The Complete History of Tyranny in America 1815-Today

[carlfense]

I'd argue that Federal law trumps state law only when its convenient.

Eh?

Off the top of my head...

 

The Department of Justice’s enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act remains unchanged. In enacting the Controlled Substances Act, Congress determined that marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance. The Department of Justice is reviewing the ballot initiatives and has no additional comment at this time.

 

Link

 

Bascially, "we're gonna let this play out instead of enforcing the law."

Exercising prosecutorial discretion does not imply that federal law does not trump state law. Quite the opposite really. The feds can choose to not enforce certain laws but the state can't force the feds to not enforce certain laws. The supremacy clause lives.

[Saunders]

I'd argue that Federal law trumps state law only when its convenient.

Eh?

Off the top of my head...

 

The Department of Justice’s enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act remains unchanged. In enacting the Controlled Substances Act, Congress determined that marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance. The Department of Justice is reviewing the ballot initiatives and has no additional comment at this time.

 

Link

 

Bascially, "we're gonna let this play out instead of enforcing the law."

Exercising prosecutorial discretion does not imply that federal law does not trump state law. Quite the opposite really. The feds can choose to not enforce certain laws but the state can't force the feds to not enforce certain laws. The supremacy clause lives.

Like I said. When it's convenient.

[carlfense]

I'd argue that Federal law trumps state law only when its convenient.

Eh?

Off the top of my head...

 

The Department of Justice’s enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act remains unchanged. In enacting the Controlled Substances Act, Congress determined that marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance. The Department of Justice is reviewing the ballot initiatives and has no additional comment at this time.

 

Link

 

Bascially, "we're gonna let this play out instead of enforcing the law."

Exercising prosecutorial discretion does not imply that federal law does not trump state law. Quite the opposite really. The feds can choose to not enforce certain laws but the state can't force the feds to not enforce certain laws. The supremacy clause lives.

Like I said. When it's convenient.

I'm not sure if you don't understand or if you're just trolling.

[Saunders]

I'm not sure if you don't understand or if you're just trolling.

I understand what you're saying, but it's not mutually exclusive to my point. Just because you don't understand what I'm saying, doesn't mean I'm trolling.

 

The federal government picks and chooses when to enforce laws based on conveniency.

 

That's my point. The end.

[carlfense]

I understand what you're saying, but it's not mutually exclusive to my point. Just because you don't understand what I'm saying, doesn't mean I'm trolling.

I'd invite you to compare and contrast the following quotes.

 

The federal government picks and chooses when to enforce laws based on conveniency.

 

I'd argue that Federal law trumps state law only when its convenient.

 

You're certainly welcome to insist that those mean the same thing.

[Saunders]

I understand what you're saying, but it's not mutually exclusive to my point. Just because you don't understand what I'm saying, doesn't mean I'm trolling.

I'd invite you to compare and contrast the following quotes.

 

The federal government picks and chooses when to enforce laws based on conveniency.

 

I'd argue that Federal law trumps state law only when its convenient.

 

You're certainly welcome to insist that those mean the same thing.

Federal law "trumping" state law is predicated on federal law being enforced, no? Otherwise, it has no weight or penalty. Therefore, if it's not enforced, it has no real world meaning.

 

So, we arrive at my statement.

 

"I'd argue that Federal law trumps state law only when its convenient."

 

My intent and meaning seems clear. You're welcome to disagree on the basis of semantics, because that's what lawyers do, no?

[carlfense]

Federal law "trumping" state law is predicated on federal law being enforced, no?

In a word, no.

[Saunders]

Federal law "trumping" state law is predicated on federal law being enforced, no?

In a word, no.

Laws only have value if they are enforced. You're saying this is incorrect?

[Someone]

This is funny given that whole states rights vs. federal rights conflict that cropped up between the North and South over a topic known as slavery.

 

Clearly the Civil War is a perfect example of states rights getting diminished resulting in people suffering and individual rights trampled on.

 

Any questions?

