Should a state be able to ignore any federal law that it wants to?
Return to Board  •  Menu  •  Bottom  Page 2 of 4  
Message
re: Should a state be able to ignore any federal law that it wants to?
Posted by doubleb on 1/31 at 3:20 pm to Decatur
In today's society even our leaders encourage and participate in a selective enforcement and a selective adherence to law.

It's almost to the point where anything goes if you are politically correct.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Jbird on 1/31 at 3:27 pm to junkfunky
quote:

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


This is why the Fed blackmails states.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Powerman on 1/31 at 3:30 pm to Decatur
quote:



Who determines whether the laws violate said civil liberties?


I knew that question was going to come up

But in most cases the required enforcement of an additional law isn't usually for the purpose of promoting civil liberties

Just my take



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by TigerintheNO on 1/31 at 3:33 pm to Powerman
quote:

Who determines whether the laws violate said civil liberties? I knew that question was going to come up But in most cases the required enforcement of an additional law isn't usually for the purpose of promoting civil liberties


Is the right to own property a civil liberty?



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by trackfan on 1/31 at 3:39 pm to Decatur
I guess it doesn't really surprise me that the attitudes of Southerners regarding states rights hasn't changed very much since the days when George Wallace way yelling, "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!"


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Turbeauxdog on 1/31 at 3:41 pm to trackfan
quote:

I guess it doesn't really surprise me that the attitudes of Southerners regarding states rights hasn't changed very much since the days when George Wallace way yelling, "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!"


Liberal chimes in with cries of racism. Typical.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by theGarnetWay on 1/31 at 3:44 pm to Decatur
quote:

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


What would be the purpose of a federal law if states can just pick and choose which ones they want to uphold and which ones they don't?

eta: With that said I can understand the concern and the idea of not letting Federal power rule supreme and unchecked.


This post was edited on 1/31 at 3:46 pm

Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by TigerintheNO on 1/31 at 3:46 pm to Decatur
quote:

Mississippi, Arizona, Wyoming, even Louisiana is thinking about dipping their toes into the water - Who else am I missing?


Colorado & Washington, but since those were drugs and not guns I guess the don't count



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by tigeraddict on 1/31 at 3:49 pm to Decatur
quote:

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


Should the Executive Branch be able to selectively enforce laws passed by the legislative branch?



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Decatur on 1/31 at 3:49 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:

Liberal chimes in with cries of racism. Typical.


Well...

quote:

Per the Jackson Free Press, among other things, HB 490 intends to:

"prohibit the infringement of the constitutionally protected rights of the state of Mississippi or its people by means of any federal statute, mandate, executive order, judicial decision, or other action deemed by the state to be unconstitutional"

"assert the sovereignty of the state under the Mississippi constitution of 1890"

Previous attempts by Mississippi to defy the federal government, from secession to the Sovereignty Commission—a state agency that spied on people believed to support racial equality—have not gone so well, notes the AP. "It's absolutely the most horrendous idea that has ever come before this august body," said Democrat Steve Holland of the bill. "It is political fodder for the right and borderline stupid."


LINK



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Decatur on 1/31 at 3:51 pm to TigerintheNO
quote:

Colorado & Washington, but since those were drugs and not guns I guess the don't count


They're not stopping the feds from enforcing fed law

They're not going to arrest fed agents who attempt to enforce the law



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Queen on 1/31 at 4:05 pm to Decatur
FWIW, the Jackson Free Press is pretty liberal. But I gave you the link you quoted from, and I'm not here to attack your source.

But the fact that Mississippi at one time used states' rights to further a racist agenda does not mean that's what they're trying to do today. Two different purposes.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Cholo on 1/31 at 4:08 pm to Decatur
Absolutely. States need to push back and re-establish state rights. Texas forever!


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Grizzly on 1/31 at 4:09 pm to Decatur
Why not?, The guy in the white house has ignored the constitution over the last 4 years and ready to shite all over it the next 4. Why can't a state flip Washington the big bird when it chooses to as well?


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Decatur on 1/31 at 4:10 pm to tigeraddict
quote:

Should the Executive Branch be able to selectively enforce laws passed by the legislative branch?


valid point IMO

I think there are very few instances where the Exec Branch refuses to enforce a fed law, and even then it mostly has to do with whether the Exec Branch will defend a law in court. Found a well-reasoned blog post at RedState.com that expounds upon this (although I don't agree with the writer on a few other points):

quote:

An Administration cannot willy nilly decide not to defend a law in court. To do so, they must reach the decision, after analysis, that the provisions in question are unconstitutional. They cannot simply stop defending a duly enacted law in court because they have a policy disagreement with it. And even then, they must have a reasonable expectation of prevailing in the argument when the courts do decide the constitutionality of the provision or law in question.

As for enforcing duly enacted legislation, the case become a little more muddy. The President takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. As important, if not more important, that oath also specifies that they uphold the Constitution. That is one “out” for the Executive branch- they can refuse to enforce a law if they believe it is unconstitutional since the Constitution, as the supreme law of the land, takes precedence over acts of Congress. Hence, Congress is under a duty not to pass unconstitutional laws, the President is under a duty not to enforce unconstitutional laws, and the courts are under a duty to strike down unconstitutional laws.

...

So, can the Administration refuse to defend a duly enacted law? Yes they can and they have provided (1) there is considered belief the provision in question is unconstitutional and (2) they reasonably believe their view will ultimately prevail upon judicial review. Obama’s action is rare, but not novel with respect to DOMA. Can a President refuse to enforce a law? Yes they can, but only if there is a constitutional question involved that impinges on the power of the Executive, especially as concerns their role as Commander-in-Chief. At best, Obama can say he is exercising prosecutorial discretion.


LINK



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Patrick O Rly on 1/31 at 4:11 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

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



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by crawdaddy52 on 1/31 at 4:16 pm to Queen
Red states talk tough until they need money. As has been stated many times on this board, Al gets $1.60 for every dollar they send to the federal government. Blue states, like Ca, Minn pay for states like Al, MS, LA. I know everybody from LA will post about their oil ...blah, blah. Ca. is in debt but it is their debt. I find it ludicrous that people post so smugly on this board when most of them of from these free loader states. I'm sure I'm gonna hear the demographics argument. It's been 150 years since "the war", if you're ideas are so good why does your state suck at making money.


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Diamondawg on 1/31 at 4:17 pm to TigerintheNO
quote:

Is the right to own property a civil liberty?

No. But, once you do and follow the laws, pay the taxes and such, you have a right to keep it (unless eminent domain kicks in).



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by TigerintheNO on 1/31 at 4:19 pm to crawdaddy52
quote:

. Blue states, like Ca, Minn pay for states like Al, MS, LA


We are $17 trillion in debt, everyone is getting more that what they put in.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by udtiger on 1/31 at 4:19 pm to Decatur
quote:

I think there are very few instances where the Exec Branch refuses to enforce a fed law, and even then it mostly has to do with whether the Exec Branch will defend a law in court. Found a well-reasoned blog post at RedState.com that expounds upon this (although I don't agree with the writer on a few other points):


what about immigration laws?



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

           Page 2 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.