Can States ignore new HR-1 voting requirements? (Like blue states ignored immigration law)

Should States ignore HR-1 voting requirements (if passed) like blue states ignore immigration laws?

  • Yes, the Constitution says that state legislatures set voting laws.

    Votes: 16 88.9%
  • No, the US should have standardized voting laws.

    Votes: 2 11.1%

  • Total voters
    18

kyzr

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
17,687
Reaction score
9,056
Points
1,255
Location
The AL part of PA
House Democrats passed HR-1, new voting laws, which may not be Constitutional, since the "State Legislatures" are to set those.

So my question is, can States keep writing their own state voting laws and ignore the new HR-1 Laws?

 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
20,031
Reaction score
3,838
Points
290
House Democrats passed HR-1, new voting laws, which may not be Constitutional, since the "State Legislatures" are to set those.

So my question is, can States keep writing their own state voting laws and ignore the new HR-1 Laws?

The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate federal elections. If states refuse to comply then they can be denied representation in Congress.
 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
64,556
Reaction score
12,317
Points
2,180
House Democrats passed HR-1, new voting laws, which may not be Constitutional, since the "State Legislatures" are to set those.

So my question is, can States keep writing their own state voting laws and ignore the new HR-1 Laws?

The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate federal elections. If states refuse to comply then they can be denied representation in Congress.
Well that's the most stupidest thing I heard
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
2,229
Points
893
The States can continue to make their own laws. The Feds can't force the States to enforce Federal laws.

Most of this part of the Covid Relief law (that has nothing to do with Covid) will be challenged in Court and tied up for quite some time. The Federal Govt can't grant voting rights back to people convicted of State crimes, they can for Federal crimes...but not state crimes. Moreover, the Constitution does allow the Feds to regulation Federal elections
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
59,309
Reaction score
17,208
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
House Democrats passed HR-1, new voting laws, which may not be Constitutional, since the "State Legislatures" are to set those.

So my question is, can States keep writing their own state voting laws and ignore the new HR-1 Laws?

Wrong.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy and is a lie.

The states and local jurisdictions are not required to enforce Federal law, which is not the same as following Federal law.

Federal election laws are perfectly Constitutional as authorized by the Elections Clause:

‘Although the Elections Clause makes states primarily responsible for regulating congressional elections, it vests ultimate power in Congress. Congress may pass federal laws regulating congressional elections that automatically displace (“preempt”) any contrary state statutes, or enact its own regulations concerning those aspects of elections that states may not have addressed. The Framers of the Constitution were concerned that states might establish unfair election procedures or attempt to undermine the national government by refusing to hold elections for Congress. They empowered Congress to step in and regulate such elections as a self-defense mechanism.’

 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
64,556
Reaction score
12,317
Points
2,180
House Democrats passed HR-1, new voting laws, which may not be Constitutional, since the "State Legislatures" are to set those.

So my question is, can States keep writing their own state voting laws and ignore the new HR-1 Laws?

Wrong.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy and is a lie.

The states and local jurisdictions are not required to enforce Federal law, which is not the same as following Federal law.

Federal election laws are perfectly Constitutional as authorized by the Elections Clause:

‘Although the Elections Clause makes states primarily responsible for regulating congressional elections, it vests ultimate power in Congress. Congress may pass federal laws regulating congressional elections that automatically displace (“preempt”) any contrary state statutes, or enact its own regulations concerning those aspects of elections that states may not have addressed. The Framers of the Constitution were concerned that states might establish unfair election procedures or attempt to undermine the national government by refusing to hold elections for Congress. They empowered Congress to step in and regulate such elections as a self-defense mechanism.’

Exactly states doesn't have to follow federal law period
 

AFrench2

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2021
Messages
3,351
Reaction score
2,531
Points
1,893
Location
Fort Worth, TX
Supremacy Clause
Primary tabs

See Preemption; constitutional clauses.

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government.
 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
64,556
Reaction score
12,317
Points
2,180
Supremacy Clause
Primary tabs

See Preemption; constitutional clauses.

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government.
So is states following federal drug laws?
 

AFrench2

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2021
Messages
3,351
Reaction score
2,531
Points
1,893
Location
Fort Worth, TX
Supremacy Clause
Primary tabs

See Preemption; constitutional clauses.

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government.
So is states following federal drug laws?
That was a choice made by powerful people not to go after said states with legal weed. But you are correct, they could have if they wanted to.

 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
64,556
Reaction score
12,317
Points
2,180
Supremacy Clause
Primary tabs

See Preemption; constitutional clauses.

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government.
So is states following federal drug laws?
That was a choice made by powerful people not to go after said states with legal weed. But you are correct, they could have if they wanted to.

But it's not legal, it's the same as sanctuary states
 

AFrench2

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2021
Messages
3,351
Reaction score
2,531
Points
1,893
Location
Fort Worth, TX
Supremacy Clause
Primary tabs

See Preemption; constitutional clauses.

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government.
So is states following federal drug laws?
That was a choice made by powerful people not to go after said states with legal weed. But you are correct, they could have if they wanted to.

But it's not legal, it's the same as sanctuary states
Bro, the topic question is "can states ignore HR-1 federal law" and I'm saying no, they can't, the US government law is king over State law.

You are saying "Yeah well pot isn't legal and the US government does not go after that" and I'm saying they most certainly could, if they wanted to.
 

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,014
Reaction score
906
Points
210
House Democrats passed HR-1, new voting laws, which may not be Constitutional, since the "State Legislatures" are to set those.

So my question is, can States keep writing their own state voting laws and ignore the new HR-1 Laws?

Wrong.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy and is a lie.

The states and local jurisdictions are not required to enforce Federal law, which is not the same as following Federal law.

Federal election laws are perfectly Constitutional as authorized by the Elections Clause:

‘Although the Elections Clause makes states primarily responsible for regulating congressional elections, it vests ultimate power in Congress. Congress may pass federal laws regulating congressional elections that automatically displace (“preempt”) any contrary state statutes, or enact its own regulations concerning those aspects of elections that states may not have addressed. The Framers of the Constitution were concerned that states might establish unfair election procedures or attempt to undermine the national government by refusing to hold elections for Congress. They empowered Congress to step in and regulate such elections as a self-defense mechanism.’

Well, looky there, we actually agree on something.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
59,309
Reaction score
17,208
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
House Democrats passed HR-1, new voting laws, which may not be Constitutional, since the "State Legislatures" are to set those.

So my question is, can States keep writing their own state voting laws and ignore the new HR-1 Laws?

The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate federal elections. If states refuse to comply then they can be denied representation in Congress.
Well that's the most stupidest thing I heard
And this is ignorant.

The Constitution does give Congress the authority to enact Federal election laws.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
59,309
Reaction score
17,208
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
Supremacy Clause
Primary tabs

See Preemption; constitutional clauses.

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government.
So is states following federal drug laws?
States are not required to enforce Federal drug laws, as is the case with Federal immigration law.

It would be up to Federal authorities to enforce Federal drug laws, such as prosecuting someone for selling marijuana although it’s legal to do so in his state.

That’s not the same as following Federal laws enacted by Congress.

You’re trying to conflate enforcement with compliance when in fact they’re not the same.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
221,534
Reaction score
47,368
Points
2,190
Tens of millions of people worldwide have received a COVID vaccine
The one or two so may have died (no proof) gets a fear mongering thread
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top