quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
As far as I know, the federal laws that are on the books are still quite enforceable...anywhere. The feds, i.e., Obama, DOJ have re-prioritized or chosen not to enforce many.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
In many cases, states can not pass laws that superseded the Federal Government and/or the US Constitution. Republicans have tried it a few times, and failed. However, in places were the federal law is not exact or 'covering' there is room for states to decide how concepts play out (i.e. the 10th amendment). Its one thing to create a law that protects 'net neutrality' in a state. Since the federal government as a whole (not counting the FCC's release today) has not weighed in on he matter and established laws. Its another for a state to say 'abortion is illegal' or 'no federal gun laws are enforced here'. There was that issue with a couple of screw balls that wanted to shoot down drone copters used by the feds for a variety of does, and going so far as to make it legal. Well, they found once they did it, they would get fined and possibly thrown in jail.

Arizona was not trying to help the Fed out over immigration. They were setting up their own 'passport' system that was draconian in nature. The joke of adding N and I before and after _ A Z _ , was due to this police of Arizona's state government body. The matter was put down, because states can not dictate foreign policy to the federal government. What those in Arizona should have done, is press for realistic and logical changes at the federal level. Even going so far as to make a deal with Congressional Democrats on another issue. For example, if those along the Southern Border with Mexico had issued a compromise with the President and Democrats. Say, one that is attached to the passing of the Affordable Care Act of 2010. A 'carrier' that would place more fencing and manpower to operate; they could have gotten it in many cases. But, conservatives are irrationally stupid most of the time, and didnt do it. They had this amazing opportunity to get something they wanted, and they PISSED IT AWAY!

Granted, movements to change the federal stance on something starts at the local level and grows from there. Removing anti-gay marriage laws is a good example of this 'grass roots' activism. Firearm advocates on the other hand have a steep up hill battle. As often many of their methods, thoughts, and considerations pace them at odds with other Americans that are not stupid, dimwitted, or foolish. If firearm advocates want something, they better be ready to compromise qute well to get it. The fact that they have not gotten far shows their wiliness to make a compromise.

Unless they have passed a new law what the Montana law said was that if a firearm was made in state and sold instate Federal law didn't apply. The justification was that firearms laws were based on the interstate commerce clause. No interstate commerce, no justification.
As for AZ all they were doing was enforcing Federal law, not overriding it.
Colorado on the other hand nullified Federal pot laws.

First off, Montana could pass the law it wanted to. It was done to score political points by Republicans to its base. Nothing more. Enforcing that law is where the issue comes undone. Montana is demanding the federal government obey its viewpoints, or else! Could you imagine a liberal state demanding the federal government do things it wanted, because it pass a law to score political points with its base. Would you have a problem with it? Of course you would! Which is why the practice is not allowed. Its the Supremacy Clause in effect.

Arizona was demanding the Federal Government ignore the US Constitution, because it was inconvenient to the local Republican/Tea Party. When someone is taken into custody by law enforcement, they are entitled to all the same protections under the law as you and me. If they are accused of being an illegal alien, they have a right to a lawyer and court. Arizona wanted to....skip...a few steps. That an assuming anyone that was not white needed to prove their innocence rather than the government (that would be Arizona) has to prove guilt. All this was done for political points with Republican/Tea Party voters; not, because Arizona was trying to help the Fed out.

Again, a state can pass and create laws that may place it at odds with the Federal Government. That is why we have a Judicial branch of government. That organization hears the arguments from the state and federal lawyers on the issue, and makes a ruling. I'm not saying whether I agree with Colorado's action or not here. Simply explaining the underlying process. Perhaps making Colorado a 'test' location for allowing similar laws at the federal level to be made. So the state figures out what works and doesn't work, before taking to a national stage. That is what was done with the Affordable Care Act. A program was devised and instituted in Massachusetts. Its worked very well since. It has its problems, but nothing that cant be fixed with study.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Firearms advocates have compromised but as soon as they do it is declared to be a start so why bother.

