Sessions, Federal Law & US Gov. 101: A Long-Overdue Crash Course for Rogue States

[Harpy Eagle]

Guess what federal matters they deal with genius? LEGISLATING. Know what that is? It's proposing, voting on and passing new (or dissolving old) federal laws that apply to all 50 states; not just a few..

Yes, legislate matters that it is given to legislate on by the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear on what the Feds are allowed to do, there is not really any gray area if you were to actually follow the Constitution. If it is not enumerated in the Constitution, then the Feds should not be LEGISLATING on it.

 

[80zephyr]

OK, I can go into all the various rogue states currently violating federal laws. But you know who they are and what they're up to. And maybe in their defense, their lawmakers, be it voters or their legislature or both, failed US Gov. 101 in high school. Or barely passed or whatever.

So I'll give a brief here on how it works. You see, long ago our Founding Fathers intuited that states can get weird. And by weird, I mean seditious and cliquey and rogue. So they set up Congress to have each state have their most powerful representatives (Senators) in DC at 2 apiece. That means that even tiny populated or small or weak states would have the same power of voice in the US Senate.

And boy has California demonstrated just why that is a very good idea. Oakland Mayor Should Face Federal Charges

By acting in an Office of authority, the Oakland Mayor has stood up as an example to her constituents, and the State of CA at large, that defying laws that govern all 50 states is now "just an option, open to individual whim". That's a very dangerous fire to allow to smoulder and spark in the dry tinder of a country with social unrest.

You can say you like pot or illegal aliens filling the jobs in your state while you and your family wonder why you're standard of living plummets. Maybe CA citizens are smoking so much pot that they're having trouble putting 2 + 2 together? But you know, other rogue and cliquey states might like slavery to come back too. Or segregation. Or child trafficking? When you defy federal laws under the umbrella of "it's popular now so **** DC (The rest of the Union)", you set up a precedent and an example by which defiance of federal law becomes vogue.

Indeed, for that matter, under that rationale, defying STATE laws can become vogue too. After all, if the Mayor of Oakland says "go ahead and defy federal law as you like!", what she's also saying is "go ahead and defy ANY law as you like". If brought up on charges, any defendant could cite that since a mayor of a town feels defiance of the most dominant laws of our land is perfectly legitimate, and remains unprosecuted herself for interfering with a federal investigation, costing millions of $ in US taxpayer man hours, processing and so forth, then said defendant could just claim the same immunity from following any state law s/he doesn't like.

My point being that enough is enough. It's time for USAG Sessions to give rogue states a crash course in American Government 101 and why all 50 states are equal in regulating the Union's binding laws, from their inception and adoption to their dissolution. If CA wants illegals to have amnesty just cuz, then they petition all other 49 states to get on board or no-go. And same with all other federal laws.

This Union is coming apart and you may feel ambivalent about illegals or pot or whatever else defiance is going on. But without a 50-State Union intact and potent as the FFs designed, you will be very upset when that precedent pushes forward a type of defiance that you definitely don't like.

My point being is this is just another one of your loony threads- exactly the duplicate of several others of yours that died a quiet death.

What is so loony about this thread? If a state can flaunt federal law, whats to stop another state from doing so?

Mark

 

[Harpy Eagle]

OK, I can go into all the various rogue states currently violating federal laws. But you know who they are and what they're up to. And maybe in their defense, their lawmakers, be it voters or their legislature or both, failed US Gov. 101 in high school. Or barely passed or whatever.

So I'll give a brief here on how it works. You see, long ago our Founding Fathers intuited that states can get weird. And by weird, I mean seditious and cliquey and rogue. So they set up Congress to have each state have their most powerful representatives (Senators) in DC at 2 apiece. That means that even tiny populated or small or weak states would have the same power of voice in the US Senate.

And boy has California demonstrated just why that is a very good idea. Oakland Mayor Should Face Federal Charges

By acting in an Office of authority, the Oakland Mayor has stood up as an example to her constituents, and the State of CA at large, that defying laws that govern all 50 states is now "just an option, open to individual whim". That's a very dangerous fire to allow to smoulder and spark in the dry tinder of a country with social unrest.

