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

[kyzr]

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?

PolitiFact - Fact-checking misleading attacks on the HR 1 voting rights bill

Opponents of a voting rights bill would have you believe that the legislation will allow murderers, teenagers, welfare r/> <meta name=

www.politifact.com

 

[Rambunctious]

It won't pass the senate and even if it does it will be tied up in court for years....until we get the nation back from the cheating invading dems....

 

[pknopp]

There is no new laws. Do you not realize how all of this works?

 

[Rambunctious]

Elected dems know they stole this last election...or they wouldn't be trying so hard to stack the deck.....

 

[busybee01]

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?

PolitiFact - Fact-checking misleading attacks on the HR 1 voting rights bill

Opponents of a voting rights bill would have you believe that the legislation will allow murderers, teenagers, welfare r/> <meta name=

www.politifact.com

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

 

[bear513]

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?

PolitiFact - Fact-checking misleading attacks on the HR 1 voting rights bill

Opponents of a voting rights bill would have you believe that the legislation will allow murderers, teenagers, welfare r/> <meta name=

www.politifact.com

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]

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]

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?

PolitiFact - Fact-checking misleading attacks on the HR 1 voting rights bill

Opponents of a voting rights bill would have you believe that the legislation will allow murderers, teenagers, welfare r/> <meta name=

www.politifact.com

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.’

Interpretation: Elections Clause | The National Constitution Center

constitutioncenter.org

 

[bear513]

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?

PolitiFact - Fact-checking misleading attacks on the HR 1 voting rights bill

Opponents of a voting rights bill would have you believe that the legislation will allow murderers, teenagers, welfare r/> <meta name=

www.politifact.com

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.’

Interpretation: Elections Clause | The National Constitution Center

constitutioncenter.org

Exactly states doesn't have to follow federal law period

 

[AFrench2]

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]

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]

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.

Obama won’t go after legal pot users in Washington, Colorado

President Obama says that recreational pot smoking in Washington and Colorado is not a major concern for his administration: "We've got bigger fish to fry."

www.seattletimes.com

 

[bear513]

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.

Obama won’t go after legal pot users in Washington, Colorado

President Obama says that recreational pot smoking in Washington and Colorado is not a major concern for his administration: "We've got bigger fish to fry."

www.seattletimes.com

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

 

[AFrench2]

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.

Obama won’t go after legal pot users in Washington, Colorado

President Obama says that recreational pot smoking in Washington and Colorado is not a major concern for his administration: "We've got bigger fish to fry."

www.seattletimes.com

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]

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?

PolitiFact - Fact-checking misleading attacks on the HR 1 voting rights bill

Opponents of a voting rights bill would have you believe that the legislation will allow murderers, teenagers, welfare r/> <meta name=

www.politifact.com

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.’

Interpretation: Elections Clause | The National Constitution Center

constitutioncenter.org

Well, looky there, we actually agree on something.

 

[Moonglow]

There is no new laws. Do you not realize how all of this works?

No..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

PolitiFact - Fact-checking misleading attacks on the HR 1 voting rights bill

Opponents of a voting rights bill would have you believe that the legislation will allow murderers, teenagers, welfare r/> <meta name=

www.politifact.com

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.

 

[B. Kidd]

Elected dems know they stole this last election...or they wouldn't be trying so hard to stack the deck.....

Yupp!
They have more balls than brains!
But only in this and the 'open borders' regards.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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]

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