- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Do you support local law enforcement being compelled to enforce federal law?
Posted on 1/25/18 at 10:34 pm
Posted on 1/25/18 at 10:34 pm
Everyone recently has been talking about local law enforcement essentially being forced to enact federal immigration law, but in many ways it goes deeper.
A big example is the DOJ's equitable sharing for civil asset forfeiture, in which the federal govt assumes jurisdiction over a seizure, and cuts the state/local agency making the seizure a check at sale. Aside from the outright theft of this, to me this is a flagrant violation of not only civil rights, but states rights as well.
How can any "small govt conservative" be both in favor of small govt and compulsory enactment of federal law by state law enforcement? States were never meant to do the federal govts bidding.
A big example is the DOJ's equitable sharing for civil asset forfeiture, in which the federal govt assumes jurisdiction over a seizure, and cuts the state/local agency making the seizure a check at sale. Aside from the outright theft of this, to me this is a flagrant violation of not only civil rights, but states rights as well.
How can any "small govt conservative" be both in favor of small govt and compulsory enactment of federal law by state law enforcement? States were never meant to do the federal govts bidding.
20
Posted on 1/25/18 at 10:36 pm to NYNolaguy1
I've pretty much got authoritarian issues all the way around ... but meh, that's just me.
Posted on 1/25/18 at 10:36 pm to NYNolaguy1
Have you actually read what the Articles of the constitution say about immigration?
Posted on 1/25/18 at 10:40 pm to golfntiger32
quote:
Have you actually read what the Articles of the constitution say about immigration?
That its a federal perogative to enforce it?
That would imply it's not a state issue, unless youre referring to a certain state's constitution?
This post was edited on 1/25/18 at 10:43 pm
Posted on 1/25/18 at 10:41 pm to golfntiger32
quote:don't matter, the constitution is a living thing and it changes
Have you actually read what the Articles of the constitution say about immigration?
Posted on 1/25/18 at 10:42 pm to NYNolaguy1
So state’s rights until homosexual marriage or abortion, amirite?
Posted on 1/25/18 at 10:45 pm to Jack Bauers HnK
quote:
So state’s rights until homosexual marriage or abortion, amirite?
Maybe for some, not for me. States should be free to choose such things. Call me the slightly left of center libertarian
. I have my opinions on homosexuality and abortion, doesnt mean I think federal govt is the place to tell people what they can and can't do for most things.
This post was edited on 1/25/18 at 10:47 pm
Posted on 1/25/18 at 10:50 pm to NYNolaguy1
How about I put it this way... do you even Supremacy Clause baw?
Article 6 of the Constitution.
Article 6 of the Constitution.
Posted on 1/25/18 at 10:51 pm to NYNolaguy1
Does local government want federal money?
Do states pols push for amnesty of illegals?
Do states pols push for amnesty of illegals?
Posted on 1/25/18 at 10:55 pm to golfntiger32
quote:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
That just means the federal govt and its law and constitution decides immigration policy.
It doesnt bind states to enforce it.
This post was edited on 1/25/18 at 11:01 pm
Posted on 1/25/18 at 10:59 pm to NYNolaguy1
So can I get some slaves? As long as the state does not care?
Posted on 1/25/18 at 10:59 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Does local government want federal money?
Yes, but that doesnt mean states should sell their rights. Drinking age, asset forfeiture are two examples of that.
quote:
Do states pols push for amnesty of illegals?
State pols want to get re-elected.
Posted on 1/25/18 at 11:00 pm to golfntiger32
quote:
So can I get some slaves? As long as the state does not care?
Does your state want slavery?
Posted on 1/25/18 at 11:01 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Yes, but that doesnt mean states should sell their rights. Drinking age, asset forfeiture are two examples of that.
What rights are they selling? The right to harbor criminals ?
Posted on 1/25/18 at 11:04 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
What rights are they selling? The right to harbor criminals ?
The right of people to be charged with a crime before having their assets stolen by a government.
I am guessing you dont know about asset forfeiture?
Or the right of states to choose their own drinking age?
This is a bigger issue than just immigration.
This post was edited on 1/25/18 at 11:05 pm
Posted on 1/25/18 at 11:08 pm to NYNolaguy1
Well it’s obviously different with things that effect national security, immigration and interstate commerce. But when it’s strictly a local issue I would tend to agree that the Feds tend to overstep their authority.
Posted on 1/25/18 at 11:10 pm to NYNolaguy1
Not enforcing federal law is one thing.
breaking it on purpose and waving it in the feds face is a whole other thing
breaking it on purpose and waving it in the feds face is a whole other thing
Posted on 1/25/18 at 11:14 pm to NYNolaguy1
As a general rule, yes. Obviously there are cicumstances where that wouldn't make a lot of sense.
Posted on 1/25/18 at 11:16 pm to diplip
quote:
breaking it on purpose and waving it in the feds face is a whole other thing
Should individual states have the right to set their own MJ legalization laws?
This post was edited on 1/25/18 at 11:18 pm
Posted on 1/25/18 at 11:18 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
That its a federal perogative to enforce it?
Bull fricking shite. There's a huge difference between asking the state to enforce federal law and actively thwarting the federal government. What's happening in California and sanctuary cities is straight up liberals actively protecting criminal illegal aliens, in an active effort to undermine the federal responsibility to enforce immigration laws.
Page 1 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News