You can say you like pot or illegal aliens filling the jobs in your state while you and your family wonder why you're standard of living plummets. Maybe CA citizens are smoking so much pot that they're having trouble putting 2 + 2 together? But you know, other rogue and cliquey states might like slavery to come back too. Or segregation. Or child trafficking? When you defy federal laws under the umbrella of "it's popular now so **** DC (The rest of the Union)", you set up a precedent and an example by which defiance of federal law becomes vogue.

Indeed, for that matter, under that rationale, defying STATE laws can become vogue too. After all, if the Mayor of Oakland says "go ahead and defy federal law as you like!", what she's also saying is "go ahead and defy ANY law as you like". If brought up on charges, any defendant could cite that since a mayor of a town feels defiance of the most dominant laws of our land is perfectly legitimate, and remains unprosecuted herself for interfering with a federal investigation, costing millions of $ in US taxpayer man hours, processing and so forth, then said defendant could just claim the same immunity from following any state law s/he doesn't like.

My point being that enough is enough. It's time for USAG Sessions to give rogue states a crash course in American Government 101 and why all 50 states are equal in regulating the Union's binding laws, from their inception and adoption to their dissolution. If CA wants illegals to have amnesty just cuz, then they petition all other 49 states to get on board or no-go. And same with all other federal laws.

This Union is coming apart and you may feel ambivalent about illegals or pot or whatever else defiance is going on. But without a 50-State Union intact and potent as the FFs designed, you will be very upset when that precedent pushes forward a type of defiance that you definitely don't like.

My point being is this is just another one of your loony threads- exactly the duplicate of several others of yours that died a quiet death.

What is so loony about this thread? If a state can flaunt federal law, whats to stop another state from doing so?

Mark

Let's home more states flaunt federal law that is not supported by the enumerated powers in the Constitution.

It is way past time to reign in the out of control Fed Govt.

 

[80zephyr]

OK, I can go into all the various rogue states currently violating federal laws. But you know who they are and what they're up to. And maybe in their defense, their lawmakers, be it voters or their legislature or both, failed US Gov. 101 in high school. Or barely passed or whatever.

So I'll give a brief here on how it works. You see, long ago our Founding Fathers intuited that states can get weird. And by weird, I mean seditious and cliquey and rogue. So they set up Congress to have each state have their most powerful representatives (Senators) in DC at 2 apiece. That means that even tiny populated or small or weak states would have the same power of voice in the US Senate.

And boy has California demonstrated just why that is a very good idea. Oakland Mayor Should Face Federal Charges

By acting in an Office of authority, the Oakland Mayor has stood up as an example to her constituents, and the State of CA at large, that defying laws that govern all 50 states is now "just an option, open to individual whim". That's a very dangerous fire to allow to smoulder and spark in the dry tinder of a country with social unrest.

You can say you like pot or illegal aliens filling the jobs in your state while you and your family wonder why you're standard of living plummets. Maybe CA citizens are smoking so much pot that they're having trouble putting 2 + 2 together? But you know, other rogue and cliquey states might like slavery to come back too. Or segregation. Or child trafficking? When you defy federal laws under the umbrella of "it's popular now so **** DC (The rest of the Union)", you set up a precedent and an example by which defiance of federal law becomes vogue.

Indeed, for that matter, under that rationale, defying STATE laws can become vogue too. After all, if the Mayor of Oakland says "go ahead and defy federal law as you like!", what she's also saying is "go ahead and defy ANY law as you like". If brought up on charges, any defendant could cite that since a mayor of a town feels defiance of the most dominant laws of our land is perfectly legitimate, and remains unprosecuted herself for interfering with a federal investigation, costing millions of $ in US taxpayer man hours, processing and so forth, then said defendant could just claim the same immunity from following any state law s/he doesn't like.

My point being that enough is enough. It's time for USAG Sessions to give rogue states a crash course in American Government 101 and why all 50 states are equal in regulating the Union's binding laws, from their inception and adoption to their dissolution. If CA wants illegals to have amnesty just cuz, then they petition all other 49 states to get on board or no-go. And same with all other federal laws.

