quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Who determines whether the laws violate said civil liberties?

---

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

---

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!"

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Liberal chimes in with cries of racism. Typical.

---

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."

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

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

---

quote:

---

Is the right to own property a civil liberty?

---

quote:

---

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

---

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):

---