Great to see a state finally assert it's power over the federal government

[thereisnospoon]

Jillian - he is 100% dead on with this post and you know it (hence your lack of examples on where he was so wrong). The federal government has 18 enumerated powers and anything outside of that the state has full power. It really is that simple...

no one denies that the federal government is limited in power by the constitution.

however, what some people fail to understand is that when the federal government passes a law it is presumed constitutional until the courts decide otherwise. the states, if they pass laws that contradicts the federal law, will not be able to enforce their own because

FEDERAL LAW TRUMPS STATE LAW. EVERY. FUCKING. TIME.

so when a state passes a law that says a federal law is unconstitutional it doesn't mean dick because the states aren't the ones that decide that and frankly their opinion is not relevant.

it's called the supremacy clause. look it up.

Incorrect. The Supremacy Clause clearly states that federal law takes precedence ONLY when a state law is in conflict with federal law.
The limiting language in the US Constitution does not permit the federal government from making law for the sole purpose of usurping the power ( rights) of a state or states.
SO let's say, 15 states outlaw domestic partnerships for the purpose of gaining the right to worker benefits for partners. Does not matter whether the couple is homo or hetero sexual. Anyway, the federal government cannot simply step in and pass a federal law attacking THOSE states. The Congress is within it's right to pass such a law, but it would NOT apply to the 15 states mentioned above.
The precedent exists for this in the 1970 Organized Crime Control Act and the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act which bans wagering on High School, Collegiate and Professional Sporting events. Four states( Nevada, Oregon Delaware and Montana) are exempt because all four allowed such wagering BEFORE the 1992 law was passed.
SO no..Not every fucking day....Just SOME days.

 

[P@triot]

LOL no they are not.

Yes, they are.
That's why the Supremacy Clause was written into the Constitution.

If states were sovereign then the federal government would have NO authority over them. Obviously that is not the case.

That is the case except for the powers the states delegated to it....

 

[thereisnospoon]

no, you didn't.

first, there is not a federal limit for interstate speeds. that's left solely to the states. states also have the right to regulate such things within their borders so long as their interest in safety and order is balanced against not overly hindering interstate commerce.

The National Maximum Speed Law (NMSL) in the United States was a provision of the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act that prohibited speed limits higher than 55 miles per hour (89 km/h)

National Maximum Speed Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

second, michigan doesn't have a ban on ash trees. some of their trees are quarantined because of disease and aren't allowed out. but such a ban wouldn't necessarily be unconstitutional. the courts would likely have to rule (if challenged) on whether or not the state's interest in preventing the spread of disease to their own trees was balanced against the interests of an open market.

Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) State QuarantineThe EAB quarantine currently restricts and/or prohibits the movement of:

any ash logs,
any part of an ash tree (including nursery stock),
any living stage of the EAB and
ALL hardwood firewood
from Michigan's Lower peninsula and (portions of the Upper peninsula) without an approved compliance agreement issued by the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA

and i've already explained the snap benefit allocations to you.

How do you justify a federal program that discriminates based on what state you live in?

so no, you haven't provided any real examples. please, try again.

or you know, be an adult and admit that constitutional federal law always trumps state law.

My replies in blue. As I stated earlier, federal is limited to enumerated powers only.

Except when it's to the political advantage of Progressive/Libs.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Yes, they are.
That's why the Supremacy Clause was written into the Constitution.

If states were sovereign then the federal government would have NO authority over them. Obviously that is not the case.

That is the case except for the powers the states delegated to it....

Which means that states have agreed to NOT be sovereign in order to be part of the United States.

 

[Contumacious]

If states were sovereign then the federal government would have NO authority over them. Obviously that is not the case.

That is the case except for the powers the states delegated to it....

Which means that states have agreed to NOT be sovereign in order to be part of the United States.

Really?

Show me the historical facts showing that the states gave up their sovereignty in their INTERNAL AFFAIRS - other that those provisos specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

.

 

[JustTheFacts]

That is the case except for the powers the states delegated to it....

Which means that states have agreed to NOT be sovereign in order to be part of the United States.

Really?

Show me the historical facts showing that the states gave up their sovereignty in their INTERNAL AFFAIRS - other that those provisos specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

.

Sorry, I can't provide a link to the Civil War

 

[PaulS1950]

Here is an exact copy of the tenth amendment - you should read it and then show where in the constitution the federal government has the power to ban assault rifles or anything related.

10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people.

If the federal government tries to do anything that is not expressly in their constitutionally granted powers the result is unlawful. The states can and should go against it.

If you want to protect your rights go here:
http://ruger.com/micros/advocacy/index.html
Just click on the "Take action now" link.

 

[Pogo]

This is absolutely outstanding. Of course, it took the liberals becoming so radical, the entire party had to be hijacked by Socialists/Marxists/Communists, but the American people are finally starting to wake up, adhere to the U.S. Constitution, and put the federal government in it's place...

Here’s How Wyoming Lawmakers Are Trying to Beat Obama Admin. to the Punch on Possible Gun Ban | TheBlaze.com

Nice deflective sophistry there: paint the adversary with your own faults. We all know the RP has been hijacked and driven off that ditch on the right by social conservative partisan hacks who have been desperate ever since the disgrace of Watergate. So even though the entire country has moved right, let's pretend the opposite happened and imagine "socialists/marxists/communists" hijacked the opposite party. Takes the spotlight off the elephant in the room.

By the way it's not it's; it's its.

Like most wing-nuts, you're a little touchy about the truth, uh?

No, but I do think at least fourth grade spelling should be kind of a minimum standard...

I have no idea which direction the "entire country" has moved,

Yeah I'm hip. That's what I just said.

...but I can tell you that the left has become so radical, people who suggest we actually adhere to the U.S. Constitution (you know, since it is the law of the land and all), are attacked as "tea naggers, wing-nuts, etc.

You realize this conclusion has nothing to do with the premise, right?

Furthermore, if you suggest the U.S. cut taxes (gasp!) - the insults are even worse. The funny thing is, there is audio/video of the liberal golden boy - John F. Kennedy - stating that cutting taxes is the only way to fix an economy in recession. However, when a conservative says that today, holy Jesus are they attacked as "wing-nut tea bangers".

Taxes? We're jumping to taxes now? OK... you actually want to compare taxes of 2012 with taxes of 1960? You have any idea what taxes were in 1960?

Tea bangers... tea naggers... make up your mind. You know, there was the expression "tea baggers" going around. It was coined by the Tea Party for themselves. I guess that's not what you mean, but none of this has anything to do with who moved right or left.

As if all of that isn't enough evidence, how about the fact that George Bush was the poster child of liberal policy, and yet is despised by today's radical left? He grew government with massive beauracracies like the Department of Homeland Security (a corner stone of the liberal philosophy), he spent tax payer dollars recklessly (another corner stone of the liberal philosophy), and when that money ran out, he kept spending anyway in the form of deficit spending (the final corner stone of the liberal philosophy).

"Enough evidence" You actually believe this Glenn Beck crap, huh?

And here's a bonus nugget for you: the Communist Party U.S.A. is on record as stating "we have a friend in the White House" when referring to Barack Obama.

No idea what all that means but I thought it was so funny as to be worth a reprint.

Today's Republican's are just JFK-era big government, big spending liberals and today's Dumbocrat Party has been completely hijacked by Socialists/Marxists/Communists. That's just an inconvenient fact that you just happen to feel uncomfortable with...

No, that's not "uncomfortable", more like "entertaining". I come here to watch the demolition derby of fallacies. And for that, this is great stuff. Like watching a '59 Edsel implode. All by itself.

"Republican is" -- what?

Btw if you want to ever be taken seriously I suggest you aim slightly higher than "The Blaze". But I will miss the entertainment.

 

[Contumacious]

Which means that states have agreed to NOT be sovereign in order to be part of the United States.

Really?

Show me the historical facts showing that the states gave up their sovereignty in their INTERNAL AFFAIRS - other that those provisos specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

.

Sorry, I can't provide a link to the Civil War

Oh, that's what you were referring to.

Well, I'm betting that we will win the rematch.

.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Really?

Show me the historical facts showing that the states gave up their sovereignty in their INTERNAL AFFAIRS - other that those provisos specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

.

Sorry, I can't provide a link to the Civil War

Oh, that's what you were referring to.

Well, I'm betting that we will win the rematch.

.

LOL @ the rematch.

Morons like you make me want to rethink my entire stance on guns. It scares the fuck out of me how easy it is for a complete tard to get a gun in this country.

 

[Contumacious]

Sorry, I can't provide a link to the Civil War

Oh, that's what you were referring to.

Well, I'm betting that we will win the rematch.

.

LOL @ the rematch.

Morons like you make me want to rethink my entire stance on guns. It scares the fuck out of me how easy it is for a complete tard to get a gun in this country.

I understand that in order to prove that we are not "tards: we are supposed to roll over play dead and accept the fascists supremacy.

No gonna happen, wouldn't be prudent.

.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Oh, that's what you were referring to.

Well, I'm betting that we will win the rematch.

.

LOL @ the rematch.

Morons like you make me want to rethink my entire stance on guns. It scares the fuck out of me how easy it is for a complete tard to get a gun in this country.

I understand that in order to prove that we are not "tards: we are supposed to roll over play dead and accept the fascists supremacy.

