Conservatives, help me out.

[SavannahMann]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

 

[Cellblock2429]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

/----/ Police always do a background check even if they pull you over for a speeding tick to see if there are any outstanding warrants. Breaking the immigration laws are no different.

 

[ColonelAngus]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

/----/ Police always do a background check even if they pull you over for a speeding tick to see if there are any outstanding warrants. Breaking the immigration laws are no different.

It's completely reasonable for local LE to notify Feds for crimes uncovered that fall under Federal jurisdiction.

If a County Law Enforcement officer finds a counterfeit money ring, they notify the Secret Service because that's their jurisdiction.

The county cop doesn't let the counterfeiters go and say, "Not my job!"

 

[SavannahMann]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

/----/ Police always do a background check even if they pull you over for a speeding tick to see if there are any outstanding warrants. Breaking the immigration laws are no different.

Ah, a batter steps to the plate. Swing and a miss.

The Supreme Court did not agree with you. The Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to require the local police to enforce Federal Law. The idea is simple.

Let's say you and I are both managers for the same company. Let's say the company makes widgets. You are in charge of security. I am in charge of manufacturing the widgets. I come to you and say I want your security people to help out in production. You tell me no, your people are responsible for security, not production. I would be wrong in expecting you to have your people do my job for me.

Federal Law is enforced by Federal Agents. Local laws are enforced by local cops. It's that simple. ICE is free to run around and arrest all the illegals they want. The local cops won't interfere, but aren't going to lift a finger to help. The same way that local cops quit enforcing State Marijuana laws when some states legalized. The DEA can still arrest and prosecute people, but the locals aren't going to help.

Both ICE and the DEA are used to having the locals do most of the work for them. Find the pot smokers, arresting them, and if it is a big enough bust, the Feds step in and take over.

I have no heartburn with the idea of letting the Feds do their own thing, I do object to local cops enforcing Federal law.

The background check you say is happening when the cops conduct a traffic stop is a check for wants and warrants. It isn't done in every interaction, and it isn't done for everyone in the car normally. If a cop pulls over a bus with a Church Rock Band, they aren't going to run wants and warrants for everyone. If the bus is involved in an accident, Especially a minor one, they may not run wants and warrants on anyone.

 

[Mr.Blonde]

Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

The second and tenth amendment protect the states and individual from federal interference in large part

The Federal government has sole control on immigration.

 

[washamericom]

i think it's kind of like weed. legal in colorado, still a federal law against it.

it's a really great question, great topic.

 

[SavannahMann]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

/----/ Police always do a background check even if they pull you over for a speeding tick to see if there are any outstanding warrants. Breaking the immigration laws are no different.

It's completely reasonable for local LE to notify Feds for crimes uncovered that fall under Federal jurisdiction.

If a County Law Enforcement officer finds a counterfeit money ring, they notify the Secret Service because that's their jurisdiction.

The county cop doesn't let the counterfeiters go and say, "Not my job!"

Is it? Take a look at the states where Marijuana was made legal. Are the cops notifying the DEA that a pot smoker is here? Are the cops arresting the pot suppliers? The locals just ignore that, and leave it to the Feds. Colorado has seen a nearly 80% drop in cultivation arrests, and the locals now only assist if the Marijuana growers are shipping it out of the state. As long as the Marijuana is sold only through registered state outlets, then the Locals are hands off. Federal law is a Federal problem.

 

[SavannahMann]

Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

The second and tenth amendment protect the states and individual from federal interference in large part

The Federal government has sole control on immigration.

Yes, and the sole responsibility in enforcing it. If the State allows the Local Law enforcement to assist in such cases, then that is the State's choice. If the State says no, then the Feds are up a stump. Some states do allow, and encourage it. Some say no, but that is the choice of the states. The same way that states have choices on several issues.

The debate now is if the State isn't actively assisting ICE, then they are violating the law. I want to understand how it is a States Right's issue to conduct background checks, but not a States Right issue to assist ICE.

 

[Cellblock2429]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

/----/ Police always do a background check even if they pull you over for a speeding tick to see if there are any outstanding warrants. Breaking the immigration laws are no different.

It's completely reasonable for local LE to notify Feds for crimes uncovered that fall under Federal jurisdiction.

If a County Law Enforcement officer finds a counterfeit money ring, they notify the Secret Service because that's their jurisdiction.

The county cop doesn't let the counterfeiters go and say, "Not my job!"

Is it? Take a look at the states where Marijuana was made legal. Are the cops notifying the DEA that a pot smoker is here? Are the cops arresting the pot suppliers? The locals just ignore that, and leave it to the Feds. Colorado has seen a nearly 80% drop in cultivation arrests, and the locals now only assist if the Marijuana growers are shipping it out of the state. As long as the Marijuana is sold only through registered state outlets, then the Locals are hands off. Federal law is a Federal problem.

/----/ Anyone who sells pot should be locked up regardless of state law. How about if New York reinstates slavery? Should the Feds be alerted?

 

[JGalt]

I've never been contacted by local law enforcement when buying a firearm, just the federal background check. Are you sure about that?

 

[ColonelAngus]

If you tell a State Highway Patrol officer that you intend to murder POTUS, should that officer notify the Fed?

It's not their jurisdiction.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Conservatives, help me out.

It's odd that you think only conservatives can answer your key question. Do you seek a normative partisan response or a (somewhat) critically considered positive one that objectively addresses the matter from the standpoint of legal theory and practice? I can fairly well provide the latter -- as can others, conservatives or liberals, if they bother to do so -- and have no desire to try providing the former. Perhaps

I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

That was hubristic of you. What portfolio have you to form an opinion about a matter of case law that the SCOTUS' jurists have opined upon? Are you an attorney?

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal science." But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
― Murray N. Rothbard​

Though Rothbard was speaking of economics, his remark is no less applicable to the law, except that "dismal science," as Thomas Carlyle coined it, is not a sobriquet for legal theory.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

The short is that state/local authorities are not obliged to enforce federal law, but rather to assist federal authorities in enforcing it. While to (jurisprudential) laymen there may not seem like a difference, to offenders the difference becomes patently clear: they find themselves sooner or later remanded to federal custody, and the charges they face, if they face any, will be brought by the U.S. rather than by a county, city or state.

Reading "Authority of State and Local Police to Enforce Federal Immigration Law," one finds that "in exercising its power to regulate immigration, Congress is free to delegate to the states, among other things, the authority to arrest, hold, and transport aliens into federal custody."

It stands to reason, then, that if Congress has not similarly deputed authority to state and local law enforcement organs with regard to background checks, doing so is at the jurisdictions' discretion. That said, state and local governments are not forced to participate in the execution of federal statute enforcement, but that lack of obligation does not mean they will experience also a lack of consequences (some negative, others positive) in the aftermath of willfully refraining to aid and abet federal law enforcement organizations' efforts and goal achievement. To wit, one consequence of jurisdictions' refusal to aid/abet federal authorities in enforcing some of Trump's, thus the federal government's, immigration edicts has, at least in some instances, been the federal government withholding funds it had previously committed to disbursing to the state or locality. Obviously, it is the state and locality's leaders and citizens' responsibility to determine what is more material to them -- the federal money or the immigrants, their contributions, and the tangible and intangible net benefits that accrue from the immigrants' (and their supporters') existence in the state/locality.



Though I have not read the following documents, one may find find them useful for developing a solid understanding of the nuanced topic broached in this threads OP/title.

• State Enforcement of Federal Law
• Section 1983 and the Private Enforcement of Federal Law
  
• State Sovereignty and Subordinacy: May Congress Commandeer State Officers to Implement Federal Law?
  
• The Relations between State and Federal Law
  
• Intrastatutory Federalism and Statutory Interpretation: State Implementation of Federal Law in Health Reform and Beyond

Interested parties may find other authoritative writings on the matter at "standard" Google and at Google Scholar, which is the version of Google that rather effectively culls from its query results links that lead one either to blatantly editorial content or to documents having a notably lower likelihood of containing rigorously considered and substantiated ideas.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

I believe the feds pay the cities and states to help them out, that's why. This is where the sanctuary city argument comes into play. Trump and the Republicans want to withhold money from those cities if they are not doing anything for that federal money and in fact, doing the opposite which is protecting illegals from the feds.

There is no law the locals have to help the feds, but the feds should not be giving money to those cities or states either for non-compliance.

I'm a local truck driver and we have to abide to federal regulations even if we don't leave state lines. The feds do not have federal Department of Transportation people out there, they hire our state police to enforce federal laws on truckers. I've been pulled over and ticketed twice for not wearing my seatbelt even though our state law is that a seatbelt violation is a secondary offense, not a primary offense. But federal law is that not wearing a seatbelt is a primary offense and our state troopers are allowed to pull me over just for that.

 

[Darkwind]

They are not being asked to enforce immigration law. They are being asked to hold a suspect for 48 hours so that federal agents can make an evaluation. At that time, federal agents will enforce federal law, or the LEO agency will be given an indication that the Feds have no interest which leaves their disposition up to them.

No one is asking them to go out and look specifically for illegals. No one is asking them to take these illegals to the border to be deported. They are not even asking them to take them before a federal judge for adjudication.

However, to purposely hide the information that a suspect is in the country illegally is a federal crime and local agencies and cities should be held accountable for those choices.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

/----/ Police always do a background check even if they pull you over for a speeding tick to see if there are any outstanding warrants. Breaking the immigration laws are no different.

This should be the end of this thread but knowing the left & the trolls it won't be.

 

[BrokeLoser]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

/----/ Police always do a background check even if they pull you over for a speeding tick to see if there are any outstanding warrants. Breaking the immigration laws are no different.

It's completely reasonable for local LE to notify Feds for crimes uncovered that fall under Federal jurisdiction.

If a County Law Enforcement officer finds a counterfeit money ring, they notify the Secret Service because that's their jurisdiction.

The county cop doesn't let the counterfeiters go and say, "Not my job!"

Is it? Take a look at the states where Marijuana was made legal. Are the cops notifying the DEA that a pot smoker is here? Are the cops arresting the pot suppliers? The locals just ignore that, and leave it to the Feds. Colorado has seen a nearly 80% drop in cultivation arrests, and the locals now only assist if the Marijuana growers are shipping it out of the state. As long as the Marijuana is sold only through registered state outlets, then the Locals are hands off. Federal law is a Federal problem.

Why would any productive, REAL American have a problem with local, state and federal authorities working together to solve such a grand scale problem? Why not solve this issue by any means necessary?
You do realize that local, state and federal agencies work together all the time...right?
"Are the cops notifying the DEA that a pot smoker is here? Are the cops arresting the pot suppliers?"

Apples and oranges...pot smokers / growers often times are acting within the legal boundaries set by the state. Unlike marijuana laws...There is no state law that supersedes federal law and permits illegal immigration. Further, I'm thinking marijuana isn't costing REAL American's $100 billion a year and constantly growing nor is it causing a massive degradation of neighborhoods, cities, states and American society.
By the way...what part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been stealing from hard working REAL Americans?

 

[ColonelAngus]

El Salvador has the highest murder rate on earth. 20 times that of the USA.

Maybe we should be handling MS-13 and protecting those terrorized by that gang.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

/----/ Police always do a background check even if they pull you over for a speeding tick to see if there are any outstanding warrants. Breaking the immigration laws are no different.

It's completely reasonable for local LE to notify Feds for crimes uncovered that fall under Federal jurisdiction.

If a County Law Enforcement officer finds a counterfeit money ring, they notify the Secret Service because that's their jurisdiction.

The county cop doesn't let the counterfeiters go and say, "Not my job!"

Is it? Take a look at the states where Marijuana was made legal. Are the cops notifying the DEA that a pot smoker is here? Are the cops arresting the pot suppliers? The locals just ignore that, and leave it to the Feds. Colorado has seen a nearly 80% drop in cultivation arrests, and the locals now only assist if the Marijuana growers are shipping it out of the state. As long as the Marijuana is sold only through registered state outlets, then the Locals are hands off. Federal law is a Federal problem.

Why would any productive, REAL American have a problem with local, state and federal authorities working together to solve such a grand scale problem? Why not solve this issue by any means necessary?
You do realize that local, state and federal agencies work together all the time...right?
"Are the cops notifying the DEA that a pot smoker is here? Are the cops arresting the pot suppliers?"

Apples and oranges...pot smokers / growers often times are acting within the legal boundaries set by the state. Unlike marijuana laws...There is no state law that supersedes federal law and permits illegal immigration. Further, I'm thinking marijuana isn't costing REAL American's $100 billion a year and constantly growing nor is it causing a massive degradation of neighborhoods, cities, states and American society.
By the way...what part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been stealing from hard working REAL Americans?

Enforcement agencies work together all the time. When one of our police have somebody in custody that has a warrant out in another city, we alert that city and that city will either pick up the prisoner, meet our city cops halfway somewhere, or refuse the prisoner because we are too far away and it's not worth the travel time.

In more major crimes, cities who have a suspect in custody will hold them until the city or state arrives to pick that prisoner up. They don't release a murder suspect wanted in another state because it's none of their business.

 

[SavannahMann]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

/----/ Police always do a background check even if they pull you over for a speeding tick to see if there are any outstanding warrants. Breaking the immigration laws are no different.

It's completely reasonable for local LE to notify Feds for crimes uncovered that fall under Federal jurisdiction.

If a County Law Enforcement officer finds a counterfeit money ring, they notify the Secret Service because that's their jurisdiction.

The county cop doesn't let the counterfeiters go and say, "Not my job!"

Is it? Take a look at the states where Marijuana was made legal. Are the cops notifying the DEA that a pot smoker is here? Are the cops arresting the pot suppliers? The locals just ignore that, and leave it to the Feds. Colorado has seen a nearly 80% drop in cultivation arrests, and the locals now only assist if the Marijuana growers are shipping it out of the state. As long as the Marijuana is sold only through registered state outlets, then the Locals are hands off. Federal law is a Federal problem.

Why would any productive, REAL American have a problem with local, state and federal authorities working together to solve such a grand scale problem? Why not solve this issue by any means necessary?
You do realize that local, state and federal agencies work together all the time...right?
"Are the cops notifying the DEA that a pot smoker is here? Are the cops arresting the pot suppliers?"

Apples and oranges...pot smokers / growers often times are acting within the legal boundaries set by the state. Unlike marijuana laws...There is no state law that supersedes federal law and permits illegal immigration. Further, I'm thinking marijuana isn't costing REAL American's $100 billion a year and constantly growing nor is it causing a massive degradation of neighborhoods, cities, states and American society.
By the way...what part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been stealing from hard working REAL Americans?

Well a little bad news to start you out. I was born in Michigan. So was my Mother. My Dad was born in North Dakota. My ancestors came from all over Northern Europe.

Moving along. So now if someone who believed in States Rights in the 1990's and still believes in it today is not a real American?

You see. It is a core belief. My beliefs don't reverse based upon who is elected. My beliefs do not change based upon any minor subject change. I did not want a national federal police force in the 1990's and I still don't want one.

I believed in the Constitution then, and now.

 

[SavannahMann]

Conservatives, help me out.

It's odd that you think only conservatives can answer your key question. Do you seek a normative partisan response or a (somewhat) critically considered positive one that objectively addresses the matter from the standpoint of legal theory and practice? I can fairly well provide the latter -- as can others, conservatives or liberals, if they bother to do so -- and have no desire to try providing the former. Perhaps

I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

That was hubristic of you. What portfolio have you to form an opinion about a matter of case law that the SCOTUS' jurists have opined upon? Are you an attorney?

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal science." But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
― Murray N. Rothbard​

Though Rothbard was speaking of economics, his remark is no less applicable to the law, except that "dismal science," as Thomas Carlyle coined it, is not a sobriquet for legal theory.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

The short is that state/local authorities are not obliged to enforce federal law, but rather to assist federal authorities in enforcing it. While to (jurisprudential) laymen there may not seem like a difference, to offenders the difference becomes patently clear: they find themselves sooner or later remanded to federal custody, and the charges they face, if they face any, will be brought by the U.S. rather than by a county, city or state.

Reading "Authority of State and Local Police to Enforce Federal Immigration Law," one finds that "in exercising its power to regulate immigration, Congress is free to delegate to the states, among other things, the authority to arrest, hold, and transport aliens into federal custody."

It stands to reason, then, that if Congress has not similarly deputed authority to state and local law enforcement organs with regard to background checks, their doing so is at those jurisdictions' discretion. That said, state and local governments are not forced to participate in the execution of federal statutes, but that lack of obligation does not mean they will experience also a lack of consequences (some negative, others positive) in the aftermath of willfully refraining to aid and abet federal law enforcement organizations' efforts and goal achievement. To wit, one consequence of jurisdictions' refusal to aid with enforcing some of Trump's, thus the federal government's, immigration edicts has, at least in some instances, been the federal government withholding funds it had previously committed to disbursing to the state or locality. Obviously, it is the state and locality's leaders and citizens' responsibility to determine what is more material to them -- the federal money or the immigrants, their contributions, and the tangible and intangible net benefits that accrue from the immigrants' (and their supporters') existence in the state/locality.



Though I have not read the following documents, one may find find them useful for developing a solid understanding of the nuanced topic broached in this threads OP/title.

• State Enforcement of Federal Law
• Section 1983 and the Private Enforcement of Federal Law
  
• State Sovereignty and Subordinacy: May Congress Commandeer State Officers to Implement Federal Law?
  
• The Relations between State and Federal Law
  
• Intrastatutory Federalism and Statutory Interpretation: State Implementation of Federal Law in Health Reform and Beyond

Interested parties may find other authoritative writings on the matter at "standard" Google and at Google Scholar, which is the version of Google that rather effectively culls from its query results links that lead one either to blatantly editorial content or to documents having a notably lower likelihood of containing rigorously considered and substantiated ideas.

So only lawyers can have opinions on legal issues? That's good to know. When I see someone holding a gun on another and demanding their wallet does the absence of a law degree mean I don't know it is a robbery? If I see a naked woman running from a naked man who is holding a knife as the woman screams bloody murder am I wrong in assuming a rape?