[Newfie]

I thought it might be useful to start a thread about what appears to be a clash in defining rights and defining who grants rights.

There is the old State vs federal rights debate. That seems to be expanding with the emergence of the sanctuary city concept and also over marajuana legislation.

In PA there is state legislation that bans any municipality from requiring a license or permit to purchase a gun. Federal law holds marajuana use illegal but states are legalizing it. Cities are granting illegal citizens protection within their boarders against federal/state prosecution.

It strikes me that at some level our system of government is breaking down when you have such competition between governmental units. How is a person to know what laws are in effect where and more importantly which enforcement agency is in power at a given moment.

One can eSily see this kind of confusion on the waters where you have federal (USCG), state (state police, fish and wildlife, environmental), and local police all patrolling a common body of water. There was a story from last year where some guy out for a boat ride with his family was "routinely" boarded by FOUR different agencies in a single trip (NY state.).

There was a case where a captain was boarded by a Federal agency, asked if there were guns on board. He showed the Feds where the Owner kept a gun. The Feds said and did nothing but told state authorities who arrested the Captain. The vessel was registered in another state but was transisting NJ.

These simple examples get more interesting when discussing matters such as national concealed carry and sanctuary cities. I can see a situation where locals obtain concealed carry in order to intimidate federal authorities from imposing federal immigration statutes.

It strikes me that we are jeapordizing our cohesion as an identifiable governable unit. Perhaps the greatest threat to the USA is that we no longer recognize the ties that bind?

Is it all starting to break down?

[Cog]

The Supremacy Clause to the Constitution. Article 6 Clause 2


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 [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

There has been and always be tension between the states and the federal government because of the Supremacy clause. The federal government must intrude on the rights of the states when individual human rights are suppressed within the states. Voting rights for blacks in southern states is a good example. The federal government must also intervene in states when a federal mandated function of theirs is being interfered with by the states. Immigration control is a clear function of the federal government.

Where this gets extremely sticky is where the federal system intervenes in the states where there is no clear constitutional conflict in individual rights or in a enumerated function of the federal government. Marriage for instance is not mentioned as an individual right nor is it an enumerated function of the federal government. Yet, the federal government has intervened and has established that gay marriage is a right in all fifty states, notwithstanding that many states had laws against it. Such conflicts also came up with regards to ObamaCare and the individual mandate to purchase health insurance.

You have to severely torture the text of the Constitution to find a reason for the federal government to involve themselves in either decision. But SCOTUS has ruled and that ship has sailed for now.

But going back to Newfie's question. The federal government has taken on so many roles that were not enumerated or even considered when the Constitution was written, that conflict has been created. My idea is that the size and scope of the federal government should be reduced and let the states make more decisions unless it involves an enumerated individual right or an enumerated function of the federal government. Don't like how your state does things? Move to another one.

[Newfie]

But as you mention the SCOTUS has ruled outside its scope. Now we have states and even cities imposing local laws.

Let's go to you 50 stated concealed carry example. Let's suppose it is enacted and you go to NJ and there are arressted because THEY don't recognize the federal statute.

Isn't that the situation we now have with marijuana and sanctuary cities?

Let's suppose the Feds were to try to uphold the immigration laws in said sanctuary city. How would the city react? Would they put police out to confront the National Guard? What if the Governor decides to side with the state?


IMHO the Feds should withdraw from, remove marijuana legislation. Ceed that to the states. But they should not allow this sanctuary movement to fester. It encourages local pols to flex and abuse power. Are there any SCOUTUS cases pending?

[ROCKMAN]

"...where the federal system intervenes in the states where there is no clear constitutional conflict in individual rights". I looked but so far haven't found that Constitutional clause that covered speed laws on our highways. But I'll keep digging. LOL.

[Newfie]

Showing your age there ol timer.

[Cog]

I am unaware of any court cases before SCOTUS concerning sanctuary cities. Its not like the current DOJ is going to bring forth one. Concerning marijuana, I agree. I would decriminalize it on the federal level but it is currently listed as a Schedule 1 drug. A classification reserved for the most serious of prohibited drugs.

Theoretically, a Trump era DEA could go into Colorado and bust every single store that sell marijuana and arrest every consumer who brought their product. That's not going to happen by the way. Here again, the feds should stay out of the drug issue because its not a clear violation of an individual right or some mandated function of the federal government.

There are a lot of ways for Trump to punish cities using the full power of the executive branch over the sanctuary cities. There are sizable fines and prison time for those who harbor illegal aliens or facilitate their presence. All it takes is for someone who is interested in enforcing current law. Even if Trump could not have city elected officials convicted, he could sure have them arrested by US marshals. Bankrupt the city by endless litigation costs if nothing else. Is Colorado fully complying with federal EPA standards or Department of Labor standards? I can guarantee the feds could find they are not and hammer them with fines. When the full weight of a federal agency is brought to bear on an individual or group of individuals, they almost always cave in.

[MD]

I like short answers.

