How exactly does the Justice Department sue a state? States rights are supposed to Trump Feds, correct? So....
So...someone explain to me...
- Thread starter SilentStalkr
- Start date
Because the feds give zero fucks about state’s rights.
- Nov 3, 2010
- 10,710
- 23,651
Because the feds don’t give a fuck about ANY rights
I agree with you guys and my understanding that states are supposed to run themselves. So, if a texas wants to have their abortion law im pretty sure that they can tell the feds to fuck off! I’d just go on business as usual. What are the feds going to do to texas? Kick them out of the US? Hell they’d probably like that!
You've had to much to think.
The above only works/is allowed when it effects illegal immigration.
R
- Nov 3, 2010
- 10,710
- 23,651
If that were true, and sTates ran themselves, we would be under the thumb for NFA rules and many other bullshit rules. Would also mean the interstate highways would suck even more cause the feds probably wouldn’t supplement funding. I think it’s a “you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours” relationship.
Federal law is higher than State Law
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.
If a state violates a Federal law, it can be sued by the Justice department. That being said, I am not sure what you are specifically alluding to
Last edited:
Because states have been letting the federal government blackmail them for years with threats of holding back federal funds if said state doesn't do what the fed wants.
notice they aren't suing any states for allowing heroin and other "hard" drugs.
It’s 100% all about the “Highway Funds”
states could wise up and refuse to pay OUR taxes to THEM
I think what you are thinking about is state sovereignty. The lawsuits will be filed from the angle of Constitutional rights being violated by the law in Texas. You have to show a nexus to federal law or Constitutional issues.
This with one caveat,
It only applies powers/items specifically designated in the constitution for the three branches. The 10th amendment says if it is not specifically mentioned, that power/right is reserved for the state.:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Problem: The "Nessecary and Proper" Clause (Article I) has been bent over so hard, that the feds really have no limit. For example if you grow too much grain, but never sell it, that is regulated by congress under interstate commerce. Read that sentence until the dumb overcomes you.
If you think I'm making that up:
Wickard v. Filburn - Wikipedia
The offender:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Yes that is correctThis with one caveat,
It only applies powers/items specifically designated in the constitution for the three branches. The 10th amendment says if it is not specifically mentioned, that power/right is reserved for the state.:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Problem: The "Nessecary and Proper" Clause (Article I) has been bent over so hard, that the feds really have no limit. For example if you grow too much grain, but never sell it, that is regulated by congress under interstate commerce. Read that sentence until the dumb overcomes you.
If you think I'm making that up:
Wickard v. Filburn - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The offender:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Fed laws tend to be much broader in scope allowing for the states to be as restrictive or more restrictive ( by perspective ). Not to mention a key term called "reciprocity" which is supposed to be shared by Fed and states.
Yes, that’s exactly what I am talking about.
Bingo!!! And what I’m referring to is the recent Texas abortion law that now the Justice Department is now suing over. I’m still not seeing how the feds can sue Texas for that.This with one caveat,
It only applies powers/items specifically designated in the constitution for the three branches. The 10th amendment says if it is not specifically mentioned, that power/right is reserved for the state.:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Problem: The "Nessecary and Proper" Clause (Article I) has been bent over so hard, that the feds really have no limit. For example if you grow too much grain, but never sell it, that is regulated by congress under interstate commerce. Read that sentence until the dumb overcomes you.
If you think I'm making that up:
Wickard v. Filburn - Wikipedia
The offender:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Similar threads