This Union is coming apart and you may feel ambivalent about illegals or pot or whatever else defiance is going on. But without a 50-State Union intact and potent as the FFs designed, you will be very upset when that precedent pushes forward a type of defiance that you definitely don't like.

My point being is this is just another one of your loony threads- exactly the duplicate of several others of yours that died a quiet death.

What is so loony about this thread? If a state can flaunt federal law, whats to stop another state from doing so?

Mark

Let's home more states flaunt federal law that is not supported by the enumerated powers in the Constitution.

It is way past time to reign in the out of control Fed Govt.

While I agree with you to an extent, allowing each state to decide which federal law to obey and which ones not to leads to anarchy.

Not a path I am wiling to follow.

Mark

 

[Harpy Eagle]

While I agree with you to an extent, allowing each state to decide which federal law to obey and which ones not to leads to anarchy.

Not a path I am wiling to follow.

Mark

It is a tough choice, anarchy or Federalism bordering on dictatorship.

 

[Silhouette]

Guess what federal matters they deal with genius? LEGISLATING. Know what that is? It's proposing, voting on and passing new (or dissolving old) federal laws that apply to all 50 states; not just a few..

Yes, legislate matters that it is given to legislate on by the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear on what the Feds are allowed to do, there is not really any gray area if you were to actually follow the Constitution. If it is not enumerated in the Constitution, then the Feds should not be LEGISLATING on it.

OK, so there wasn't any language in the Constitution about gay marriage. Or any marriage at all for that matter. But the left in this country sure felt that it was in there. So much so that their in-pocket Justices added language that doesn't exist to the Constitution to justify Obergefell, for example. Are you against that happening by the strictest interpretation of verbatim in the Constitution? Because it's so weird you know, how polygamists still can't marry the people they love. One thing for sure we can't fabricate out of thin air from the 14th is "two". Or "marriage". Or "driver's licenses". All those are regulated at the state level, until 2015. Driver's licenses still are. But maybe they'll come a day when blind-Americans battle for the right to drive at the USSC level. Then they'll take out their pens and scribble in the margins of the 14th again...

Are you in favor of Obergefell's interpretation of the 14th Amendment as to fairness in (just some of their favorite but not others) marriage? At least Congress is charged with legislating. The Supreme Court has no business federally-legislating from the Bench. Amendments to the 14th are done in Congress. Or, we admit that marriage isn't provided for in the US Constitution. (Just some marriages, but not others, you know, in the interest of pure equality...)

Suddenly though when it comes to stuff like pot or illegal aliens, the left is ALL ABOUT limiting any type of Constitutional interpretation or adjustments except for the strictest and plain interpretation of the document. Hilarious.

Now I said this thread wouldn't be partisan. But I gave the example of how being stalwart about this or that stance can backfire on you.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

OK, so there wasn't any language in the Constitution about gay marriage. Or any marriage at all for that matter. But the left in this country sure felt that it was in there. So much so that their in-pocket Justices added language that doesn't exist to the Constitution to justify Obergefell, for example. Are you against that happening by the strictest interpretation of verbatim in the Constitution? Because it's so weird you know, how polygamists still can't marry the people they love. One thing for sure we can't fabricate out of thin air from the 14th is "two". Or "marriage". Or "driver's licenses". All those are regulated at the state level, until 2015.

I am 100% against the Fed being involved in marriage, they should have no say in it at all. Personally I think that marriage should be totally out of the realm of any level of government and should be left to the churches. Let the state provide a contract that provides some of the legal protection of marriage but leave out the love and religious aspect of it. There should be no tax breaks for being married, or having kids, or owning a house, or going to college...

Are you in favor of Obergefell's interpretation of the 14th Amendment as to fairness in (just some of their favorite but not others) marriage? At least Congress is charged with legislating. The Supreme Court has no business federally-legislating from the Bench. Amendments to the 14th are done in Congress. Or, we admit that marriage isn't provided for in the US Constitution. (Just some marriages, but not others, you know, in the interest of pure equality...)

If states are going to regulate marriage I think they should be totally fair about it, it should include same sex couples and arrangements with more than two people. IF they are going to be in the marriage business, the states need to be fair about it. If the state across the border does not accept your license, oh well, that should be their right.

