[american_steve]

Tea Partiers are making it into a states rights issue. Tea Party or States' Rights person or not, this is a constitutionality protected authority. You may not like it, but you don't want to change the law based who is in office right now. Do your part. In defense of country, is a federal issue, not a state issue. Accept the fact they have these broad powers.

[Sacajaweau]

Let me see....common sense says.....you’re an a** if you don’t report to someone....That’s what 9-11 was all about...THE GORELICK WALL.

[JRandomFreeper]

Yep. Defense is spelled out in ink on parchment. It's a federal power. States also have the power to defend themselves from invasion.

/johnny

[Bigh4u2]

"Although the federal government has no inherent constitutional right to compel state officials to help in combating al-Qaeda, since 9/11 it has funneled billions of dollars to all states that require fulsome cooperation from state law enforcement authorities. Meanwhile, state National Guard forces, when deployed overseas, are subject to federal control. For these reasons, Virginia’s legislation violates the federal law.

The author contradicts himself in this same paragraph.

If they aren't 'compelled' by federal law to enforce it, how can the legislation 'violate' it?

[Tenacious 1]

I may be a bit confused. I'm going to re-read the article following this post.

But I will remind you, States and the security of their own state is their right. Virginia does not have to go defend Maryland, but the constitution does not forbid it. In the same way, the federal government is not suppose to impose or direct police powers at it's whim for crimes that are not in it's federal jurisdiction. And state police powers are voluntary to aid in the federal investigation or prosecution of crime.

That said, the constitution holds states rights and legal authority of its citizens above that of the Fed. The problem (odd wording I know) is, the Fed and State is “constrained” by constitutions in that you may not apprehend citizens without probable cause. Laws prevent (or used to) the fed from sharing what might be probable cause to the local authorities.

My tentative position. The state LEO has a right to detain a threat at least to investigate (not arrest) if there is credible information that substantiates the threat to the state. I would venture to guess that having found out the FBI considers a chargee a terrorist threat would be probable cause to investigate and potentially invite the FBI in for an opinion.

Keep in mind, this is an American Citizen. If it were a foreigner or a visa recipient, take him in and hold him for questioning and investigation.

That's my thoughts. It is complicated and I see why.

[NonValueAdded]

this opinion piece is waaaaaaaaaaay short on context.

[CharlesWayneCT]

The Virginia law specifically addresses the detention of U.S. citizens without charges. It isn’t about detaining people for whom there is a federal warrant.

This deals with the recent and mostly undiscussed item slipped into a recent authorization bill that granted Obama the right to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without a warrant, without charges, and without a chance to appeal. This right is outside the “enemy combatant” umbrella, or else they wouldn’t have needed a new law to provide the right to do so.

Virginia rightly believes this is unconstitutional, and therefore refuses to cooperate. No government should have the right to detain a non-combatant as a regular prisoner without charge and with no recourse to the courts for adjudication.