Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

So, the Democrats say the states have a right to defy the federal government. Is this a bad thing?
Jan 8, 2019 | by Jim Robinson

Posted on 01/08/2019 3:39:19 PM PST by Jim Robinson

The democrats say the states have a right to defy the federal government when it comes to NOT enforcing immigration laws they don't like.

Does this mean the more conservative states have a right to defy the federal government in regards to enforcing laws they don't like? 'Legalized' abortion on demand or same-sex marriage, for example. How about gun control laws?

Is there any federal law that states MUST enforce even if they don't like it?

Can cities and states pass sanctuary one man, one woman marriage laws? Sanctuary pro-life laws? Sanctuary gun rights laws? Sanctuary free religion laws? Sanctuary don't have to bake the homosexual cake law, etc.

This could be a good thing. Especially when the states believe the federal government has overstepped its constitutional bounds or limits and or infringed on states or individual rights.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; FReeper Editorial; Government; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: aliens; constitutionallimits; immigration; individualrights; liberty; sanctuarylaws; statesrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last

1 posted on 01/08/2019 3:39:19 PM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

It is a good thing, but the Democrats will only apply it to their current fads.


2 posted on 01/08/2019 3:41:03 PM PST by marktwain (President Trump and his supporters are the Resistance. His opponents are the Reactionaries.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

I’d love to see a state declare itself sovereign on the issue of full automatic weapons.

That’d be sweet!!!


3 posted on 01/08/2019 3:41:12 PM PST by MeganC (There is nothing feminine about feminism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

They’re going to be for this until they get one of their microbes in office, and then they will be against it.

It’s a ploy, and perhaps useful for the right if we had any inclination at all to hold them to precedent. I remember DOMA being the law of the land at one point, for example.


4 posted on 01/08/2019 3:41:39 PM PST by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

It will either be contested in court. Or by trial of fire.


5 posted on 01/08/2019 3:41:52 PM PST by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Well the Obama Admin sued Arizona (and WON) when AZ tried to enforce the immigration laws that the Obama admin wasn’t enforcing! What a total SNAFU!


6 posted on 01/08/2019 3:42:30 PM PST by originalbuckeye ('In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act'- George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Its bad when the states are overrun by socialist, islamists and communist radicals


7 posted on 01/08/2019 3:42:34 PM PST by ronnie raygun (nic dip.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

” NOT enforcing immigration laws they don’t like. “

Liking it isn’t a requirement.


8 posted on 01/08/2019 3:42:39 PM PST by EnglishOnly (eWFight all out to win OR get out now. .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

If the RATs are in power, they would not be for this type of states rights. Rules and laws and the Constitution are optional when a republican is in power, especially one who is being conservative.


9 posted on 01/08/2019 3:43:11 PM PST by dforest (Just shut up Obama. Maybe everyone should just shut up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Good or bad?

IMHO, it depends. Generally, if its a Tenth Amendment issue, I’m OK with the states throwing sand at the Federal Government. For example, take pot... or abortion... those could be addressed at the state level, and since they aren’t in the Constitution, are among powers reserved for the states.

But, immigration is not a Tenth Amendment issue, because border control, and protection from invasion is one of the issues specifically addressed in the Constitution and allotted to the Federal Government. Moreover, California’s lax border and sanctuary policies affect other states. An illegal who enters through California can go anywhere in the US afterwards.


10 posted on 01/08/2019 3:43:46 PM PST by Pearls Before Swine ( "It's always a party when you're eating the seed corn.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; Southack

This is called Political Judo.

Well done.


11 posted on 01/08/2019 3:43:47 PM PST by Lazamataz (You know, when I advised Democrats to vote AFTER Nov 6th, I didn't think they'd actually DO it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

It’d be one time liberals would love to use nuclear weapons, for a breakaway conservative productive state.

Those states are sources of tax slaves and the liberal utopian world has to have some kind of support.


12 posted on 01/08/2019 3:45:03 PM PST by wally_bert (We're low on dimes in fun city.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”

US Constitution, Article I, Section 9

Just missed the cutoff - by 211 years.


13 posted on 01/08/2019 3:45:24 PM PST by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wally_bert

Yup


14 posted on 01/08/2019 3:45:40 PM PST by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

I don’t think the States have to enforce Federal laws.

When you are out and about with your Class III firearms, it’s not Vermont that’s gonna get ya. It’s the BATFE (the Feds).

When you launder US currency, it’s not the State of Georgia that’s after you - it’s the Treasury police (the Feds).

And so on.


15 posted on 01/08/2019 3:45:53 PM PST by Jim Noble (Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2 = 4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

IF Trump can frame the illegal immigration (invasion, actually) as a national emergency, then the federal authority to protect the NATION ‘trumps’ the demon rats’ idiocy.


16 posted on 01/08/2019 3:46:09 PM PST by MHGinTN (A dispensation perspective is a powerful tool for discernment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Hypocrites. They didn’t like Arizona’s illegal immigration law and they didn’t think she had a right to not follow the federal standard.

You can’t have it both ways.


17 posted on 01/08/2019 3:46:36 PM PST by CottonBall (We are not represented, we are ruled.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

The doctrine of “NULLIFICATION.”

According to Vice President John C. Calhoun, the federal government only existed at the will of the states. Therefore, if a state found a federal law unconstitutional AND detrimental to its sovereign interests, it would have the right to “nullify” that law within its borders. Calhoun advanced the position that a state could declare a national law void.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/24c.asp


18 posted on 01/08/2019 3:47:19 PM PST by Para-Ord.45 (Americans, happy in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own dictators.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Democrats believe in state’s rights - as long as its THEIR state rights that are upheld:


19 posted on 01/08/2019 3:48:35 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Relative to the obscene act of abortion it is the decision of each and individual state. The real hell of it many many federal laws are an usurpation of each individual states rights.

The Civil War was not only about slavery. Those that owned slaves in the South were a small minority. It makes one ask why did the men of the South that did not own slaves fight for the South. The major factor was State Rights and many others that were economically related.


20 posted on 01/08/2019 3:50:39 PM PST by cpdiii ( canecutter, deckhand, roughneck, geologist, pilot, pharmacist THE CONSTITUTION IS WORTH DYING FOR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson