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

[ogibillm]

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.

no, you didn't.

first, there is not a federal limit for interstate speeds. that's left solely to the states. states also have the right to regulate such things within their borders so long as their interest in safety and order is balanced against not overly hindering interstate commerce.

second, michigan doesn't have a ban on ash trees. some of their trees are quarantined because of disease and aren't allowed out. but such a ban wouldn't necessarily be unconstitutional. the courts would likely have to rule (if challenged) on whether or not the state's interest in preventing the spread of disease to their own trees was balanced against the interests of an open market.

and i've already explained the snap benefit allocations to you.

so no, you haven't provided any real examples. please, try again.

or you know, be an adult and admit that constitutional federal law always trumps state law.

 

[rightwinger]

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 ?

We have FEMA Death Camps all ready for them

 

[OODA_Loop]

Supremacy Clause

Wyoming is full of assholes

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

We have FEMA Death Camps all ready for them

Sweet.

Surgical and sterile or pits and parabellums ?

 

[ogibillm]

[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.

again, that doesn't contradict what i've said. if something is illegal by both state and federal standards then there is no conflict.

if something is illegal under state law and either not addressed or not required by federal law there is no conflict.

but if the state says that something is legal and the fed says it isn't you can bet that whatever it is is in fact illegal and it doesn't matter what state you live in.

and if the state says something is illegal and the federal government requires it you can bet that nobody will be going to jail for complying with the federal law because again, federal law trumps state law. every. fucking. time.

 

[saveliberty]

no, you didn't.

first, there is not a federal limit for interstate speeds. that's left solely to the states. states also have the right to regulate such things within their borders so long as their interest in safety and order is balanced against not overly hindering interstate commerce.

The National Maximum Speed Law (NMSL) in the United States was a provision of the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act that prohibited speed limits higher than 55 miles per hour (89 km/h)

National Maximum Speed Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

second, michigan doesn't have a ban on ash trees. some of their trees are quarantined because of disease and aren't allowed out. but such a ban wouldn't necessarily be unconstitutional. the courts would likely have to rule (if challenged) on whether or not the state's interest in preventing the spread of disease to their own trees was balanced against the interests of an open market.

Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) State QuarantineThe EAB quarantine currently restricts and/or prohibits the movement of:

any ash logs,
any part of an ash tree (including nursery stock),
any living stage of the EAB and
ALL hardwood firewood
from Michigan's Lower peninsula and (portions of the Upper peninsula) without an approved compliance agreement issued by the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA

and i've already explained the snap benefit allocations to you.

How do you justify a federal program that discriminates based on what state you live in?

so no, you haven't provided any real examples. please, try again.

or you know, be an adult and admit that constitutional federal law always trumps state law.

My replies in blue. As I stated earlier, federal is limited to enumerated powers only.

 

[P@triot]

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.

Seriously folks - you can't make this stuff up. Skippy here believes the asinine ideology of he and his fellow wing-nut liberals trumps the U.S. Constitution and the clarification by those who wrote it and signed it into law...

 

[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.

again, that doesn't contradict what i've said. if something is illegal by both state and federal standards then there is no conflict.

Sure there is if the penalies vary widely. Of course that makes the laws diffferent doesn't it?

if something is illegal under state law and either not addressed or not required by federal law there is no conflict.

but if the state says that something is legal and the fed says it isn't you can bet that whatever it is is in fact illegal and it doesn't matter what state you live in.

and if the state says something is illegal and the federal government requires it you can bet that nobody will be going to jail for complying with the federal law because again, federal law trumps state law. every. fucking. time.

My reply in blue. Repeating false information doesn't make to true at some point. Federal is limited to enumerated powers only.

 

[rightwinger]

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

We have FEMA Death Camps all ready for them

Sweet.

Surgical and sterile or pits and parabellums ?

They are very nice

Bingo on Thursday nights and hot running water

People from Wyoming will love it

 

[Contumacious]

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

Bullshit.

The Constitution was adopted for our benefit. Supreme Court Justices are federal bureaucrats.

.

 

[OODA_Loop]

We have FEMA Death Camps all ready for them

Sweet.

Surgical and sterile or pits and parabellums ?

They are very nice

Bingo on Thursday nights and hot running water

People from Wyoming will love it

Educated men opined a state would never leave the Union over negroes in 1859.

 

[P@triot]

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?

And that's the key word here goofball - constitutional. Meaning, within the 18 enumerated powers delegated to the federal government.

Outside of those 18 enumerated powers, the states have power over the federal government.

But hey, keep ignoring the U.S. Constitution, the words of our founders, and the laws of our land in favor of your own version of a perverted ideology. It's working soooooo well for you....

 

[saveliberty]

I know some of you are extremely butt hurt over the constitutinal concept of limited government. Too bad, that's how it works.