The problem is....how...they push legislation. That the majority of them are trying in earnest and honesty to make a fair deal happen. Its their more...extreme...elements that then take the material and put a 'political bent' to it. What comes out, is what the public views: something that is 1/3rd intimidating, 1/3rd threatening, and 1/3 irrational/insane. An it has always undermined firearm advocates pressing for reasonable changes at the federal level. Granted, the 'left' have similar problems with its extremists.

I've stated it before, and do so again: the extremes of the firearm debate in the nation, control the debate. When gun owners and concern citizens, sit down, discuss things, and make honest/good compromises; we'll get good laws regarding firearms. Most Americans are in favor of background checks on firearms. Likewise, tighter violations for people that miss use firearms in a negligent or careless manner. That it could be said firearms can and have been used for the self-defense of the individual. What I'm saying here, is there is plenty of room for gun owners and concern citizens to meet, and make a better set of policies. But that can not happen, until gun owners put a muzzle on gun nuts; and for concern citizens to do the same for gun controllers.

I think we have even tried to discuss several different things on the threads (related to firearms). Ever notice the gun nuts and gun controllers coming out to disrupt and undermine the threads? They (gun nuts and gun controllers), have EVERYTHING to lose with gun owners and concern citizens getting together (whom in my humble opinion is the majority of Americans), to discuss better firearm laws. The sort of laws the American society can agree, knowing the potential pitfalls and problems that will come about. It takes gun owners understanding the desires and fears of concern citizens, and likewise vise versa to make this happen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

By worse, I was thinking more in line with full employment by lawyers and some state officials (If memory is right didn't a graduating class of police cadets threaten to arrest Holder if he came) shuffling paper and leaving the people out in the cold through constant bickering over points. Like it is today, but multiply by any hypothetical multiplier you think is appropriate.

quote:

Darren Hodges, a Tea Party Republican and councilman in the windy West Texas city of Fort Stockton, is a fierce defender of his town’s decision to ban plastic bags. It was a local solution to a local problem and one, he says, city officials had a “God-given right” to make.

But the power of Fort Stockton and other cities to govern themselves is under attack in the state capital, Austin. The new Republican governor, Greg Abbott, has warned that several cities are undermining the business-friendly “Texas model” with a patchwork of ill-conceived regulations. Conservative legislators, already angered by a ban on fracking that was enacted by popular vote in the town of Denton last fall, quickly followed up with a host of bills to curtail local power.

“The truth is, Texas is being California-ized, and you may not even be noticing it,” Mr. Abbott said in a speech at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, an influential conservative think tank, just before he took office last month. “Large cities that represent about 75 percent of the population in this state are doing this to us. Unchecked overregulation by cities will turn the Texas miracle into the California nightmare.”

quote:

So-called pre-emption laws, passed in states across the country, have barred cities from regulating landlords, building municipal broadband systems and raising the minimum wage. In the last two years, eight Republican-dominated states, most recently Alabama and Oklahoma, have prevented cities from enacting paid sick leave for workers, and a new law in Arkansas forbids municipalities to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination. Already this year, bills introduced in six more states, including Michigan, Missouri and South Carolina, seek to do the same. At least five states have pre-empted local regulation of e-cigarettes. And in New Mexico, the restaurant industry supports a modest increase to the minimum wage only if the state stops cities from mandating higher minimums.

Often these efforts are driven by industry, which finds it easier to wield influence in 50 capitols than in thousands of city halls, said Mark Pertschuk, the director of Grassroots Change, which opposes the pre-emption of public health measures.

...

Pre-emption invokes a paradox for conservatives, like Mr. Abbott, who have long extolled the virtues of local control in some areas, like education, but now say uniform standards are necessary in others.

“It has seemed hypocritical that the state wants the federal government to give the states more power, yet at the state level, they want to take power away from cities and counties,” Mr. Hodges, the Fort Stockton official, said in a telephone interview.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
As far as I know, the federal laws that are on the books are still quite enforceable...anywhere. The feds, i.e., Obama, DOJ have re-prioritized or chosen not to enforce many.