 

[Silhouette]

Not "should be totally fair"....they MUST be totally fair according to the 14th Amendment they cited continually throughout that Decision.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Not "should be totally fair"....they MUST be totally fair according to the 14th Amendment they cited continually throughout that Decision.

It is very hard to take seriously the group that gave us "protected classes" when they talk about the 14th.

 

[Syriusly]

OK, I can go into all the various rogue states currently violating federal laws. But you know who they are and what they're up to. And maybe in their defense, their lawmakers, be it voters or their legislature or both, failed US Gov. 101 in high school. Or barely passed or whatever.

So I'll give a brief here on how it works. You see, long ago our Founding Fathers intuited that states can get weird. And by weird, I mean seditious and cliquey and rogue. So they set up Congress to have each state have their most powerful representatives (Senators) in DC at 2 apiece. That means that even tiny populated or small or weak states would have the same power of voice in the US Senate.

And boy has California demonstrated just why that is a very good idea. Oakland Mayor Should Face Federal Charges

By acting in an Office of authority, the Oakland Mayor has stood up as an example to her constituents, and the State of CA at large, that defying laws that govern all 50 states is now "just an option, open to individual whim". That's a very dangerous fire to allow to smoulder and spark in the dry tinder of a country with social unrest.

You can say you like pot or illegal aliens filling the jobs in your state while you and your family wonder why you're standard of living plummets. Maybe CA citizens are smoking so much pot that they're having trouble putting 2 + 2 together? But you know, other rogue and cliquey states might like slavery to come back too. Or segregation. Or child trafficking? When you defy federal laws under the umbrella of "it's popular now so **** DC (The rest of the Union)", you set up a precedent and an example by which defiance of federal law becomes vogue.

Indeed, for that matter, under that rationale, defying STATE laws can become vogue too. After all, if the Mayor of Oakland says "go ahead and defy federal law as you like!", what she's also saying is "go ahead and defy ANY law as you like". If brought up on charges, any defendant could cite that since a mayor of a town feels defiance of the most dominant laws of our land is perfectly legitimate, and remains unprosecuted herself for interfering with a federal investigation, costing millions of $ in US taxpayer man hours, processing and so forth, then said defendant could just claim the same immunity from following any state law s/he doesn't like.

My point being that enough is enough. It's time for USAG Sessions to give rogue states a crash course in American Government 101 and why all 50 states are equal in regulating the Union's binding laws, from their inception and adoption to their dissolution. If CA wants illegals to have amnesty just cuz, then they petition all other 49 states to get on board or no-go. And same with all other federal laws.

This Union is coming apart and you may feel ambivalent about illegals or pot or whatever else defiance is going on. But without a 50-State Union intact and potent as the FFs designed, you will be very upset when that precedent pushes forward a type of defiance that you definitely don't like.

My point being is this is just another one of your loony threads- exactly the duplicate of several others of yours that died a quiet death.

What is so loony about this thread? If a state can flaunt federal law, whats to stop another state from doing so?

Mark

Let's home more states flaunt federal law that is not supported by the enumerated powers in the Constitution.

It is way past time to reign in the out of control Fed Govt.

While I agree with you to an extent, allowing each state to decide which federal law to obey and which ones not to leads to anarchy.

Not a path I am wiling to follow.

Mark

It actually happens all the time- which is why the Federal government regularly sues state governments for various things.

 

[Syriusly]

Guess what federal matters they deal with genius? LEGISLATING. Know what that is? It's proposing, voting on and passing new (or dissolving old) federal laws that apply to all 50 states; not just a few..

Yes, legislate matters that it is given to legislate on by the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear on what the Feds are allowed to do, there is not really any gray area if you were to actually follow the Constitution. If it is not enumerated in the Constitution, then the Feds should not be LEGISLATING on it.

OK, so there wasn't any language in the Constitution about gay marriage. Or any marriage at all for that matter. But the left in this country sure felt that it was in there. So much so that their in-pocket Justices added language that doesn't exist to the Constitution to justify Obergefell, for example.