No gonna happen, wouldn't be prudent.

.

no, in the context of THIS thread if you don't want to be KNOWN as a tard then you shouldn't be talking about a rematch of the civil war.

Too late for you, but perhaps another will heed that advice.

 

[Contumacious]

LOL @ the rematch.

Morons like you make me want to rethink my entire stance on guns. It scares the fuck out of me how easy it is for a complete tard to get a gun in this country.

I understand that in order to prove that we are not "tards: we are supposed to roll over play dead and accept the fascists supremacy.

No gonna happen, wouldn't be prudent.

.

no, in the context of THIS thread if you don't want to be KNOWN as a tard then you shouldn't be talking about a rematch of the civil war.

"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

Too late for you, but perhaps another will heed that advice.

.

 

[P@triot]

Nice deflective sophistry there: paint the adversary with your own faults. We all know the RP has been hijacked and driven off that ditch on the right by social conservative partisan hacks who have been desperate ever since the disgrace of Watergate. So even though the entire country has moved right, let's pretend the opposite happened and imagine "socialists/marxists/communists" hijacked the opposite party. Takes the spotlight off the elephant in the room.

By the way it's not it's; it's its.

Like most wing-nuts, you're a little touchy about the truth, uh?

No, but I do think at least fourth grade spelling should be kind of a minimum standard...



Yeah I'm hip. That's what I just said.



You realize this conclusion has nothing to do with the premise, right?



Taxes? We're jumping to taxes now? OK... you actually want to compare taxes of 2012 with taxes of 1960? You have any idea what taxes were in 1960?

Tea bangers... tea naggers... make up your mind. You know, there was the expression "tea baggers" going around. It was coined by the Tea Party for themselves. I guess that's not what you mean, but none of this has anything to do with who moved right or left.



"Enough evidence" You actually believe this Glenn Beck crap, huh?

And here's a bonus nugget for you: the Communist Party U.S.A. is on record as stating "we have a friend in the White House" when referring to Barack Obama.

No idea what all that means but I thought it was so funny as to be worth a reprint.

Today's Republican's are just JFK-era big government, big spending liberals and today's Dumbocrat Party has been completely hijacked by Socialists/Marxists/Communists. That's just an inconvenient fact that you just happen to feel uncomfortable with...

No, that's not "uncomfortable", more like "entertaining". I come here to watch the demolition derby of fallacies. And for that, this is great stuff. Like watching a '59 Edsel implode. All by itself.

"Republican is" -- what?

Btw if you want to ever be taken seriously I suggest you aim slightly higher than "The Blaze". But I will miss the entertainment.

Since you couldn't dispute the facts, the only thing you have is an apostrophe, Glenn Beck, and the Blaze?

You avoid the issue at all costs and you want to talk to me about being taken seriously?

 

[Politico]

FFS another thread on this crap. And it doesn't matter what Wyoming passes. If something federal came down they would have to roll over.

 

[JustTheFacts]

I understand that in order to prove that we are not "tards: we are supposed to roll over play dead and accept the fascists supremacy.

No gonna happen, wouldn't be prudent.

.

no, in the context of THIS thread if you don't want to be KNOWN as a tard then you shouldn't be talking about a rematch of the civil war.

"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

Too late for you, but perhaps another will heed that advice.

.

you are stupid. That oath is for the military , and I seriously doubt you ever served. It wasn't meant for you to be running around on your own deciding who the enemy is and "taking them out"

idiot.

 

[P@triot]

Sorry, I can't provide a link to the Civil War

Oh, that's what you were referring to.

Well, I'm betting that we will win the rematch.

.

LOL @ the rematch.

Morons like you make me want to rethink my entire stance on guns. It scares the fuck out of me how easy it is for a complete tard to get a gun in this country.

And moron's like you should actually read the U.S. Constitution just once in your miserabl life and rethink your made up views on the U.S. federal government.

 

[P@triot]

Which means that states have agreed to NOT be sovereign in order to be part of the United States.

Really?

Show me the historical facts showing that the states gave up their sovereignty in their INTERNAL AFFAIRS - other that those provisos specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

.

Sorry, I can't provide a link to the Civil War

LOL.... you incapable of finding a single link to the Civil War? Wow - it took me 4 seconds to literally find thousands.

 

[OODA_Loop]

LOL no they are not.

Yes, they are.
That's why the Supremacy Clause was written into the Constitution.

If states were sovereign then the federal government would have NO authority over them. Obviously that is not the case.

10th Amendment creates and defines the authority over the States. Come on.

Many state constitutions establish sovereignty within their boundaries and submerged coastal lands. Mine does.

 

[paulitician]

This will become much more common. The Federal Government is out of control. States will now have to reassert their rights and authority.