 

This doesn't mean that centralized power will automatically be abusive - it won't if it remains accountable - however, once accountability is lost (for example: states rights diminished) then the opportunity for greater abuse is realized. The history of mankind reveals this very fact. Despots gain control of a govt, grab control and before long people are suffering, killed and individual rights are trambled on.

 

Your example is a non sequitur. And contrary to your (incorrect) opinion, it's an established fact (see almost every empire in history), and something that the founding fathers were very aware of.

and that is why are Gov isn't like almost every empire in history.

Only because we have not yet reached that point.

and that is because we have a different form of government.

 

You can't agrue that the POTUS will because tyrannical, it just hasn't happened with any credibility. We have 200 plus year of orderly transition of power. Most likely, you are not a murderer. There is no need to add YET to that statement. There is no history of a nation with our constitution becoming an evil empire. There is no need to add YET to that statement.

[Someone]

Federal law "trumping" state law is predicated on federal law being enforced, no?

In a word, no.

Laws only have value if they are enforced. You're saying this is incorrect?

Not true. DUI laws have value, even when there no enforcement efforts.

 

Sometimes, a DA will choose not to prosecute one case but will prosecute another similar violation. Selective enforcement law doesn't mean the law has no value.

 

As an example, if you are poor or black or both and your 3 year old picks up your hand gun that you left out and shoots himself, there is a good chance you will be charged. On the other hand, if you are a white cop and while off duty, and your 3 year old picks up your hand gun that you left out and shoots himself there is agood chance you will not be charged.

[Saunders]

Federal law "trumping" state law is predicated on federal law being enforced, no?

In a word, no.

Laws only have value if they are enforced. You're saying this is incorrect?

Not true. DUI laws have value, even when there no enforcement efforts.

 

Sometimes, a DA will choose not to prosecute one case but will prosecute another similar violation. Selective enforcement law doesn't mean the law has no value.

 

As an example, if you are poor or black or both and your 3 year old picks up your hand gun that you left out and shoots himself, there is a good chance you will be charged. On the other hand, if you are a white cop and while off duty, and your 3 year old picks up your hand gun that you left out and shoots himself there is agood chance you will not be charged.

You're (terrible) race card playing example aside, you're missing my point. The only reason laws have real world value, is because of enforcement and the threat of punishment.

[Someone]

Federal law "trumping" state law is predicated on federal law being enforced, no?

In a word, no.

Laws only have value if they are enforced. You're saying this is incorrect?

Not true. DUI laws have value, even when there no enforcement efforts.

 

Sometimes, a DA will choose not to prosecute one case but will prosecute another similar violation. Selective enforcement law doesn't mean the law has no value.

 

As an example, if you are poor or black or both and your 3 year old picks up your hand gun that you left out and shoots himself, there is a good chance you will be charged. On the other hand, if you are a white cop and while off duty, and your 3 year old picks up your hand gun that you left out and shoots himself there is agood chance you will not be charged.

You're (terrible) race card playing example aside, you're missing my point. The only reason laws have real world value, is because of enforcement and the threat of punishment.

Right. So selective enforcement doesn't = law has no value. Agree?

[Saunders]

You can't agrue that the POTUS will because tyrannical, it just hasn't happened with any credibility. We have 200 plus year of orderly transition of power. Most likely, you are not a murderer. There is no need to add YET to that statement. There is no history of a nation with our constitution becoming an evil empire. There is no need to add YET to that statement.

The US isn't a special snowflake.

[Someone]

You can't agrue that the POTUS will because tyrannical, it just hasn't happened with any credibility. We have 200 plus year of orderly transition of power. Most likely, you are not a murderer. There is no need to add YET to that statement. There is no history of a nation with our constitution becoming an evil empire. There is no need to add YET to that statement.

The US isn't a special snowflake.

Agreed. Also, the US isn't a fried egg or a post-it note.

[carlfense]

Federal law "trumping" state law is predicated on federal law being enforced, no?

In a word, no.

Laws only have value if they are enforced. You're saying this is incorrect?

"Have value"? What do you mean?