show where I said Federal law is not incorporated at the state level, idiot.
California becomes 'sanctuary state' in rebuke of Trump immigration policy
- Thread starter Bill
- Start date
show where I said Federal law is not incorporated at the state level, idiot.
No you're incorrect, I already posted the tenth amemdment in full.
The Supreme Court has ruled on the Anti-commandeering clause of the 10th 4 times and upheld it each time, silly child.
OMFG are you illiterate? The anti-commandeering doctrine only applies to powers not delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution you ignorant fucktard.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Immigration is a power delegated to the Congress under article 1 section 8 clause 4, you fucking retard.
No they haven't again according to you the civil rights act is unconstitutional, the assertion that Federal Law is not incorporated at the state level is fucking retarded.
Your desperate, ignorant and delusional interpretation of the Constitution is noted
And I quote:
"The states are not required to ENFORCE Federal law."
So according to you the states are not required to enforce the civil rights act, god you're fucking dumb.
He gave aid and comfort to foreign invaders and negotiated treaties with foreign powers.
That only applies to powers not delegated to the Federal government you fucking moron.
My Alaskan Malamute is smarter than you, racist shit stain.
Most Americans believe that the federal government stands absolutely supreme.
Nobody can question its dictates.
Nobody can refuse its edicts.
Nobody can resist its commands.
This is simply not true.
Laws passed in pursuance of the Constitution do stand as the supreme law of the land. But that doesn’t in any way imply the federal government lords over everything and everybody in America.
First off, as James Madison asserted in Federalist 45, the powers of the federal government are “few and defined.” So federal power actually extends into only a few spheres. Most power and authority was left to the states and the people.
Second, even within those areas that the federal government does exercise authority, it cannot force state or local governments to cooperate in enforcement or implementation. The feds must exercise their authority on their own, unless the state and local governments choose to assist.
Simply put, the federal government cannot force state or local governments to act against their will.
This is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine, and it is well established in constitutional jurisprudence. Four Supreme Court opinions dating back to 1842 serve as the foundation for this legal doctrine.
In Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), Justice Joseph Story held that the federal government could not force states to implement or carry out the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. He said that it was a federal law, and the federal government ultimately had to enforce it.
The fundamental principle applicable to all cases of this sort, would seem to be, that where the end is required, the means are given; and where the duty is enjoined, the ability to perform it is contemplated to exist on the part of the functionaries to whom it is entrusted. The clause is found in the national Constitution, and not in that of any state. It does not point out any state functionaries, or any state action to carry its provisions into effect. The states cannot, therefore, be compelled to enforce them; and it might well be deemed an unconstitutional exercise of the power of interpretation, to insist that the states are bound to provide means to carry into effect the duties of the national government, nowhere delegated or instrusted to them by the Constitution.
In the early 90s, the state of New York sued the federal government asserting provisions in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 were coercive and violated its sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. The Court majority in New York v. United States (1992) agreed, holding that “because the Act’s take title provision offers the States a ‘choice’ between the two unconstitutionally coercive alternatives–either accepting ownership of waste or regulating according to Congress’ instructions–the provision lies outside Congress’ enumerated powers and is inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment.”
Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the majority in the 6-3 decision.
As an initial matter, Congress may not simply “commandee[r] the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program.”
She later expounded on this point.
While Congress has substantial powers to govern the Nation directly, including in areas of intimate concern to the States, the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions.
O’Connor argues that standing alone, both options offered to the State of New York for dealing with radioactive waste in the act represented an unconstitutional overreach. Therefore, forcing the state to choose between the two is also unconstitutional.
A choice between two unconstitutionally coercive regulatory techniques is no choice at all. Either way, “the Act commandeers the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program
Printz v. United States (1997) serves as the lynchpin for the anti-commandeering doctrine. At issue was a provision in the Brady Gun Bill that required county law enforcement officers to administer part of the background check program. Sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack sued, arguing these provisions unconstitutionally forced them to administer a federal program. Justice Antonin Scalia agreed, writing in the majority opinion “it is apparent that the Brady Act purports to direct state law enforcement officers to participate, albeit only temporarily, in the administration of a federally enacted regulatory scheme.”
Citing the New York case, the court majority declared this provision of the Brady Gun Bill unconstitutional, expanding the reach of the anti-commandeering doctrine.
Madison supplied the blueprint for resisting federal power in Federalist 46. The “Father of the Constitution” outlines several steps states can take to stop “an unwarrantable measure,” or “even a warrantable measure” of the federal government. Anticipating the anti-commandeering doctrine, Madison calls for “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” as a method of resistance.
Madison’s blueprint, supported by the anti-commandeering doctrine, provides a powerful tool that states can use to stop unconstitutional federal acts in their tracks. In fact, during the federal government shutdown, the National Association of Governors admitted, “States are partners with the federal government in implementing most federal programs.” That means states can create impediments to enforcing and implementing “most federal programs.”
By simply refusing to provide material support to NSA spying, indefinite detention, unconstitutional violations of the Second Amendment and other unwarrantable acts, states have the power to render these actions unenforceable.
In other words, they can nullify them.
Even the Supreme Court agrees.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/201...ave-to-comply-the-anti-comandeering-doctrine/Printz v. United States (1997) serves as the lynchpin for the anti-commandeering doctrine. At issue was a provision in the Brady Gun Bill that required county law enforcement officers to administer part of the background check program. Sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack sued, arguing these provisions unconstitutionally forced them to administer a federal program. Justice Antonin Scalia agreed, writing in the majority opinion “it is apparent that the Brady Act purports to direct state law enforcement officers to participate, albeit only temporarily, in the administration of a federally enacted regulatory scheme.”
