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

[bodecea]

I would still like to see the video of when the state officials try to arrest Feds.

 

[P@triot]

And Congress represents the people, Federal laws are supreme, and states can not ‘nullify’ Federal statutes.

That’s settled and accepted law, having nothing to do with ‘liberals’ or ‘communists.’

You have no idea what you're talking about. If federal laws were "supreme" then Sheriff Richard Mack could not have defeated portions of the Brady Bill and the Clinton Administration.

Federal law is only "supreme" on the 18 enumerated powers the federal government is authorized to have power on. Period.

those portions were deemed unconstitutional - and were thus void.

that had nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with state law trumping federal (it doesn't, ever), which is the question at hand here.

And why were they deemed "unconstitutional"?!? Because the federal government did not have that power/authority over the states....

God almighty, do you even hear yourself?!?!?

 

[P@triot]

I would still like to see the video of when the state officials try to arrest Feds.

So would I.... and then I would love to see the stupid look on your face while watching it

 

[ogibillm]

Except when it decriminalizes marijuana?

all the states can do is change the state law. federal law still applies. how federal law enforcement chooses to implement that law is another thing entirely.

Way to dodge that like a politician. We know exactly how the federal government has "chosen" to implement their law against narcotics. And they just got overridden by a couple of states....

again, you're an idiot. i can't stress that enough.

if colorado says they don't have any laws against smoking marijuana, that's great. nobody in colorado will be charged with any state crimes for firing up a joint.

that doesn't change what the federal law is though.

but then this wyoming law isn't exactly analogous to that since it would make enforcement of a *theoretical* federal law illegal. do you see how that's different?

 

[OODA_Loop]

A state law designed to ‘nullify’ a Federal statute indeed conflicts with that Federal statute. A state may not pass laws authorizing its residents to ignore or violate Federal laws.

Tell that to the 18+ States that have and are doing just that presently.

 

[ogibillm]

You have no idea what you're talking about. If federal laws were "supreme" then Sheriff Richard Mack could not have defeated portions of the Brady Bill and the Clinton Administration.

Federal law is only "supreme" on the 18 enumerated powers the federal government is authorized to have power on. Period.

those portions were deemed unconstitutional - and were thus void.

that had nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with state law trumping federal (it doesn't, ever), which is the question at hand here.

And why were they deemed "unconstitutional"?!? Because the federal government did not have that power/authority over the states....

God almighty, do you even hear yourself?!?!?

you're absolutely right. just like outlawing abortions and having racially segregated schools co-opting state officials to enforce a federal background check was not constitutional.

now, tell me how that lets a state law trump a constitutional federal law?

 

[saveliberty]

that's great. back here in reality if there's a question about the constitutionality of a law the courts decide it, and until they say otherwise the law is presumed constitutional. and once again for everybody out there federal law trumps state law. every. fucking. time.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Educate yourself.

seriously, are you having a laugh? did you not go to high school? never watched the news?

this is really middle school stuff.
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=civics+textbook]Amazon.com: civics textbook[/ame]

buy one of those. any of them (well, maybe not the honda civic repair guide) and put a little knowledge in your brain.

I teach the subject...you are seriously misled. I'll give you a quick question. Interstate highway speed limit is 75. How fast can you drive on a country road?

The federal government allows for interstate transportation of trees. Michigan bans the import of Ash trees. Is it constitutional or legal?

Federal government doles out welfare monies. Can a person not qualify in one state, but meet standards for another?

It goes on and on.

 

[rightwinger]

Is Wyoming really that dumb?

They hav no Constitutional authority to overrule federal law

 

[OODA_Loop]

Is Wyoming really that dumb?

They hav no Constitutional authority to overrule federal law

They do when the matter does not engage in the interstate commerce from which the federal law draws its scope and authority.

Much like medicinal and legal marijuana.

 

[ogibillm]

You have no idea what you are talking about. Educate yourself.

seriously, are you having a laugh? did you not go to high school? never watched the news?

this is really middle school stuff.
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=civics+textbook]Amazon.com: civics textbook[/ame]

buy one of those. any of them (well, maybe not the honda civic repair guide) and put a little knowledge in your brain.

I teach the subject

you are either
a)a liar
b)doing your students disservice by not instructing them correctly
your choice, but on this you are very wrong

...you are seriously misled. I'll give you a quick question. Interstate highway speed limit is 75. How fast can you drive on a country road?