"It's a hot mess."

[Newfie]

That's right MD, a hot mess.

And how is the population to sort out this mess and know what to do? This is government failing on its basic obligations, it's most basic obligations, to the citizenry. In summation the government is collectively communicating they can not agree, can not work together. It's like a disfunctional family where parents are bitterly engaged in power struggles and are courting the kids to take sides.

I fear the upshot may be some regions breaking into open rebellion. I can see Hillary as Mayor of New York declaring her rules trump Federal statutes. Not a pretty thought.

[Cog]

In the dystopian right wing survivalist fiction, it was always the conservatives that broke away and formed their patriot states. Would be an interesting twist if it was the progressives on the east and west coast who broke away from us flyover states.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alexander Warbucks', '&')quot;If you wish to keep slaves, you must have all kinds of guards. The cheapest way to have guards is to have the slaves pay taxes to finance their own guards. To fool the slaves, you tell them that they are not slaves and that they have Freedom. You tell them they need Law and Order to protect them against bad slaves. Then you tell them to elect a Government. Give them Freedom to vote and they will vote for their own guards and pay their salary. They will then believe they are Free persons. Then give them money to earn, count and spend and they will be too busy to notice the slavery they are in." -

[ROCKMAN]

Cog - "All it takes is for someone who is interested in enforcing current law". That's just the thing: we don't need new laws or to directly punish cities directly. We don't even need to track down illegals and deport them. Just enforce the existing IRS laws. Want to shake up city hall in Sanfran: send 30 undercover Hispanic FBI agents there, work a while for local businesses off book with no social security payments made along with other accounting violations, arrest the 30 businessmen with felony charges hitting with big financial penalties and a couple of years even at soft prison time and jobs for the illegals will begin to dry up in Sanfran and other sanctuary cities. A lot cheaper then building the Wall.

And a shitty thing to do to the illegals. I have great sympathy for them. I worked in Mexico and know first hand how shitty life is for many of them. If I were one I would do as they've done. Simply a matter of survival. But that plan wouldn't be supported by many R's who like that cheap labor. Especially small buisnesses where the great bulk of job growth occures. And R's that don't care to see a robust immigration policy that would force then to follow labor and tax laws.

With the president-elect not being a true R we'll see if he takes what would appear to be an anti-(illegal)business approach.

[Newfie]

Great quote Tanada.

Rockman,
Good analysis, however I'm wondering if you see any danger in the rule of law breaking into regionalism?

[ROCKMAN]

Cog - "Would be an interesting twist if it was the progressives on the east and west coast who broke away from us flyover states." As Tonto would ask the Lone Ranger: "What do you mean IF, white man?" LOL. Didn't this election prove that has already happened on various levels? It will be interesting to see with the PEOTUS, a New Yorker, handles west coast matters differently then on the east coast.

The country is already split into 4 subsets: New England, west coast and "flyover country". 0h, I forgot, and Texas. LOL

[Newfie]

I can see the blue states thumbing their nose at (he's not MY President) Trump and corcing his hand, just for spite.

[ROCKMAN]

"corcing"? Is that some slang for "shitting in"?

[Newfie]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '&')quot;corcing"? Is that some slang for "shitting in"?

[Cog]

Talk is mostly cheap Newfie. Much like when people say "From my cold dead hands" when it comes to gun control. Most people will comply when it comes down to prison time or even a major inconvenience. The sanctuary city mayors are talking trash right now since it doesn't cost them anything to do so. Bring on some federal pain and most of them will bend the knee.

[careinke]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '&')quot;corcing"? Is that some slang for "shitting in"?

[Newfie]

Cog,
I think you are underestimating the amount of animosity and degree of hubris. Much like the D's did the same. There is a strong deep hatred for Trump and anyone who voted for him. I believe there was also a strong deep hatred of Obama, heightened by Hillary. I sense, perhaps incorrectly, that both sides have a score to settle, that usually doesn't end well.

In retrospect I see this more as two political enemies aligning for battle. The one side is promoting a guise of anarchy, freedom from oppression, as a way to mobilize the masses.

I'm not freaking out or claiming doom. I just think it bears watching. Maybe you'll get to use your Gilley suit after all. I saw some folks use them to scare the daylights out of folks Halloween. Brightly lit city neighborhood street, they simply stood still against a vine covered wall, then jumped out. OMG!

[ROCKMAN]

Newfie - I deal with the oil patch daily including pure 100% racists homophobic redneck field hands. And in general I've never heard the level of nastiness leveled at President Obama behind closed doors as from liberals berating the PEOTUS in the MSM spotlight.

And I'm hearing much greater levels of animosity towards the anti-Trump camp from the right (including folks that didn't care much for the PEOTUS getting the R nomination) then I heard about Secretary Clinton. Not sure and time will tell but there may be some serious backlash against the anti-PEOTUS crowd down the road. Even those on the right that truly feel the PEOTUS isn't a very good choice despise those attacking the system that elected him. Just not considered the "American way".