I did not post that "I think" anything about the opinions that you want to discuss. I did not and will not read the editorial. You must have me confused with somebody else.

 

However, I will share this opinion of mine, which is no less valid than the opinion of a very biased left wing law professor. The only Supreme Court decision in which I recall faulting Antonin Scalia's vote was a Tenth Amendment case involving the distribution of medical marijuana in California (Gonzales v. Raich). Scalia justified his vote with a Commerce Clause argument, despite the fact that there was no evidence presented that suggested that the defendant engaged in interstate commerce.

 

Scalia, who had a strong disdain for illicit drug use, joined with the liberals and swing voter, Anthony Kennedy, to overturn the lower Court's decision by a 6-3 margin. Had the decision gone the other way, the 10th Amendment would have been strengthened and would have undermined the federal government's authority to enact and enforce environmental regulations, which have been justified in the past through arguments citing interstate commerce.

 

My point is that even though many conservatives want to see the 10th Amendment strengthened, the composition of the Supreme Court will need to change drastically before that will happen. Some law and order conservatives like Scalia do not want to risk depriving the federal government of much of its power to regulate drug use and liberals do not want to risk taking away the federal government's ability to enforce environmental regulations within state borders.

 

Sanctuary cities may make 10th Amendment arguments to support their position, but they face an uphill battle that will cross party lines. Given the choice, would liberal justices risk weakening environmental laws and regulations, or would they roll the dice and give a win to the illegal aliens and their supporters? I believe that they would come down hard on sanctuary cities, if they agreed to hear a case on the matter.

 

If Trump stands his ground on ridding the country of sanctuary cities, I doubt that the issue even reaches the USSC.

 

 

My fault. Quoted wrong post. Should have been Jesse's.

I did not post that "I think" anything about the opinions that you want to discuss. I did not and will not read the editorial. You must have me confused with somebody else.

 

However, I will share this opinion of mine, which is no less valid than the opinion of a very biased left wing law professor. The only Supreme Court decision in which I recall faulting Antonin Scalia's vote was a Tenth Amendment case involving the distribution of medical marijuana in California (Gonzales v. Raich). Scalia justified his vote with a Commerce Clause argument, despite the fact that there was no evidence presented that suggested that the defendant engaged in interstate commerce.

 

Scalia, who had a strong disdain for illicit drug use, joined with the liberals and swing voter, Anthony Kennedy, to overturn the lower Court's decision by a 6-3 margin. Had the decision gone the other way, the 10th Amendment would have been strengthened and would have undermined the federal government's authority to enact and enforce environmental regulations, which have been justified in the past through arguments citing interstate commerce.

 

My point is that even though many conservatives want to see the 10th Amendment strengthened, the composition of the Supreme Court will need to change drastically before that will happen. Some law and order conservatives like Scalia do not want to risk depriving the federal government of much of its power to regulate drug use and liberals do not want to risk taking away the federal government's ability to enforce environmental regulations within state borders.

 

Sanctuary cities may make 10th Amendment arguments to support their position, but they face an uphill battle that will cross party lines. Given the choice, would liberal justices risk weakening environmental laws and regulations, or would they roll the dice and give a win to the illegal aliens and their supporters? I believe that they would come down hard on sanctuary cities, if they agreed to hear a case on the matter.

 

If Trump stands his ground on ridding the country of sanctuary cities, I doubt that the issue even reaches the USSC.

 

So you're against "states' rights." Duly noted.

Amazing how quickly some long-held beliefs about federal government overreach can pivot depending on who's calling the shots in DC. Power to the Feds! :lol2:

Amazing how quickly some long-held beliefs about federal government overreach can pivot depending on who's calling the shots in DC. Power to the Feds! :lol2:

 

So because one thinks the states should be able to decide some issues, they should think the states decide all issues?

 

You think liberals don't flip flop on issues, or do you only like to point it out when you think the GOP is guilty?

So because one thinks the states should be able to decide some issues, they should think the states decide all issues?

 

You think liberals don't flip flop on issues, or do you only like to point it out when you think the GOP is guilty?

 

Sure, but I like hypocrisy, and can't help but point a finger at it. It's pretty rich, really, when you consider how hardcore some people trump the "states' rights" banner until it flies in their face.

 

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Sure, but I like hypocrisy, and can't help but point a finger at it. It's pretty rich, really, when you consider how hardcore some people trump the "states' rights" banner until it flies in their face.

 

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

 

I just don't recall seeing you point out any liberal hypocrisy lately.

So you're against "states' rights." Duly noted.

No, I am strongly in favor of states' rights and the 10th Amendment. I just stated my opinion that many conservatives share Scalia's view on the matter and would not support a state's defense of sanctuary cities based on the 10th Amendment.

 

My personal opinion is that the federal government should not be able to compel a state to actively enforce federal law, but should be able to punish States and individuals for actively aiding and abetting others breaking constitutional federal laws. It is a federal responsibility to secure our borders and st UIates should not be shielding criminals.

Amazing how quickly some long-held beliefs about federal government overreach can pivot depending on who's calling the shots in DC. Power to the Feds! :lol2:

You misread my post, if you are referring to me. There is no hypocrisy in my opposition to sanctuary cities and steadfast support of the 10th Amendment. I just don't believe the 10th Amendment can be used to justify hiding fugitives from justice, nor should it be used to force states to do the federal government's job.

I just don't recall seeing you point out any liberal hypocrisy lately.

 

You guys have a pretty good handle on that. Besides, I did say, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." What do you think I meant by that?

You guys have a pretty good handle on that. Besides, I did say, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." What do you think I meant by that?

 

You guys? I barely post here...

You guys? I barely post here...

 

I hope that was sarcastic, because you're only 1,000 posts behind me. :lol2:

I hope that was sarcastic, because you're only 1,000 posts behind me. :lol2:

 

I meant this specific forum. I only post here occasionally.

Some liberals learned after SB apparently. Most never will though.

Some liberals learned after SB apparently. Most never will though.

 

They already played the Super Bowl?

I meant this specific forum. I only post here occasionally.

 

I've been mostly in observation mode in this forum for some time now.