So says you. I say it does. Gianni asked for an example where a state petitioned the legislatue. "state petition congress" was as a direct a search as you can get with "illinois petition congress" not far behind. Simple. 2 minutes.
Just because your search criteria was irrelevant to our discussion does not mean the effort was useless.
Not irrevelant at all. It's exactly what Gianni asked for. Go and look at what he asked, word for word.
If the subject of a state petitioning Congress for relief from the restrictions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act does come up, you have a head start on that conversation.
Illinois could ignore Article IV and Article I like the southern states did but apparently we try to stay true to our word more. Indiana, Missouri and Kentucky would be pretty mad if we acted without their sayso. That's what Article IV is about.
No. Gianni asked for an example where a state followed your interpretation of Article IV and petitioned the Congress for prescription of a method of proof prior to engaging in a state act.
It's exactly what Gianni asked for.
Can I post lies about you also?
Go and look at what he asked, word for word.
[Gianni, post #820] I asked for an example of any act of a state which followed your interpretation of Article IV. If I understand you correctly, a state needed to:
1. petition the federal legislature for enact laws reagarding proof of an act
2. dawdle while such acts were being debated and passed
3. await the presidents approval of such acts
4. move forward with their planned act
Illinois could ignore Article IV and Article I like the southern states did but apparently we try to stay true to our word more. Indiana, Missouri and Kentucky would be pretty mad if we acted without their sayso. That's what Article IV is about.
nolu chan posted the article in which Illinois was bitch-slapped for openly violating federal law by engaging in illegal international importation of medicines. What's all this about Indiana, Mo, and KY?