 

[ogibillm]

no, you didn't.

first, there is not a federal limit for interstate speeds. that's left solely to the states. states also have the right to regulate such things within their borders so long as their interest in safety and order is balanced against not overly hindering interstate commerce.

The National Maximum Speed Law (NMSL) in the United States was a provision of the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act that prohibited speed limits higher than 55 miles per hour (89 km/h)

National Maximum Speed Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

second, michigan doesn't have a ban on ash trees. some of their trees are quarantined because of disease and aren't allowed out. but such a ban wouldn't necessarily be unconstitutional. the courts would likely have to rule (if challenged) on whether or not the state's interest in preventing the spread of disease to their own trees was balanced against the interests of an open market.

Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) State QuarantineThe EAB quarantine currently restricts and/or prohibits the movement of:

any ash logs,
any part of an ash tree (including nursery stock),
any living stage of the EAB and
ALL hardwood firewood
from Michigan's Lower peninsula and (portions of the Upper peninsula) without an approved compliance agreement issued by the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA

and i've already explained the snap benefit allocations to you.

How do you justify a federal program that discriminates based on what state you live in?

so no, you haven't provided any real examples. please, try again.

or you know, be an adult and admit that constitutional federal law always trumps state law.

My replies in blue. As I stated earlier, federal is limited to enumerated powers only.

okay... so we don't currently have a federal speed limit - so what was that post about it being 75mph about?

anyhow, that would fall under congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce. that being said not all roads are interstate highways, are they? there's one spot where your difference lies. other arguments can be made about the state's interest in policing the roads and safety and so on, but we'll just stick to the first.

and michigan is just fine to regulate which of its trees can be moved within its state. there's also a federal quarantine on those trees.

finally, snap benefits. i was fairly certain that the individual states were able to set their individual guidelines. i was wrong. it's a federal program with federal rules.

 

[P@triot]

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
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

Jillian - he is 100% dead on with this post and you know it (hence your lack of examples on where he was so wrong). The federal government has 18 enumerated powers and anything outside of that the state has full power. It really is that simple...

 

[ogibillm]

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.

again, that doesn't contradict what i've said. if something is illegal by both state and federal standards then there is no conflict.

Sure there is if the penalies vary widely. Of course that makes the laws diffferent doesn't it?

if something is illegal under state law and either not addressed or not required by federal law there is no conflict.

but if the state says that something is legal and the fed says it isn't you can bet that whatever it is is in fact illegal and it doesn't matter what state you live in.

and if the state says something is illegal and the federal government requires it you can bet that nobody will be going to jail for complying with the federal law because again, federal law trumps state law. every. fucking. time.

My reply in blue. Repeating false information doesn't make to true at some point. Federal is limited to enumerated powers only.

no. there is no conflict if both the state and federal government say something is illegal. if the state says having a kilo of coke gets you a $20 fine and the federal government says it'll get you 10 years in jail the laws don't contradict each other - but if you get caught with your coke you better hope you're prosecuted by the state and that the federal govt decides to ignore you.

 

[Pogo]

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

Nice deflective sophistry there: paint the adversary with your own faults. We all know the RP has been hijacked and driven off that ditch on the right by social conservative partisan hacks who have been desperate ever since the disgrace of Watergate. So even though the entire country has moved right, let's pretend the opposite happened and imagine "socialists/marxists/communists" hijacked the opposite party. Takes the spotlight off the elephant in the room.

By the way it's not it's; it's its.

 

[rightwinger]

Sweet.

Surgical and sterile or pits and parabellums ?

They are very nice

Bingo on Thursday nights and hot running water

People from Wyoming will love it

Educated men opined a state would never leave the Union over negroes in 1859.

Wyoming would face a similar wrath of the Yankees

There is only a couple hundred thousand of them

Easy enough to round them up and send to Camp FEMA

 

[ogibillm]

Jillian - he is 100% dead on with this post and you know it (hence your lack of examples on where he was so wrong). The federal government has 18 enumerated powers and anything outside of that the state has full power. It really is that simple...

no one denies that the federal government is limited in power by the constitution.

however, what some people fail to understand is that when the federal government passes a law it is presumed constitutional until the courts decide otherwise. the states, if they pass laws that contradicts the federal law, will not be able to enforce their own because

FEDERAL LAW TRUMPS STATE LAW. EVERY. FUCKING. TIME.

so when a state passes a law that says a federal law is unconstitutional it doesn't mean dick because the states aren't the ones that decide that and frankly their opinion is not relevant.

it's called the supremacy clause. look it up.

 

[saveliberty]

Supremacy only holds true for enumerated powers. Unless you have an activist court.

 

[saveliberty]

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

I am completely correct Jillian. Better luck on some other topic.