Thanks, Habib. I guess the key fact is that Federal law never loses against state law challenges, correct?

 

As per the constitution ("Laws of the United States...shall be supreme law of the land"). But I thought it worth pointing out that the civil rights aspect is still under challenge, as far as I know.

The problem with liberals and conservatives is they interpret the Constitution the way they want.

 

As per The Constitution -

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

See the bold, well Liberals have been infringing on it for about 70 years now.

 

So now conservatives are going at them with their own tactics. If the federal government infringes are the peoples rights, the states will take up for them.

 

The Constitution is either a living document or it is not. You either go by the letter of the law or you don't. Liberals cannot have it both ways.

I believe that George Washington, Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln all addressed this issue. The issue of whether states could nullify federal law was settled on the battlefield from 1861 to 1865. Fortunately, these people are bumper sticker patriots so we won't have a repeat of the civil war. However misguided the southerners were in the 19th century, they were willing to fight for what they believed. Fortunately, these guys are only willing to call a press conference where they can trumpet the fact that they support a meaningless, empty gesture law.

I love Texas.

I'm wondering if all this is to hasten a challenge that would make it's way to the SC for a ruling.

So there's no legal precedent that says Federal laws trumps state law?

 

There is also precedent that states aren't required to enforce Federal law.

There is also precedent that states aren't required to enforce Federal law.

 

Is there? Can you give me an example?

Is there? Can you give me an example?

 

Drug laws and immigration come to mind.

Drug laws and immigration come to mind.

 

I thought of drug law last night. What we don't know is how it would be ruled upon by the SCOTUS, correct? Every law is legal until it's challenged, right?

 

I can't find any examples of a law that goes against Federal law that was supported by the SCOTUS.

I thought of drug law last night. What we don't know is how it would be ruled upon by the SCOTUS, correct? Every law is legal until it's challenged, right?

 

I can't find any examples of a law that goes against Federal law that was supported by the SCOTUS.

 

The question is do liberals want to take it that far, because if they can force states to enforce gun laws that will put halo cities and drug laws in jeporady. The way I've understood and I could be wrong, is that the laws where states say they will prosecute federal law enforcement for enforcing federal law will obviously not be legal. But I don't know of any ruling that forces local and state law enforcement to enforce federal laws. There are dozens of issues that local and state law enforcement don't get invovled with and let the federal gov't take care of it. I don't think this law supercede federal law it's just letting the federal gov't know if you want to enforce your law you will be enforcing it not our local and state law enforcement.

The question is do liberals want to take it that far, because if they can force states to enforce gun laws that will put halo cities and drug laws in jeporady. The way I've understood and I could be wrong, is that the laws where states say they will prosecute federal law enforcement for enforcing federal law will obviously not be legal. But I don't know of any ruling that forces local and state law enforcement to enforce federal laws. There are dozens of issues that local and state law enforcement don't get invovled with and let the federal gov't take care of it. I don't think this law supercede federal law it's just letting the federal gov't know if you want to enforce your law you will be enforcing it not our local and state law enforcement.

 

Ah, I see your logic. Sure go ahead, Feds, and enforce it if you wish. We're not.

So if Federal law trumps State law, then you can't really get high in Colorado, correct?

So if Federal law trumps State law, then you can't really get high in Colorado, correct?

 

You can still get busted for breaking federal laws.

So if Federal law trumps State law, then you can't really get high in Colorado, correct?

 

Depends on who you ask. The head of DEA says you cannot. State law says you can. President Obama says the Feds will not arrest anyone.

 

The unanswered question ( I think) is in regards to selling it at stores.

Depends on who you ask. The head of DEA says you cannot. State law says you can. President Obama says the Feds will not arrest anyone.

 

So basically President Obama can decide what federal laws he wants to enforce, and which ones he wants to blatantly ignore? That doesn't sound like Democracy to me. :idunno: