Anti-Commandeering: The Legal Basis for Refusing to Participate

Rune said:
I am sorry that you misunderstand the supremacy clause.

The supremacy clause means only that state law can never override Federal law. It doesn't mean that states must enforce Federal Law. That is why there are Federal courts in every state.
It is the job off the Feds to enforce Federal law.
Click to expand...

And if congress asks the States to provide the information they have on an individual, such as citizenship status and address, the States must comply.
 
Bigdog said:
And if congress asks the States to provide the information they have on an individual, such as citizenship status, the States must comply.
Click to expand...

Agree.
Remember, ICE caused the sanctuary system by failing to pickup detainees in a timely manner.
 
Rune said:
The guy ICE shot to death in his home for 30 years was here legally too.
How is his liberty?
Click to expand...

We all know law enforcement makes mistakes and sometimes kills innocent people. Do you want to abolish ICE now? :palm:
 
Bigdog said:
We all know law enforcement makes mistakes and sometimes kills innocent people. Do you want to abolish ICE now? :palm:
Click to expand...
I would like to abolish no knock warrants
unless the police prove the need in every single instance.
No knock warrant result in an awful lot of deaths of innocent people in the one place they should be safe from at least government violence.
 
Rune said:
I am sorry that you misunderstand the supremacy clause.

The supremacy clause means only that state law can never override Federal law. It doesn't mean that states must enforce Federal Law. That is why there are Federal courts in every state.
It is the job off the Feds to enforce Federal law.
Click to expand...

I am sorry that you don't understand.....A police officer has taken an oath...just like a doctor, the first and foremost portion of that oath states, "FIRST DO NO HARM".

Do you want to read a typical LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS oath that is sworn...regardless if its local, state or federal? "I..............do swear, that, I will and truly serve....OUR SOVEREIGN COUNTY AND STATE...WITHOUT FAVOR OR AFFECTION....MALICE...OR ILL-WILL....UNTIL I AM LEGALLY DISCHARGED.............."

As far as the "supremacy clause".....the courts have ruled time and time again that the clause means exactly what it states, "This constitution and LAWS of the United States (as in federal government) ......SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

Upheld in cases where any state law might place the NATION AT RISK.
 
Last edited:
Ralph said:
I am sorry that you don't understand.....A police officer has taken an oath...just like a doctor, the first and foremost portion of that oath states, "FIRST DO NO HARM".

Do you want to read a typical LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS oath that is sworn...regardless if its local, state or federal? "I..............do swear, that, I will and truly serve....OUR SOVEREIGN COUNTY AND STATE...WITHOUT FAVOR OR AFFECTION....MALICE...OR ILL-WILL....UNTIL I AM LEGALLY DISCHARGED.............."
Click to expand...

Show where it says protect and serve the people, idiot.
 
Rune said:
Show where it says protect and serve the people, idiot.
Click to expand...

Show it? Talk about a dumb ass..........nope no police agency has a sworn duty to protect and to serve and in fact there has never been a police squad car that rolls up to the scene of a crime or accident with the phase drafted on its side that says, "To Protect and to Serve." The police have no duty to aid anyone at the scene of an accident, nor to protect the citizens with their lives if necessary. Never been to any large Metro like LA? LAMO.

Grasping for AIR? :) That's just a motto for kicks...right comrade? What does it really mean? At least 135 million up in liberal smoke.
 
Ralph said:
Show it? Talk about a dumb ass..........nope no police agency has a sworn duty to protect and to serve and in fact there has never been a police squad car that rolls up to the scene of a crime or accident with the phase drafted on its side that says, "To Protect and to Serve." The police have no duty to aid anyone at the scene of an accident, nor to protect the citizens with their lives if necessary. LAMO.

Grasping for AIR? :) That's just a motto for kicks...right comrade?
Click to expand...

Thank you.
You finally said something real.

Now what was that you were saying earlier about protect and serve?
 
Rune said:
This is why Trump cannot withhold funding in an attempt to compel local officials to enforce federal law.
The 10th amendment directly prohibits it.

That the Justice Department is making this threat is an indictment of Sessions ability to carry out his duties.
Click to expand...


Interesting that this is now your approach. You turned a blind eye when Obama did it, but now all of a sudden you are a fan of federalism. Well, go fuck yourself. States don't have a right to federal monies.
 
Rune said:
Wrong,retard.
When an illegal hurts someone it is the fault of the Feds, since they are tasked with preventing the illegals from entering.
Since you don't understand something this fucking simple, you will never post in a thread of mine again.

Tell me Ralph, you drunken ignorant shitstain, why did the GOP refuse to make illegal entry a felony?
Click to expand...

why does it have to be a felony?
 
I Love America said:
Interesting that this is now your approach. You turned a blind eye when Obama did it, but now all of a sudden you are a fan of federalism. Well, go fuck yourself. States don't have a right to federal monies.
Click to expand...
Obama did some illegal shit,
I was vociferous in my objections to whatever I was aware of.

I have always been a fan of federalism, by the way, retard.
 
Rune said:
Withholding funding to compel is an act of compelling.

The Federal gov. cannot compel states to enforce Federal laws. It is the job of the Federal gov. to enforce Federal laws. That is why there are Federal courts in every state.

Perhaps you should research the origins of sanctuary states and cities. It was the Feds ineptitude and the cities inability to withstand the cost burden of the Feds inaction which brought about the situation.
Click to expand...

perhaps you should research seat belt and speed limit laws in the USA
 
Rune said:
For the 11th time; states receive highway funding from the Fed.
If they don't respect the wishes of the Feds re that funding then the funding can of course, be witheld.
Since immigration is a Federal purview and states receive zero funds for immigration funding cannot be withheld. To do so would be to compel the state to enforce Federal law.
This is known as commandeering and is a violation of the 10th Amendment.
Click to expand...

you are totally splitting hairs on this, intentionally, to cover your support of 'safety', the cry of the liberal tyrant.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
perhaps you should research seat belt and speed limit laws in the USA
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should read the thread.
This was covered repeatedly.

The difference is that the feds provide funding for highways so of course they can withhold the funding.
They do not, however, provide funding for immigration enforcement, holding that to be a purview of the Federal gov.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top