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

[OODA_Loop]

I mean, right wingers bitch and moan about bloated police departments, especially in cities with low crime.

Link ?

 

[saveliberty]

The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States, and as Justice Hughes said, the constitution is what the court say it is.

It's also the right of the people to replace a tyrannical government.

Well the people with the vote have the right to replace the elected representatives, but to replace the government would take force.

Yes it would, the government is thinking about it too.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Good for Wyoming.

 

[saveliberty]

I like that idea. BUT...thats gonna make a huge increase in the size of our military. Meaning...a lot more money needed. That means...yep...more GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

I thought you right wingers wanted LESS government spending?

Here is the part where I have to remind right wingers that the military is part of the government, that military members are GOVERNMENT WORKERS (who the right hates), and that military spending is government spending that comes from the same federal income taxes that they so hate to pay.

By the time you don't pay unemployment, impart some skills and create a more responsible citizens I think it would cost a lot less actually. That sounds more like the argument the left makes for abortion and education.

Yeah, thats a fair point.

But...what wars are we gonna start?

If we expand our military by huge numbers...without some wars to fight...isn't that basically just welfare in uniform? I mean, right wingers bitch and moan about bloated police departments, especially in cities with low crime. Cant claim the "training" and preparing just in case argument.

So, with a far larger military, what wars you wanna start to give 'em some work to do?

The war on infrastructure deterioration might be a good one.

 

[saveliberty]

in what world is a state able to outlaw enforcement of a federal law?

did wyoming fail civics class?

When the federal law is unconstitutional...

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

One issue libs cannot wrap their brains around. The "Supremacy Clause" states generally that federal law supersedes state law when the two are in conflict.
However, the Clause is not all encompassing and certainly not absolute.
For example a state has the right under the tenth amendment to enact it's own laws provided those laws are not in violation of the US Constitution. The federal government cannot pass laws "after the fact" that have the sole purpose of trumping state law by using the Supremacy Clause.
In other words the US Govt cannot do an "oh yeah, watch this"...There is no precedent for that.
If one uses the federal anti sports wagering laws(Organized Crime Control Act of 1970) and ( Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act) which after 4 states already had laws allowing such wagering, they would be using an incorrect precedent.
The federal law banning sports wagering only applies to 46 states with Nevada, Montana Delaware and Oregon grandfathered in.
In fact, no law is ever written into stone. States and the people reserve the right to use the courts to seek redress. This is intended to include those laws which the people believe are unjust.
The libs on here seem to be convinced that just because the President scribbles his name below some printed political fiat that that is the end of the story, they are woefully mistaken.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

No body cares about guns in Wyoming.

And there's not going to be a gun 'ban'.

The object to curb the flow of guns into the cities while implementing better background checks and mental health checks.

So, calm the fuck down, sparky, before your state revokes your carry permit.

Sour fucking grapes. You can't have what you want, so you bitch about it.
Wyoming is a STATE just like New York or one of those other Blue things.
I'd love to see the results of you pink shirt wearing spaghetti spined libs try taking someone's firearms away from them.

 

[regent]

in what world is a state able to outlaw enforcement of a federal law?

did wyoming fail civics class?

When the federal law is unconstitutional...

Interesting problem: are we obligated to obey a law until the Court declares it unconstititional?
Suppose for some reason the law does not come before the Court are we still obligated to obey the law?

 

[ogibillm]

in what world is a state able to outlaw enforcement of a federal law?

did wyoming fail civics class?

When the federal law is unconstitutional...

in such a case the federal law would be invalid and deemed so by the courts the state law would have nothing to trump.

 

[saveliberty]

in what world is a state able to outlaw enforcement of a federal law?

did wyoming fail civics class?

When the federal law is unconstitutional...

in such a case the federal law would be invalid and deemed so by the courts the state law would have nothing to trump.

The Supreme Court needs a case presented before they make a ruling. This is what Wyoming is creating. See how that works?

 

[ogibillm]

When the federal law is unconstitutional...

in such a case the federal law would be invalid and deemed so by the courts the state law would have nothing to trump.

The Supreme Court needs a case presented before they make a ruling. This is what Wyoming is creating. See how that works?

that's not how that works. either the federal law is constitutional or it isn't. any law a state has or doesn't have is irrelevant.