The federal government allows for interstate transportation of trees. Michigan bans the import of Ash trees. Is it constitutional or legal?

Federal government doles out welfare monies. Can a person not qualify in one state, but meet standards for another?

It goes on and on.

j
is a county road an interstate?

the state of michigan has a compelling state interest in the banning of ash trees - protecting their own against the emerald ash borer - and thus the law is allowed (or rather if this law existed that might be the case. as it is it looks like there is a federal quarantine on ash trees coming out of some parts of michigan because of the emerald ash borer)

and while the federal government does provide monies for things like snap benefits the distribution and qualifications for those monies are left up to the states within the guidelines of the federal law.

 

[P@triot]

all the states can do is change the state law. federal law still applies. how federal law enforcement chooses to implement that law is another thing entirely.

Way to dodge that like a politician. We know exactly how the federal government has "chosen" to implement their law against narcotics. And they just got overridden by a couple of states....

again, you're an idiot. i can't stress that enough.

if colorado says they don't have any laws against smoking marijuana, that's great. nobody in colorado will be charged with any state crimes for firing up a joint.

that doesn't change what the federal law is though.

but then this wyoming law isn't exactly analogous to that since it would make enforcement of a *theoretical* federal law illegal. do you see how that's different?

And I can't stress enough that you have no fucking clue how your own government works.

And to answer your question - no, I don't see any difference. In both cases, the states are exercising their authority over the federal government.

Even when I post indisputable evidence (such as I did above), all your hyper-ignorant ass can do is nonsensically claim "that's great... here in the real world" since you can't dispute the facts. Apparently you can't read and you definitely reject reality and the U.S. Constitution for your own distorted ideology.

 

[P@triot]

Is Wyoming really that dumb?

They hav no Constitutional authority to overrule federal law

Are you really that dumb to post something this stupid?!?

 

[P@triot]

Is Wyoming really that dumb?

They hav no Constitutional authority to overrule federal law

Please allow me to illustrate just how insanely ignorant your post is...

Well, simply put, the Framers wrote a constitution designed to protect individual liberties (including the right to keep and bear arms) and curtail the power of the federal government two years before the Bill of Rights was even drafted and four years before it went into effect. James Wilson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and others all explained at length why a bill of rights was unnecessary, and how the Constitution protected our rights even in the absence of such a bill:

For why declare that things shall not be done [as in a bill of rights] which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 84, emphasis added.)

In other words, the Constitution contains no provisions ceding to the federal government a person’s right to keep and bear arms; thus the federal government has no authority to infringe in this area. Additionally, again from Hamilton in Federalist No. 84,

There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamation we have heard, that the constitution is itself in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS [capital letters in original].

The Roots of the Second Amendment The Future of Freedom Foundation

 

[saveliberty]

seriously, are you having a laugh? did you not go to high school? never watched the news?

this is really middle school stuff.
Amazon.com: civics textbook

buy one of those. any of them (well, maybe not the honda civic repair guide) and put a little knowledge in your brain.

I teach the subject

you are either
a)a liar
b)doing your students disservice by not instructing them correctly
your choice, but on this you are very wrong

...you are seriously misled. I'll give you a quick question. Interstate highway speed limit is 75. How fast can you drive on a country road?

The federal government allows for interstate transportation of trees. Michigan bans the import of Ash trees. Is it constitutional or legal?

Federal government doles out welfare monies. Can a person not qualify in one state, but meet standards for another?

It goes on and on.

j
is a county road an interstate?

the state of michigan has a compelling state interest in the banning of ash trees - protecting their own against the emerald ash borer - and thus the law is allowed (or rather if this law existed that might be the case. as it is it looks like there is a federal quarantine on ash trees coming out of some parts of michigan because of the emerald ash borer)

and while the federal government does provide monies for things like snap benefits the distribution and qualifications for those monies are left up to the states within the guidelines of the federal law.

Its simple. The federal govenment is limited to enumerated powers (within which they are supreme). ALL other powers are specifically given to individuals and states. The individual retains almost exclusive rights in all cases, unless it enfringes upon another person.

I gave you examples that disproved your assertions. You lose. We are called united states for a reason.

 

[ogibillm]

Way to dodge that like a politician. We know exactly how the federal government has "chosen" to implement their law against narcotics. And they just got overridden by a couple of states....

again, you're an idiot. i can't stress that enough.

if colorado says they don't have any laws against smoking marijuana, that's great. nobody in colorado will be charged with any state crimes for firing up a joint.

that doesn't change what the federal law is though.

but then this wyoming law isn't exactly analogous to that since it would make enforcement of a *theoretical* federal law illegal. do you see how that's different?

And I can't stress enough that you have no fucking clue how your own government works.

And to answer your question - no, I don't see any difference. In both cases, the states are exercising their authority over the federal government.

Even when I post indisputable evidence (such as I did above), all your hyper-ignorant ass can do is nonsensically claim "that's great... here in the real world" since you can't dispute the facts. Apparently you can't read and you definitely reject reality and the U.S. Constitution for your own distorted ideology.

again, all i can tell you is how things actually work. you can post whatever you want, but the way it works is constitutional federal law trumps state law every time, and if there is ever a question about the constitutionality of a federal law it is decided in federal court.

that's it. that's the way it works. nothing you say changes that, no opinions from anyone, anywhere - not even from the founders themselves changes that.

federal law trumps state law. every time.

the difference between those states that have medical and other allowed marijuana laws on the books and the potential gun conflict in wyoming is simple - if the federal government prosecutes someone in colorado for pot possession that's fine, but there won't be in state charges.

on the other hand the wyoming law would charge the federal official enforcing the federal law with a crime. that is a very large, very relevant difference and i know you see it too.

 

[rightwinger]

Is Wyoming really that dumb?

They hav no Constitutional authority to overrule federal law

Are you really that dumb to post something this stupid?!?

Supremacy Clause

Wyoming is full of assholes

 

[jillian]

Is Wyoming really that dumb?

They hav no Constitutional authority to overrule federal law

Are you really that dumb to post something this stupid?!?

Supremacy Clause

Wyoming is full of assholes

Yep.

 

[jillian]

I teach the subject

you are either
a)a liar
b)doing your students disservice by not instructing them correctly
your choice, but on this you are very wrong

...you are seriously misled. I'll give you a quick question. Interstate highway speed limit is 75. How fast can you drive on a country road?

The federal government allows for interstate transportation of trees. Michigan bans the import of Ash trees. Is it constitutional or legal?

Federal government doles out welfare monies. Can a person not qualify in one state, but meet standards for another?

It goes on and on.

j
is a county road an interstate?

the state of michigan has a compelling state interest in the banning of ash trees - protecting their own against the emerald ash borer - and thus the law is allowed (or rather if this law existed that might be the case. as it is it looks like there is a federal quarantine on ash trees coming out of some parts of michigan because of the emerald ash borer)

and while the federal government does provide monies for things like snap benefits the distribution and qualifications for those monies are left up to the states within the guidelines of the federal law.

Its simple. The federal govenment is limited to enumerated powers (within which they are supreme). ALL other powers are specifically given to individuals and states. The individual retains almost exclusive rights in all cases, unless it enfringes upon another person.

I gave you examples that disproved your assertions. You lose. We are called united states for a reason.

Knowing something about the constitution instead of making up what you wish it said would probably be helpful for you

 

[saveliberty]

[again, all i can tell you is how things actually work. you can post whatever you want, but the way it works is constitutional federal law trumps state law every time, and if there is ever a question about the constitutionality of a federal law it is decided in federal court.

that's it. that's the way it works. nothing you say changes that, no opinions from anyone, anywhere - not even from the founders themselves changes that.

federal law trumps state law. every time.

the difference between those states that have medical and other allowed marijuana laws on the books and the potential gun conflict in wyoming is simple - if the federal government prosecutes someone in colorado for pot possession that's fine, but there won't be in state charges.

on the other hand the wyoming law would charge the federal official enforcing the federal law with a crime. that is a very large, very relevant difference and i know you see it too.

Federal law doesn't even apply most of the time idiot. There are federal murder laws, but states handle almost all murder cases under state law. The penalities are far ranging among the states. You have an excellent opportunity to learn from what is being imparted to you and you squander it. This is the definition of a fool.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Is Wyoming really that dumb?

They hav no Constitutional authority to overrule federal law

Are you really that dumb to post something this stupid?!?

Supremacy Clause

Wyoming is full of assholes

Will you fall in with Old Glory to kill Wyomingites if they leave the Union ?