interstate doesn't mean you're not subject to the speed limit. It just means the highway patrol won't be very likely to bother you. Neither will any person bother to bring an equal protection suit, for example, even though the statute discriminates in treatment of murderers vs. non-murderers.1

That's not because equal protection doesn't apply to state discrimination between murderers and non-murderers. It does. It's just that state discrimination between murderers and non-murderers so obviously relates rationally to a legitimate state purpose that the outcome of any such case is foreordained.

I explain this because too often I see righties making bogus statements like "states are sovereign within their spheres." But "sovereign" means "supreme."2 And no state ...


Like I said to the other my strong suit is demography so I don't know. What I do know is this guy's position is largely predicated on an assertion I know is completely false. When in doubt remember you aren't playing your cards you're playing the guy across from you. Garbage in garbage out derps....

That last bit wasn't directed at you.
 
2014-03-06 03:39:38 PM  

sprgrss: Because at a certain point in time, you have to have a period.  IT has been determined that the State is where that period is.


After all your grand claims of having an argument other than "just because" you fall back on this?
 
2014-03-06 03:42:16 PM  

MustangFive: d23: max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.

...which is how we got the Constitution in the first place.

Another thing they don't do is read history.

There are those among our citizens who believe the states should have all the power and the federal government should provide only an Army, a Navy and a postmaster general, and nothing more. Those people are apparently unfamiliar with our history under a set of rules very similar to this arrangement.

You see, we tried being a loose collective of independent states under the Articles of Confederation, wherein the various jurisdictions (the states) maintained their individual sovereignty, made their own rules and laws, and only collaborated and cooperated with one another as a means of providing for common defense and pretty much nothing else. When that proved to be unwieldy and unworkable, we decided to form a constitutional republic of united states with a strong federal government. We agreed that this was a good form of government and drafted a Constitution, which was duly ratified. The Constitution includes a passage known as the Supremacy Clause which specifies that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And that's the way things have been for the last 220+ years.

If anyone wants a different arrangement, they have some options available to them:
1. Try to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Supremacy Clause.
2. Leave for some other country that has established and operates under a "better" system of government.
3. STFU & GBTW.

Since I haven't noticed a massive migration of Americans to other nations, nor have I been made aware of any recent amendments to the Constitution, I'm gonna have to tell those who think state law can nullify federal law to exercise Option 3.


While nullification is complete bullshiat and bunk, the idea that the federal government has an expansive set of authority is patently not true.  The Federal government is limited in its areas of authority.  So while it is more powerful then the system under the Articles of Confederation, it still lacks general police powers.
 
2014-03-06 03:43:12 PM  

Smackledorfer: sprgrss: Because at a certain point in time, you have to have a period.  IT has been determined that the State is where that period is.

After all your grand claims of having an argument other than "just because" you fall back on this?


Did you bother to read beyond those few sentences?
 
2014-03-06 03:44:30 PM  

sprgrss: Serious Black: sprgrss: Serious Black:

Your response doesn't answer my counterfactual question. All you're doing is saying what would have to happen for a city or county to secede and what different groups could do to stop it from happening. Forget all that. I'm telling you in this counterfactual world, it has already happened. Weld County has successfully removed itself from Colorado and created the state of Weld in a manner recognized by the federal government. Is the Weld state government now causing prob ...

In this instance, Weld County would be its own state and as such would have general police powers and the ability to create and uncreate local governments and afford those local governments powers.  Colorado would not longer have authority over Weld County as Weld County would not longer be part of Colorado.

That's great! But it does sort of belie your point from earlier in the thread that letting smaller jurisdictions have general police powers would strip the country of uniformity in laws and make it impossible for people to know that activity X is legal in one area but illegal in another area.

Hell, we don't even need to do a hypothetical. Look at Rhode Island. It's about 2,700 square kilometers in land. Now look at Anchorage, Alaska. It's about 4,400 square kilometers. It's apparently okay for a smaller jurisdiction to have general police powers than a larger jurisdiction even though the smaller one arguably will cause more problems for people with variability in laws and an inability to figure out the legality of activity X.

Because at a certain point in time, you have to have a period.  IT has been determined that the State is where that period is.  Why is that the case?  Because the several states came together and granted limited authority to a federal government and reserved the remainder of the authority to themselves.  Cities, counties, etc. being that they have always been creations of the states are limited in their authority based upon wha ...


Okay last time I ask nicely. Where does it say anywhere, ever that the states are your proverbial "period"
 
2014-03-06 03:46:33 PM  

ScaryBottles: Okay last time I ask nicely. Where does it say anywhere, ever that the states are your proverbial "period"


To quote you:  "address what I said not what you wish I said. "
 
2014-03-06 03:46:45 PM  

manbart: [soldiersystems.net image 500x370]


I'm just going to assume this is deliberate parody for the sake of my sanity.
 
2014-03-06 03:49:39 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

Where is that codified law? Like I said to the other guy address what I said not what you wish I said.

Oh wait a minute aren't the derp who got me a ban because I didn't buy your supposed legal credentials?

*ignore*

Don't bother replying, sorry I don't play with poor sports.....

Honest question, have you ever bothered to read a single supreme court case that deals with federalism?  Or have you ever bothered to read the federalist papers?  Because do you want to know who relies upon the federalist papers?  The courts.


You're arguing legal principles with a guy who post Real World memes.  Pick your battles.
 
2014-03-06 03:51:03 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles: Okay last time I ask nicely. Where does it say anywhere, ever that the states are your proverbial "period"

To quote you:  "address what I said not what you wish I said. "


"Because at a certain point in time, you have to have a period.  IT has been determined that the State is where that period is."

Once again a direct quote. You aren't very good at this are you. So tell us when and by whom this was "determined"
 
2014-03-06 03:52:14 PM  

MustangFive: d23: max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.

...which is how we got the Constitution in the first place.

Another thing they don't do is read history.

There are those among our citizens who believe the states should have all the power and the federal government should provide only an Army, a Navy and a postmaster general, and nothing more. Those people are apparently unfamiliar with our history under a set of rules very similar to this arrangement.

You see, we tried being a loose collective of independent states under the Articles of Confederation, wherein the various jurisdictions (the states) maintained their individual sovereignty, made their own rules and laws, and only collaborated and cooperated with one another as a means of providing for common defense and pretty much nothing else. When that proved to be unwieldy and unworkable, we decided to form a constitutional republic of united states with a strong federal government. We agreed that this was a good form of government and drafted a Constitution, which was duly ratified. The Constitution includes a passage known as the Supremacy Clause which specifies that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And that's the way things have been for the last 220+ years.

If anyone wants a different arrangement, they have some options available to them:
1. Try to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Supremacy Clause.
2. Leave for some other country that has established and operates under a "better" system of government.
3. STFU & GBTW.

Since I haven't noticed a massive migration of Americans to other nations, nor have I been made aware of any recent amendments to the Constitution, I'm gonna have to tell those who think state law can nullify federal law to exercise Option 3.


The Supremacy Clause does not grant the federal government any powers.

It also does nothing to alter the fact that the powers granted to the federal government are enumerated. As in "finite." As in "That which is not expressly delegated is invalid." As in "ultra vires." As in "Not Authorized."

Since you profess to rely on the Constitution as a source of authority, you support this basic arrangement. Right?

There isn't an "I Get To Pick And Choose Clause" is there?
 
2014-03-06 03:52:39 PM  

FLMountainMan: sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

Where is that codified law? Like I said to the other guy address what I said not what you wish I said.

Oh wait a minute aren't the derp who got me a ban because I didn't buy your supposed legal credentials?

*ignore*

Don't bother replying, sorry I don't play with poor sports.....

Honest question, have you ever bothered to read a single supreme court case that deals with federalism?  Or have you ever bothered to read the federalist papers?  Because do you want to know who relies upon the federalist papers?  The courts.

You're arguing legal principles with a guy who post Real World memes.  Pick your battles.


Awww.... Thats sweet.
 
2014-03-06 03:53:02 PM  
Guys, can we leave the constitutional law to the constitutional lawyers, everyone here sucks at it.
 
2014-03-06 03:54:32 PM  

Phinn: Dr Dreidel: sprgrss: Dr Dreidel: Phinn: OK -- James Madison (aka, "the Father of the Constitution"), in Federalist No. 45.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

It's sort of famous. You can look it up.

You understand he wrote that before the 9th and 10th Amendments were proposed (legislatively speaking) or ratified, yes?

And those two amendments do nothing to counter what Madison wrote in the Federalist papers.

Yes, except that the 10th specifically was/is/has become the vehicle for expanding Federal power.

The number of powers the Feds have is a defined number, and smaller than the number of powers a State has. The scope and reach of those limited powers is MUCH stronger at the Federal level. So we're left with "Would you rather have a more work to do, or a longer list of chores?"

While Madison may still technically be correct, the scope of Federal power is larger than the scope of State power.

// I was incorrect to bring up the 9th

No, it hasn't.  The 10th Amendment grants no powers.

The expansion of federal power has come about primarily by way of a delusional reading of the Commerce Clause.  FDR's hand-picked judicial whores re-wrote it in 1937.  When it was first written, the CC authorized regulation of interstate commerce (and thus prohibited restrictions on interstate commerce by the states individually).  You know, controlling the way that goods cross state lines.  Since 1937, it supposedly means the power to control anything having to do with commerce anywhere.  That self-appointed arrogation of power has been the means by which almost all federal legislation has been rubber-stamped as though it were within the federal govt's enumerated powers.  (That's what happens when the federal government is the arbiter of its own power.)

The scope of federal power is not larger than the states.  It's supreme as to some ...


When has the 10th ever done anything?
 
2014-03-06 03:55:42 PM  

ikanreed: Guys, can we leave the constitutional law to the constitutional lawyers, everyone here sucks at it.


And thats all I'm sayin'
 
2014-03-06 03:56:58 PM  

ikanreed: Guys, can we leave the constitutional law to the constitutional lawyers, everyone here sucks at it.


The Constitution is a gift from God.  The fact that there is so much debate about it, just goes to show you how much on troll God is.
 
2014-03-06 03:59:04 PM  

sprgrss: When has the 10th Amendment ever been used to expand federal power?


Depends on whom you ask (which is why I included all 3 tenses). Most people recognize that when the Court makes a ruling that doesn't invalidate the whole thing, they're not making new law, but providing a definition of an existing law (i.e. the 1st Amendment NEVER allowed one-religion-only displays, but it was only after a series of rulings on the topic that everyone else was made to agree).

According to Phinn and ideological comrades-in-arms, everything with the 10th was great until that commie FDR went all court-packy (even though SCOTUS still only has 9 seats) and then they threw Wickard v Fillburn to make FDR feel better. (FWIW, I also disagree with that ruling, though I'd be hard pressed to come up with a "natural" limit for the 10th, especially considering how expansive the Framers, and Federalists, wanted the power of taxation and regulation to be.)
 
Displayed 50 of 267 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report