 

[saveliberty]

in such a case the federal law would be invalid and deemed so by the courts the state law would have nothing to trump.

The Supreme Court needs a case presented before they make a ruling. This is what Wyoming is creating. See how that works?

that's not how that works. either the federal law is constitutional or it isn't. any law a state has or doesn't have is irrelevant.

So what is the procedure for Constitutional review ogibilm? How is a federal law determined to be Constitutional? You are misinformed unfortunately.

 

[ogibillm]

The Supreme Court needs a case presented before they make a ruling. This is what Wyoming is creating. See how that works?

that's not how that works. either the federal law is constitutional or it isn't. any law a state has or doesn't have is irrelevant.

So what is the procedure for Constitutional review ogibilm? How is a federal law determined to be Constitutional? You are misinformed unfortunately.

no, i'm not.

if there was a federal law that say banned handguns someone who had had their handgun taken would then sue in federal court for the return of their weapon on the grounds that the confiscation was illegal because the law was unconstitutional and thus void.

the federal law would stand or fall on its own. state law would never, ever come in to play when considering or challenging the constitutionality of a federal law.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Yes this is great. America was founded on states rights and states need to assert that they, not the SCOTUS, have the authority to nullify federal laws. That's what the Supremacy Clause of the constitution says .

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
The Supreme Court needs a case presented before they make a ruling. This is what Wyoming is creating. See how that works?

BS - show us where the constitution gives the SCOTUS authority to nullify state laws.

 

[saveliberty]

[
The Supreme Court needs a case presented before they make a ruling. This is what Wyoming is creating. See how that works?

BS - show us where the constitution gives the SCOTUS authority to nullify state laws.

You read history much? Look up Jim Crow laws or poll tax. You have the right to show your ignorance, but it doesn't help you much here.

 

[regent]

Yes this is great. America was founded on states rights and states need to assert that they, not the SCOTUS, have the authority to nullify federal laws. That's what the Supremacy Clause of the constitution says .

In our early history the conservatives were in charge of the government and when Jefferson was elected, before he left office, Adams appointed Marshall chief justice. The Marshall Court then began destroying states rights. The Marshall Court also ruled they would decide on the constitutionality of laws and acts for the nation. Marbury vs. Madison is probably the biggest court decision in our history.

 

[saveliberty]

that's not how that works. either the federal law is constitutional or it isn't. any law a state has or doesn't have is irrelevant.

So what is the procedure for Constitutional review ogibilm? How is a federal law determined to be Constitutional? You are misinformed unfortunately.

no, i'm not.

if there was a federal law that say banned handguns someone who had had their handgun taken would then sue in federal court for the return of their weapon on the grounds that the confiscation was illegal because the law was unconstitutional and thus void.

the federal law would stand or fall on its own. state law would never, ever come in to play when considering or challenging the constitutionality of a federal law.

So there has to be a case first, which is what I said and you denied. Your first mistake corrected.

Never saw a case that named a state versus the federal government huh? Mistake number two.

 

[ogibillm]

So what is the procedure for Constitutional review ogibilm? How is a federal law determined to be Constitutional? You are misinformed unfortunately.

no, i'm not.

if there was a federal law that say banned handguns someone who had had their handgun taken would then sue in federal court for the return of their weapon on the grounds that the confiscation was illegal because the law was unconstitutional and thus void.

the federal law would stand or fall on its own. state law would never, ever come in to play when considering or challenging the constitutionality of a federal law.

So there has to be a case first, which is what I said and you denied. Your first mistake corrected.

Never saw a case that named a state versus the federal government huh? Mistake number two.

i never argued either of those, just that the wyoming law was not setting up a challenge to any coming federal law.

yes, there has to be a case first, but no, there does not have to be a state law that contradicts the federal law for there to be that case.

second, there are cases that have the state vs the federal govt, but in order to have standing to file suit the state has to be the injured party.

now explain how a state making enforcement of a federal law illegal leads to the state being the injured party?

now perhaps someone charged with a felony by the state for enforcing the federal law would be able to take the state to court, in which case the supremacy clause would come into play and the state law would go the way of the dodo.

 

[P@triot]

in what world is a state able to outlaw enforcement of a federal law?

did wyoming fail civics class?

No - but clearly you did.

Is there anything more amazing than all of these left-wing nuts constantly commenting on things they know nothing about (especially their own government)?