And in spite of his repeated proclamations to the contrary Obama seems to think he can write law. You know when he said that if congress wouldn't write the immigration law he wanted he would do it by executive order. In his own words that means he has declared himself to be a tyrant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
THIS IS NOT A GUN THREAD
And every thing else is also nonsense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
THIS IS NOT A GUN THREAD
And every thing else is also nonsense.

No, no its not a gun thread. But you brought up the issue on firearms at a state-level perspective. So I merely stated so in kind. The nature of what I was stating had nothing to do with current gun laws. But rather on the behavior in handling existing laws and/or the creation of future ones. Notice, I did put it as a separate idea to the other three that you brought up? Because I felt the sub-topic nature was not 'state viewed' but 'individual viewed'. Meaning not you specifically, but individuals of a state, rather than the state's view.

Everything else stated is true. Just because you disagree with it, does not make it untrue. Nor explain why it would be nonesense. I stated why it would make sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
As far as I know, the federal laws that are on the books are still quite enforceable...anywhere. The feds, i.e., Obama, DOJ have re-prioritized or chosen not to enforce many.

And in spite of his repeated proclamations to the contrary Obama seems to think he can write law. You know when he said that if congress wouldn't write the immigration law he wanted he would do it by executive order. In his own words that means he has declared himself to be a tyrant.

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator"

President-Elect George W. Bush, December 18, 2000.

I give the above as an example of reality meets with fiction. George Bush may have been many things, but he was NOT a dictator. Mr. Obama can write laws. He has the skills, education, knowledge, and ability. So can many others. But is currently in the executive branch of our government. In that area, there is some leeway to operate on things. This includes directing how the Federal government will handle a particular issue or not. He did not pass the Affordable Care Act himself. That would be Congress. The President's healthcare bill was much better than the ACA final version, but that's irrelevant for the moment. The point here, is that Mr. Obama (and his team) did write a healthcare bill to be sent to Congress. And a healthcare bill did get voted and approved in March of 2010.

Just because you disagree with the man and his viewpoints, does....NOT....make him a tyrant. Otherwise any US President I disagree with is a tyrant. Likewise anyone in Congress I disagree with is a tyrant as well. Then at the state levels, anyone I disagree with in mine or the other 49, are tyrants as well. Do you get the idea that its a pretty silly concept? And its watering down a strong word, that should be reserved for very direct reasons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

As far as I know, the federal laws that are on the books are still quite enforceable...anywhere. The feds, i.e., Obama, DOJ have re-prioritized or chosen not to enforce many.

And in spite of his repeated proclamations to the contrary Obama seems to think he can write law. You know when he said that if congress wouldn't write the immigration law he wanted he would do it by executive order. In his own words that means he has declared himself to be a tyrant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
As far as I know, the federal laws that are on the books are still quite enforceable...anywhere. The feds, i.e., Obama, DOJ have re-prioritized or chosen not to enforce many.

If you go back and study things objectively; each administration and DOJ have done the same. The Republican administrations under George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush were pretty relaxed on environmental laws (for example).

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
As far as I know, the federal laws that are on the books are still quite enforceable...anywhere. The feds, i.e., Obama, DOJ have re-prioritized or chosen not to enforce many.

If you go back and study things objectively; each administration and DOJ have done the same. The Republican administrations under George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush were pretty relaxed on environmental laws (for example).

But nobody called it nullification when states like CA enforced stricter laws.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
As far as I know, the federal laws that are on the books are still quite enforceable...anywhere. The feds, i.e., Obama, DOJ have re-prioritized or chosen not to enforce many.

If you go back and study things objectively; each administration and DOJ have done the same. The Republican administrations under George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush were pretty relaxed on environmental laws (for example).

But nobody called it nullification when states like CA enforced stricter laws.

Umm, no it would not be called nullification. Nullification is the concept that the United States, being a union of free states, a federal law found to be untenable to a state may be nullified within that state's borders by vote of elected state representatives.

This is a concept akin to "jury nullification" where a jury of your peers might decide that the statue you are accused of violating is not really a crime and vote to acquit. Note, the legal establishments really don't want to talk about that concept and are of the opinion that if it is in the legal code; the jury just gets to vote whether the code was violated or not. Even if the code is something as silly as "you can't paint your goat on Sunday".