I'm sure I'll be labeled a social justice warrior and probably the above word, but damn... as someone with a family member that has special needs, that "tard" suffix hurts every damn time. It "feels like cut" every time she hears that word (or a variation) and because I love her so much, it feels the same way to me. I'm not chastising or reprimanding. Just letting you know how your words make people feel.
that's where you're wrong. I never said officers should break the law. I said that they might not be aware of the law and it's up to department supervisors to communicate it down. I also said it's possible with all the protestor chaos that officers on the ground aren't getting realtime information. my final point was that officers may not be aware they are breaking the law so punishing them would be just misguided rage and any reasonable person would agree with that. unless you're suggesting officers should take their orders from breaking news tweets? you know if you libtards weren't so triggered you might be able to comprehend my posts. your rage is blinding.
I don't have an issue with federal employees being fired and facing criminal investigation for ignoring federal law, and that includes the sale/use of mar1juana and sanctuary cities. If the law is clear, and it is being violated by federal employees in a position of authority, they should face consequences.
Well I'm glad you are quoting the constitution because that's exactly what proves you wrong here, the second clause of article six of the constitution establishes the supremacy of federal law over state law.....so there's no 10th amendment argument.....but I do appreciate you quoting the constitution, it's all too often ignored by those on the fringes of the left and right when it goes against their argument.
Then we agree completely.....although admittedly I think the immigration policy needs work and the fact that mar1juana is illegal is stupid, that doesn't mean you can ignore it. I would also want those employees ignoring the court order to be fired and possibly prosecuted if appropriate.
not to derail but so many in my family and circle use r****d, not as a slur obviously, but just a bad habit. i also cuss more than i should, again bad language habits. i also grew up in the 80s so my vocabulary growing up was not so pc. i honestly will try harder.
I agree with you on mar1juana, I believe that it is a huge waste of time and resources. Having said that, the law is clear, and there are legal/systemic ways to change the law other than simply breaking the law. The last two President's have increased the executive branch power to a scary level. People had no issue with the expansion as long as their party was in the White House..... well now we are seeing what happens.
Which is why people should have been against it all along. I hate that kind of short sighted nonsense. When they went "nuclear" to essentially get rid of the filibuster for several different things in 2013, people warned the Democrats how it could come back and bite them in the ass, but they did it anyway. It's possible the Republicans might erode that even more now that they have things they want to force through without considering the opinion or objection of the minority party. It's all pretty dumb honestly. You are also right that it wasn't just Obama, Bush expanded presidential power quite a bit himself, and yeah, when the right is in power, they don't worry about it when their guy does it when the left is in power they don't worry about it when their guy does it....and eventually that's how the whole system gets jacked up.
Wrong! Show where you see that in the second clause of article six of the Constitution. Here it is right here. It says that judges and states are bound to the Constitution. You misunderstand the second clause of article six of the Constitution.
You not understanding the supremacy clause in article 6 isn't my problem, but it's there. Here's the actual language As to thinking that I misunderstand the intention of this clause, the SCOTUS has ruled time and time again that any time a state law conflicts with a federal law that the state law is to be struck down as unconstitutional. They even ruled in 2000 that even when a state law is not in direct conflict with a federal law, the state law could still be found unconstitutional under the supremacy clause if the "state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congress's full purposes and objectives". Now that said, I'm glad they haven't gone after mar1juana laws because I personally think that the federal laws against mar1juana are ridiculous, but they clearly could strike them down in a heartbeat if they wanted to because legalization is in direct conflict with the federal law which is the supreme law of the land.
You know it took an actual constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol. Because . . . the constitution did not grant the power to ban it.
Sorry man, you're just completely wrong here. Things can be and are banned at a federal level and it doesn't take a constitutional amendment to do so. Also things banned at the federal level are automatically banned at a state level due to the supremacy of the federal law. I've cited the constitution and SCOTUS rulings to back this point, it's really the closest thing to settled law that there is. At one point states thought that they could create their own laws to supersede federal laws.....and it led to civil war. Since then, it's pretty clear which laws are supreme.
All of our parents, grandparents, great grandparents, etc.. were dude. Times are different now though.
You incorrectly quoted the 10th amendment, of course, if it actually applied in this instance, don't you think that the SCOTUS would have ruled that ANY of the times that state laws were struck down for conflicting with federal laws? The reason to make something a constitutional amendment is to make it semi-permanent. You can do most of those things with just a bill, but then it can be easily struck down by a different bill, if you manage to get a constitutional amendment passed, it becomes REALLY hard to change. It would be like congress balancing the budget vs passing a balanced budget amendment.
