Trump Waging War Against Blue States and Cities

[Zincwarrior]

 

[justoffal]

Good. Illinois is getting as bad as Kalifornia.
And libtards are infamous for their TDS whining.

Yeah actually has it backwards as he usually does. It's the blue States waging a war against Trump not the other way around. Only this time he's besting them at their own game.

 

[BlindBoo]

Article 6 sec 2 of our constitution, the supremacy law:
Any state law that conflicts with federal law is unconstitutional.

Not really. For example, the feds can enforce federal laws on Cannabis in all states, but several states have legalized it and do not enforce those laws anymore. Their police do not the enforce federal Cannabis laws.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Not really. For example, the feds can enforce federal laws on Cannabis in all states, but several states have legalized it and do not enforce those laws anymore. Their police do not the enforce federal Cannabis laws.

That doesn't take away from the fact that if the federal government wanted to, they could shut the whole thing down. The federal government is the supreme deciding determiner, and no state can override it.

 

[Failzero]

That doesn't take away from the fact that if the federal government wanted to, they could shut the whole thing down. The federal government is the supreme deciding determiner, and no state can override it.

That’s why Xiden was able to flood America with 15+ Million Turd World Criminals

 

[Winston]

Any state law.

In other words, you can't name a state law that violates federal law concerning sanctuary cities. Run along now, let the adults play.

 

[BlindBoo]

That doesn't take away from the fact that if the federal government wanted to, they could shut the whole thing down. The federal government is the supreme deciding determiner, and no state can override it.

They could. But the point is the state laws are not unconstitutional. The Feds cannot compel the states police to enforce those federal laws. Nor can they punish the states when they don't comply with a federal request to enforce federal laws either.

 

[Failzero]

They could. But the point is the state laws are not unconstitutional. The Feds cannot compel the states police to enforce those federal laws. Nor can they punish the states when they don't comply with a federal request to enforce federal laws either.

The Federal Government has whole section of options to compel Local & State LEOs to enforce Federal laws every day ( like Getting the Redding Police Department or Shasta County Sheriff’s Department to work with them on a Cartel Pot grow operation bust ( and turn over The Cartel Henchmen illegals to ICE ) happens all the time here

 

[Meathead]

‘A federal judge in the Northern District of Illinois on Friday threw out the government’s lawsuit claiming federal law preempts local laws limiting cooperation with Trump’s mass deportation effort. (The latter are improperly labeled “sanctuary city laws.” Localities are not claiming federal law is inapplicable, but rather, as discussed below, are declining to provide shock troops for Trump’s police state.) It was the latest round, and latest MAGA defeat, in Donald Trump’s war against states that resist his cruel, lawless, and dangerous agenda.

Trump’s war against blue states is central to his dictatorial ambitions. To achieve unlimited control, he must subjugate independent sources of power and information—from TV network news operations to universities to civil servants to Congress itself. Ironically (for a party that once fetishized states’ rights), Trump’s MAGA GOP consistently seeks to obliterate federalism and force states—generally blue ones—to do his bidding.

[…]

In sum, states have protection under the 10th Amendment to set their own policies. In demanding that blue cities and states follow the feds’ direction, the Trump regime impedes localities from translating “voter preferences into policy.” And, Jenkins wrote, such action denigrates state autonomy by seizing control over local jurisdictions’ employees (unconstitutionally “commandeering” them)—something at the heart of state sovereignty. (States’ refusal to be dragooned into manning Trump’s police state does not, as the government claimed, amount to impairing federal policy; rather, it constitutes exercising constitutionally protected sovereignty.)

Despite Trump’s executive decrees and legally dubious suits, states have every right to make their own law enforcement priorities and fund the policies they select. As Pritzker put it in a written statement, “Illinois ensures law enforcement time and energy is spent fighting crime—not carrying out the Trump Administration’s unlawful policies or troubling tactics.” Jenkins’ ruling protected its right to do so.’

Trump Waging War Against Blue States and Cities

So much for "states’ rights"

contrarian.substack.com

Conservatives are infamous for their hypocrisy.

Good. Trump's a fighter.

 

[Failzero]

The Federal Government has whole section of options to compel Local & State LEOs to enforce Federal laws every day ( like Getting the Redding Police Department or Shasta County Sheriff’s Department to work with them on a Cartel Pot grow operation bust ( and turn over The Cartel Henchmen illegals to ICE ) happens all the time here

Bump for effect

 

[Meathead]

They could. But the point is the state laws are not unconstitutional. The Feds cannot compel the states police to enforce those federal laws. Nor can they punish the states when they don't comply with a federal request to enforce federal laws either.

So maybe you could explain desegregation in the South.

 

[Rawley]

Vitriol. MAGANUTS truly believe.

Rush was Wrong. GRR.

OK. No idea what any of that means.

 

[The Irish Ram]

In other words, you can't name a state law that violates federal law concerning sanctuary cities. Run along now, let the adults play.

What I referenced has nothing to do with sanctuary cities, and everything to do with the Constitution. Any state, red or blue, that conflicts with federal law is unconstitutional. Period. In fact, the clause I mentioned, is called the Supremacy Clause.
Any state that violates federal law is unconstitutional. If you want to be specific concerning sanctuary cities, the reason Ice can and does deport illegals from sanctuary cities, is because federal law isn't tethered by state law.

An AI evaluation:
The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, establishes that the U.S. Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the supreme law of the land. This means that when state laws conflict with these federal laws, the federal laws take precedence and are binding on state courts.