Citing the New York case, the court majority declared this provision of the Brady Gun Bill unconstitutional, expanding the reach of the anti-commandeering doctrine.
We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.
Finally, the Court ruled that the federal government cannot force the states to act against their will by withholding funds in a coercive manner. In Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), the Court held that the federal government can not compel states to expand Medicaid by threatening to withhold funding for Medicaid programs already in place. Justice Roberts argued that allowing Congress to essentially punish states that refused to go along violates constitutional separation of powers.
The legitimacy of Congress’s exercise of the spending power “thus rests on whether the State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of the ‘contract.’ ” Pennhurst, supra, at 17. Respecting this limitation is critical to ensuring that Spending Clause legislation does not undermine the status of the States as independent sovereigns in our federal system. That system “rests on what might at first seem a counterintuitive insight, that ‘freedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one.’ ” Bond, 564 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8) (quoting Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 758 (1999) ). For this reason, “the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions.” New York, supra, at 162. Otherwise the two-government system established by the Framers would give way to a system that vests power in one central government, and individual liberty would suffer.
Taken together, these four cases firmly establish a legal doctrine holding that the federal government has no authority to force states to cooperate in implementing or enforcing its acts. Even lawyers cannot dispute the legitimacy of nullification through noncooperation.
Madison supplied the blueprint for resisting federal power in Federalist 46. The “Father of the Constitution” outlines several steps states can take to stop “an unwarrantable measure,” or “even a warrantable measure” of the federal government. Anticipating the anti-commandeering doctrine, Madison calls for “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” as a method of resistance.
Madison’s blueprint, supported by the anti-commandeering doctrine, provides a powerful tool that states can use to stop unconstitutional federal acts in their tracks. In fact, during the federal government shutdown, the National Association of Governors admitted, “States are partners with the federal government in implementing most federal programs.” That means states can create impediments to enforcing and implementing “most federal programs.”
By simply refusing to provide material support to NSA spying, indefinite detention, unconstitutional violations of the Second Amendment and other unwarrantable acts, states have the power to render these actions unenforceable.
In other words, they can nullify them.
Even the Supreme Court agrees.
[h=3]Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 - Treason[/h]<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A3Sec3.html
Now, again, retard, and for the last time. What enemy nation has Brown aided and comforted? Oh, that's right, none.
Link up to the treaties Gov. Brown negotiated with foreign nations, retard.
Really.
Link up or shut up.
Funny, ignorant toad
Am I?
Show any case of a state enforcing the Civil Rights Act.
I will wait.
You are truly the dumbest mutherfucker on the internet.
Here it is one more time, cretin.
Immigration laws
Express Authorization for State and Local Law Enforcement Officers to Enforce Immigration Law
The INA contains three provisions that explicitly authorize state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws (8 USC §§ 1357(g), 1103(a)(8), and 1253c. The following is taken directly from the March 11, 2004 CRS report on the ability of state and local police to enforce the INA (copy enclosed).
8 USC § 1357(g)
USC § 1357(g) authorizes the U.S. attorney general to enter into a written agreement with a state or municipality pursuant to which a state or municipal officer or employee, who the attorney general determines to be qualified to perform a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States may carry out such function at the state's or municipality's expense as long as it is consistent with state and local law.
Section 1357(g) permits state and local entities to tailor an agreement with the attorney general to meet local needs. The written agreement must specify the powers and duties that may or must be performed, and the duration of the authority. The entities must know and follow federal law governing immigration officers and must receive adequate training regarding the enforcement of immigration laws. The U.S. attorney general must direct and supervise the officers performing immigration functions under this law. Such officers are not federal employees except for certain tort claims and compensation matters, but they do enjoy federal immunity.
8 USC § 1103(a)(8)
Under 8 USC § 1103(a)(8), state and local officers may exercise the civil or criminal arrest powers of federal immigration officers (1) when expressly authorized by the U.S. attorney general; (2) when given consent by the head of the state or local law enforcement agency; and (3) the attorney general determination of an emergency exists because of a mass influx of aliens. This authority can be exercised only during the emergency situation. The attorney general can shorten or waive the otherwise normally required training requirements when necessary to protect public safety, public health, or national security.
8 USC §1252c
8 USC § 1252c authorizes state and local officers to arrest aliens who have presumably violated § 276 of the INA (Reentry of Removed Alien). Under § 1252c, state and local law enforcement officials can arrest and detain anyone who:
1. is an alien illegally present in the United States and
2. has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported or left the United States after such conviction, but only after the state or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from INS of his status and only for as long as may be required for INS to take the individual into Federal custody for purposes of deporting or removing him from the United States.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
If ICE orders a sheriff to turn a prisoner over to them instead of releasing him is the sheriff ENFORCING federal law or OBEYING federal law?.......
All those things listed; such as, NSA spying and indefinite detention are not enumerated powers delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution, immigration policy is an enumerated power delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution under Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4, you stupid fuck, you are asserting that federal statutes; such as, the Civil Rights Act are unenforceable at the state level which is laughably and transparently incorrect.
What the fuck does the immigration statute have to do with the comment that you were responding to?
You will never get a straight answer from Domer when you prove him wrong ( as in always). Just swearing, faux superiority and nonsense. It really is the only way he can keep from offing himself I think.
