Should a state be able to ignore any federal law that it wants to?
Return to Board  •  Menu  •  Bottom  Page 1 of 4  
Message
Should a state be able to ignore any federal law that it wants to?
Posted by Decatur on 1/31 at 3:01 pm
And arrest anyone who tries to enforce that/those federal law(s)?

Should a state be able to ignore ALL federal laws if it wants to?

If so, how would you envision the future of the United States in light of this?



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by constant cough on 1/31 at 3:02 pm to Decatur
quote:

Should a state be able to ignore any federal law that it wants to?



If it's an executive order from Obama, yes.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Decatur on 1/31 at 3:03 pm to constant cough
quote:

If it's an executive order from Obama, yes.


Just that?



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Powerman on 1/31 at 3:03 pm to Decatur
The states should be able to ignore any law that violates civil liberties of the state residents

They should only have to abide by laws that protect the liberties of individuals

i.e. stuff like gun laws should not have to be followed



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by constant cough on 1/31 at 3:03 pm to Decatur
quote:

Just that?



No, that just seemed the most obvious.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by udtiger on 1/31 at 3:04 pm to Decatur
If it unconstitutionally encroaches on the sovereign authority of the state, or the rights of its citizens, then YES.

See nullification theory - supported by such people as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Jbird on 1/31 at 3:04 pm to Decatur
What's the difference between ignoring and not enforcing, I mean hell Obama "prioritized" enforcement of laws, then say we will no longer prosecute certain laws, why can't states do the same?


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Decatur on 1/31 at 3:06 pm to Powerman
quote:

The states should be able to ignore any law that violates civil liberties of the state residents

They should only have to abide by laws that protect the liberties of individuals


Who determines whether the laws violate said civil liberties?

quote:

i.e. stuff like gun laws should not have to be followed


Why not just throw tax laws into there also


This post was edited on 1/31 at 3:07 pm

Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by HempHead on 1/31 at 3:07 pm to Decatur
quote:

Should a state be able to ignore ALL federal laws if it wants to?


Sure.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by UncleFestersLegs on 1/31 at 3:07 pm to Decatur
quote:

Why not just throw tax laws into there also


Or drug laws?



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by HempHead on 1/31 at 3:08 pm to Decatur
quote:

Why not just throw tax laws into there also


Now you are talking the right game.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Decatur on 1/31 at 3:08 pm to UncleFestersLegs
quote:

Or drug laws?


Sure



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by UncleFestersLegs on 1/31 at 3:08 pm to udtiger
quote:

See nullification theory - supported by such people as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.


Unfortunately, neither could have envisioned states surrendering the sovereignty for highway funding.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Decatur on 1/31 at 3:09 pm to HempHead
quote:

Now you are talking the right game


Environmental laws - frick em



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by junkfunky on 1/31 at 3:09 pm to Jbird
quote:

What's the difference between ignoring and not enforcing, I mean hell Obama "prioritized" enforcement of laws, then say we will no longer prosecute certain laws, why can't states do the same?


They can and do. If you only have so much to pay LEO to enforce the laws you are gonna give some laws more attention than others, which happens every where all the time (certain traffic laws, sodomites, etc.). What's the fed gonna do, force them to enforce the law without the funds to pay for enforcement?

That question is intended to be rhetorical but I think fedgov might have a different opinion of what the obvious answer is.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by HempHead on 1/31 at 3:12 pm to Decatur
quote:

Environmental laws - frick em


Environmental protection could be much more robust if a greater recognition of private property (see: your person) was allowed in litigation.

I am a tree hugger but in no way do I find federal mandates or laws concerning the proper use of chemicals or land management to be satisfactory.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by McLemore on 1/31 at 3:12 pm to Decatur
quote:

If so, how would you envision the future of the United States in light of this?


read The Federalist Papers and get back with us.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Bunsbert Montcroff on 1/31 at 3:13 pm to Decatur
quote:

Who determines whether the laws violate said civil liberties?

the same esteemed, intelligent, group of individuals who always have.

the tigerdroppings political board.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Queen on 1/31 at 3:14 pm to Decatur
Mississippi is already trying to ignore federal laws. Is this what inspired this thread?

LINK



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Decatur on 1/31 at 3:18 pm to Queen
Mississippi, Arizona, Wyoming, even Louisiana is thinking about dipping their toes into the water - Who else am I missing?


Reply  •  Back to Top  •  Refresh
Return to Board
Jump to Page   

           Page 1 of 4           

 

 Message Boards
 Tiger Rant
 Recruiting Board
 SEC Rant
 Saints Talk
 Pelicans Talk
 More Sports Board
 Soccer Board
 O-T Lounge
 Tech Board
 Outdoor Board
 Movie/TV Board
 Music Board
 Political Talk
 Money Talk
 Fark Board
 Gaming Board
 Fantasy Sports
 Food and Drink Board
 Ticket Exchange
 Help Board
 

 Other Options
 >> Search
 

 SECRant.com Links
 SEC Rant
 SEC Recruiting
 SEC Tickets
 Off-Topic Board
 

 Geaux.com Dining Guide
 New Orleans
 Baton Rouge
 

 Site Features (Full Version)
 Home Page
 LSU Football Schedule
 LSU News/TD News Wire
 Pick'em Home Page
 
Back to top
Sign In 
View in: Desktop
Copyright ©2014 TigerDroppings.com.