 

[Winston]

They could. But the point is the state laws are not unconstitutional. The Feds cannot compel the states police to enforce those federal laws. Nor can they punish the states when they don't comply with a federal request to enforce federal laws either.

It is called the anti-commandeering doctrine. And what is so hilarious, that doctrine primarily derives from Printz v. United States.

It was about requiring mandatory background checks for firearm sales. So there you go, the reason the states and local government don't have to enforce federal regulations concerning illegal aliens is because, in 1997, the SCOTUS ruled that states and local governments don't have to enforce federal firearm regulations, like requiring a background check.

What I referenced has nothing to do with sanctuary cities, and everything to do with the Constitution. Any state, red or blue, that conflicts with federal law is unconstitutional. Period. In fact, the clause I mentioned, is called the Supremacy Clause.
Any state that violates federal law is unconstitutional. If you want to be specific concerning sanctuary cities, the reason Ice can and does deport illegals from sanctuary cities, is because federal law isn't tethered by state law.

What part of the anti-commandeering doctrine do you not understand?

 

[BlindBoo]

The Federal Government has whole section of options to compel Local & State LEOs to enforce Federal laws every day ( like Getting the Redding Police Department or Shasta County Sheriff’s Department to work with them on a Cartel Pot grow operation bust ( and turn over The Cartel Henchmen illegals to ICE ) happens all the time here

Cartel pot grow operations are illegal under state laws, so of course they should be allowed to cooperate. The industry is highly regulated on paper at least, certainly not in practice.

 

[The Irish Ram]

It is called the anti-commandeering doctrine. And what is so hilarious, that doctrine primarily derives from Printz v. United States.

It was about requiring mandatory background checks for firearm sales. So there you go, the reason the states and local government don't have to enforce federal regulations concerning illegal aliens is because, in 1997, the SCOTUS ruled that states and local governments don't have to enforce federal firearm regulations, like requiring a background check.

What part of the anti-commandeering doctrine do you not understand?

What other parts of the Constitution don't you understand, because you sure don't get Article 6.
Explain why ICE can enter a state or city sanctuary and arrest illegals.
Hierarchy of Laws:
It establishes a hierarchy where federal law, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, is superior to state law.

Federal law supercedes:
https://www.google.com/search?clien...dBlGhuuR6-8QfK4XEJz6kEGsYUsOrpaV6cCLKM&csui=3
When a state law conflicts with a valid federal law, the state law is rendered invalid.

 

[Winston]

What I referenced has nothing to do with sanctuary cities, and everything to do with the Constitution. Any state, red or blue, that conflicts with federal law is unconstitutional. Period. In fact, the clause I mentioned, is called the Supremacy Clause.
Any state that violates federal law is unconstitutional. If you want to be specific concerning sanctuary cities, the reason Ice can and does deport illegals from sanctuary cities, is because federal law isn't tethered by state law.

An AI evaluation:
The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, establishes that the U.S. Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the supreme law of the land. This means that when state laws conflict with these federal laws, the federal laws take precedence and are binding on state courts.

It was Scalia that delivered the opinion of the court, and check this part out,



The Government observes that statutes enacted by the first Congresses required state courts to record applications for citizenship, Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, § 1, 1 Stat. 103, to transmit abstracts of citizenship applications and other naturalization records to the Secretary of State, Act of June 18, 1798, ch. 54, § 2, 1 Stat. 567, and to register aliens seeking naturalization and issue certificates of registry, Act of Apr. 14, 1802, ch. 28, §2, 2 Stat. 154-155. It may well be, however, that these requirements applied only in States that authorized their courts to conduct naturalization proceedings. See Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, § 1, 1 Stat. 103; Holmgren v. United States, 217 U. S. 509, 516-517 (1910) (explaining that the Act of March 26, 1790, "conferred authority upon state courts to admit aliens to citizenship" and refraining from addressing the question "whether the States can be required to enforce such naturalization laws against their consent"); United States v. Jones, 109 U. S. 513, 519-520 (1883) (stating that these obligations were imposed "with the consent of the States" and "could not be enforced against the consent of the States").l

 

[The Irish Ram]

lol. Article 6 was around before there was a Scalia.

 

[BlindBoo]

So maybe you could explain desegregation in the South.

What do you mean? After WWII when all the vets returned after seeing a world with much less segregation, desegregation in the south accelerated. It sort of culminated under Ike.

"President Eisenhower ordered the 101st Airborne Division into Little Rock to insure the safety of the "Little Rock Nine" after "Governor Faubus ordered the Arkansas National Guard to surround Central High School to keep the nine students from entering the school"

Civil Rights: The Little Rock School Integration Crisis | Eisenhower Presidential Library

www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov

It was a constitutional issue. Civil Rights

There is no Constitutional Amendment that Outlaws Cannabis Nation wide, like there was for alcohol.

 

[Meathead]

What do you mean? After WWII when all the vets returned after seeing a world with much less segregation, desegregation in the south accelerated. It sort of culminated under Ike.

"President Eisenhower ordered the 101st Airborne Division into Little Rock to insure the safety of the "Little Rock Nine" after "Governor Faubus ordered the Arkansas National Guard to surround Central High School to keep the nine students from entering the school"

Civil Rights: The Little Rock School Integration Crisis | Eisenhower Presidential Library

www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov

It was a constitutional issue. Civil Rights

There is no Constitutional Amendment that Outlaws Cannabis Nation wide, like there was for alcohol.

Read your post again.