The Supreme Court has overturned unconstitutional state marriage laws 4 times now.

Obergefell is merely the 4th in a line of decisions for the 'left' that include overturning unconstitutional laws against mixed race marriages.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Guess what federal matters they deal with genius? LEGISLATING. Know what that is? It's proposing, voting on and passing new (or dissolving old) federal laws that apply to all 50 states; not just a few..

Yes, legislate matters that it is given to legislate on by the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear on what the Feds are allowed to do, there is not really any gray area if you were to actually follow the Constitution. If it is not enumerated in the Constitution, then the Feds should not be LEGISLATING on it.

OK, so there wasn't any language in the Constitution about gay marriage. Or any marriage at all for that matter. But the left in this country sure felt that it was in there. So much so that their in-pocket Justices added language that doesn't exist to the Constitution to justify Obergefell, for example.

The Supreme Court has overturned unconstitutional state marriage laws 4 times now.

Obergefell is merely the 4th in a line of decisions for the 'left' that include overturning unconstitutional laws against mixed race marriages.

What a joke, the SCOTUS using the 14th amendment to overturn marriage laws when they ignored it in allowing "protected classes"

 

[Syriusly]

Not "should be totally fair"....they MUST be totally fair according to the 14th Amendment they cited continually throughout that Decision.

And of course they never discuss 'fair' what they discuss is
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Feel free to go to the court and argue for your right to marry your sister wives.

 

[Syriusly]

Guess what federal matters they deal with genius? LEGISLATING. Know what that is? It's proposing, voting on and passing new (or dissolving old) federal laws that apply to all 50 states; not just a few..

Yes, legislate matters that it is given to legislate on by the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear on what the Feds are allowed to do, there is not really any gray area if you were to actually follow the Constitution. If it is not enumerated in the Constitution, then the Feds should not be LEGISLATING on it.

OK, so there wasn't any language in the Constitution about gay marriage. Or any marriage at all for that matter. But the left in this country sure felt that it was in there. So much so that their in-pocket Justices added language that doesn't exist to the Constitution to justify Obergefell, for example.

The Supreme Court has overturned unconstitutional state marriage laws 4 times now.

Obergefell is merely the 4th in a line of decisions for the 'left' that include overturning unconstitutional laws against mixed race marriages.

What a joke, the SCOTUS using the 14th amendment to overturn marriage laws when they ignored it in allowing "protected classes"

Feel free to go to the Supreme Court and argue that laws that say that white motel owners can't refuse to rent to blacks are violating the 14th Amendment.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Guess what federal matters they deal with genius? LEGISLATING. Know what that is? It's proposing, voting on and passing new (or dissolving old) federal laws that apply to all 50 states; not just a few..

Yes, legislate matters that it is given to legislate on by the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear on what the Feds are allowed to do, there is not really any gray area if you were to actually follow the Constitution. If it is not enumerated in the Constitution, then the Feds should not be LEGISLATING on it.

OK, so there wasn't any language in the Constitution about gay marriage. Or any marriage at all for that matter. But the left in this country sure felt that it was in there. So much so that their in-pocket Justices added language that doesn't exist to the Constitution to justify Obergefell, for example.

The Supreme Court has overturned unconstitutional state marriage laws 4 times now.

Obergefell is merely the 4th in a line of decisions for the 'left' that include overturning unconstitutional laws against mixed race marriages.

What a joke, the SCOTUS using the 14th amendment to overturn marriage laws when they ignored it in allowing "protected classes"

Feel free to go to the Supreme Court and argue that laws that say that white motel owners can't refuse to rent to blacks are violating the 14th Amendment.

I know how they will rule, but their logic is insane. On one hand they say that the 14th amendment requires equal protection for all...then they say that "protected classes" are ok, which by their very nature means those classes get more protection than everyone else...so there is not equal protection

 

[Silhouette]

What a joke, the SCOTUS using the 14th amendment to overturn marriage laws when they ignored it in allowing "protected classes"

It's what happens when the 50 states are shoved out of Legislating federal law: basically a kangaroo court-legislative coup/breach of separation of powers. Just one more reason people ought to pass American Government in high school.