Trump Waging War Against Blue States and Cities

[Winston]

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:
Google Search
When a state law conflicts with a valid federal law, the state law is rendered invalid.

Damn, can you get more stupid. I understand Article 6 pretty damn well. You are the one that can't grasp your head around it. Your hate and racism blinded you to what in front of your flippin face. Let's look at it closely, shall we.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Where in the **** do you see that the executive branch are bound to shit? Where is it? Come on, show me you flippin idi

From Printz v. United States.

And the Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, cl. 2, announced that "the Laws of the United States ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby." It is understandable why courts should have been viewed distinctively in this regard; unlike legislatures and executives, they applied the law of other sovereigns all the time. The principle underlying so-called "transitory" causes of action was that laws which operated elsewhere created obligations in justice that courts of the forum State would enforce. See, e. g., McKenna v. Fisk, 1 How. 241, 247-249 (1843). The Constitution itself, in the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Art. IV; § 1, generally required such enforcement with respect to obligations arising in other States. See Hughes v. Fetter, 341 U. S. 609 (1951).


For these reasons, we do not think the early statutes imposing obligations on state courts imply a power of Congress to impress the state executive into its service. Indeed, it can be argued that the numerousness of these statutes, contrasted with the utter lack of statutes imposing obligations
on the States' executive (notwithstanding the attractiveness of that course to Congress), suggests an assumed absence of such power.

And that is the late, Great Scalia that wrote that opinion. And as I also pointed out, Scalia went all way back to 1790, in an immigration case, to lay the foundation for his opinion. Now run along, probably past your bedtime, and don't quote the Constitution ever again unless you start learning something.

 

[Winston]

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

WTF, are you like 12?

 

[Winston]

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

A whole section of options to compel? Really? I mean they can ask nicely, but force them, not hardly. They can cut funding. I mean come on. Have any of you yahoos heard of the National Minimum Age Drinking Act of 1984. Reagan signed it. Hell, maybe some of you remember it.

The act threatened to remove highway funding if a state did not raise the minimum age to 21. Why the hell did they have to do that. Why didn't they just say, every state has to raise the minimum drinking age to 21. Supremacy Clause, Article 6, Section 2. Slap a time frame, impose criminal penalties, and then, if a state legislature didn't comply, flipping send in the paddy wagon and arrests those state legislators. Governor refuses, lock him up, or her, whatever.

$&^%$*, they couldn't do that. They couldn't do that in 1790 and they still can't do it. Judges, as the Supremacy Clause says, do have an obligation to uphold federal law, but the thing is, judges are consistently asked to make calls about cross jurisdictional matters. The governor is under no obligation to enforce federal laws, and the state legislatures are free to make, or remove laws, they see fit, as long as it is not a violation of the Constitution.

There are really important reasons for that, needless to say, no need to get into them with you flippin morons. The president can choose which laws he wants his justice department to enforce and which one he doesn't want them to enforce. The same holds true for GOVERNORS. For local police departments, for Sheriffs. It has always been that way for Christ's sake.

I mean can you imagine, during prohibition. Some federal agents strolls into the Sheriff's office in some backwoods town deep in the Appalachian mountains. He "orders", I am laughing sitting here thinking about it, he orders that sheriff to take him to all the illegal stills in the county. Sheriff laughs too. Mind you, he knows where each and every one is. Then the federal agent simply asks him to tell him where the stills are. Sheriff laughs even harder. "You on your own cowboy", and that is the end of that.

Now after prohibition states started placing an excise tax on liquor. Then, and only then, did local sheriff offices and state agents start enforcing laws against producing untaxed liquor, because the state was losing revenue and the state had passed laws. But even today, in some areas, it is still like it used to be. South Mountain, birthplace of the Cherry Bounce, drive down Goldenrod road as the sun is coming up. Witness the wisps of white smoke coming up here and there, it is those moonshine stills operating.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Oh my. Winston! do you need a couple Midol?

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under the authority of the United States, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.

 

[The Irish Ram]

A whole section of options to compel? Really? I mean they can ask nicely, but force them, not hardly. They can cut funding. I mean come on. Have any of you yahoos heard of the National Minimum Age Drinking Act of 1984. Reagan signed it. Hell, maybe some of you remember it.

The act threatened to remove highway funding if a state did not raise the minimum age to 21. Why the hell did they have to do that. Why didn't they just say, every state has to raise the minimum drinking age to 21. Supremacy Clause, Article 6, Section 2. Slap a time frame, impose criminal penalties, and then, if a state legislature didn't comply, flipping send in the paddy wagon and arrests those state legislators. Governor refuses, lock him up, or her, whatever.

$&^%$*, they couldn't do that. They couldn't do that in 1790 and they still can't do it. Judges, as the Supremacy Clause says, do have an obligation to uphold federal law, but the thing is, judges are consistently asked to make calls about cross jurisdictional matters. The governor is under no obligation to enforce federal laws, and the state legislatures are free to make, or remove laws, they see fit, as long as it is not a violation of the Constitution.

There are really important reasons for that, needless to say, no need to get into them with you flippin morons. The president can choose which laws he wants his justice department to enforce and which one he doesn't want them to enforce. The same holds true for GOVERNORS. For local police departments, for Sheriffs. It has always been that way for Christ's sake.

I mean can you imagine, during prohibition. Some federal agents strolls into the Sheriff's office in some backwoods town deep in the Appalachian mountains. He "orders", I am laughing sitting here thinking about it, he orders that sheriff to take him to all the illegal stills in the county. Sheriff laughs too. Mind you, he knows where each and every one is. Then the federal agent simply asks him to tell him where the stills are. Sheriff laughs even harder. "You on your own cowboy", and that is the end of that.

Now after prohibition states started placing an excise tax on liquor. Then, and only then, did local sheriff offices and state agents start enforcing laws against producing untaxed liquor, because the state was losing revenue and the state had passed laws. But even today, in some areas, it is still like it used to be. South Mountain, birthplace of the Cherry Bounce, drive down Goldenrod road as the sun is coming up. Witness the wisps of white smoke coming up here and there, it is those moonshine stills operating.

^^^^^ A condom could have prevented that post...

 

[Hollie]

Conservatives are dishonest and hypocrites – like Trump they’re enemies of the Constitution and the rule of law.

It is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute that the Federal government cannot compel states to enforce Federal laws, including immigration laws.

Gee whiz, Hitler. Your fawning admiration for sanctuary cities is a joke as nowhere in the Constitution are illegal alien “sanctuaries” addressed.

Curious that you want protections for the criminal illegal killers, thieves and rapists you insist are a protected class. Where in the Constitution are there such protections for the criminal illegal killers, thieves and rapists you idolize?

 

[Mac-7]

‘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.

I see no difference between requiring states to obey federal law by turning illegal alien criminals in local jails over to ICE instead of releasing them, to other federal laws such as school desegregation

 

[San Souci]

‘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 ,since THOSE States are waging War against him.

 

[Meathead]

^^^^^ A condom could have prevented that post...

Or an abortion, but it's too late now.

 

[San Souci]

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:
Federal Law Supersedes - Google Search
When a state law conflicts with a valid federal law, the state law is rendered invalid.

And illegal Aliens are a FEDERAL Matter--Which Commie Libs don't understand

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

‘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.

Millions will die!