If you believe in "states' rights"

[Politruk]

I noticed you're not at all upset that for 50 YEARS Democrats failed to regulate

To regulate what?

 

[UltraChad]

So, is it a Constitutional right or a State's right?

You decide.

Is what a Constitutional right?

 

[UltraChad]

To regulate what?

Abortion rights.

Or even better yet codify them as an actual right??? If you were willing to pull back off absolutism and compromise "until viability" you'd have an ultra super uber mega majority support, it would have been the 28th amendment back in the 90's. Issue largely settled.

But then what would democrats dangle and fear monger women with???

Even just recently when they had all the power and made all the hooplah over it, they could have stopped it and at least passed legislation ....buuUUUuuutt they didn't!!!! They don't actually care about abortion rights, they care about keeping the edge with female voters by fear mongering them with the issue.

 

[Politruk]

Abortion rights.

Why would the Dems have regulated that?

 

[Bray123]

Is what a Constitutional right?

Are you pleading the 'Abbott and Costello Defense'?

 

[UltraChad]

Are you pleading the 'Abbott and Costello Defense'?

No I'm asking you to be specific and clear.

What exactly are you asking is a federal right?

 

[Bray123]

No I'm asking you to be specific and clear.

What exactly are you asking is a federal right?

Watt's on second.

 

[Comshaw]

How is that in any way two faced??LOL


Wait, is it two faced because I didn't attack orange man?? Is orange man bad??

Let me explain. You are claiming two things under the same section of the Constitution that are opposed.

You claim SCOTUS was correct in pushing the abortion question back to the states, right? I assume because abortion isn't specifically referenced in the Constitution you are referencing this:
Tenth Amendment
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.

Am I right so far?

If so while the federal government has every right and responsibility to protect the borders, they have NO RIGHT BY THE CONSITUTION to arrest and deport ANY person within a state's borders who is protected by that state's laws, because those state laws also fall under the Tenth Amendment.

If I am in error please point out in the Constitution where it gives the Federal government specific leave on this issue to violate State's rights.



Comshaw

 

[UltraChad]

If so while the federal government has every right and responsibility to protect the borders, they have NO RIGHT BY THE CONSITUTION to arrest and deport ANY person within a state's borders who is protected by that state's laws, because those state laws also fall under the Tenth Amendment.

No, this is you misunderstanding the Tenth amendment. 10A doesn't give states the right to defy/subvert the federal government, 10A gives them the right to govern/regulate things the federal government doesn't.

Open borders (D)umb fucks who try to give "sanctuary" to illegals? Are going to be in a world of shit here pretty soon.

If I am in error please point out in the Constitution where it gives the Federal government specific leave on this issue to violate State's rights.



Comshaw

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

This is often called "the federal supremacy clause" it in no way contradicts 10A and in fact re-enforces it.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I noticed you're not at all upset that for 50 YEARS Democrats failed to regulate, they were too busy dangling that out there to get women to vote for them. That's where the TRUE value is for your beloved party.

Just mad the Constitution says things you don't like. Vote blue NO MATTER WHO!!! whatever soulless suit the WEF/NATO decide to install and tells you to support.

"Supreme Court Precedent" used to be respected in this country. That's why we had 50 years of Supreme Court nominees saying it was "settled law". Roe v. Wade was a true compromise, that's why it withstood attacks from all sides for almost 50 years.

Then the Supreme Court began "legislating from the bench" and decided they liked doing that, and that was the end of Roe v. Wade and the real beginning of the goosetepping march towards Christian Nationalism in America.

 

[Lathanar1]

If so while the federal government has every right and responsibility to protect the borders, they have NO RIGHT BY THE CONSITUTION to arrest and deport ANY person within a state's borders who is protected by that state's laws, because those state laws also fall under the Tenth Amendment.

If I am in error please point out in the Constitution where it gives the Federal government specific leave on this issue to violate State's rights.



Comshaw

The Naturalization clause, backed by SCOTUS precedent on the federal government's power over immigration policy and rules, plus the backing of the 14th.

 

[Comshaw]

No, this is you misunderstanding the Tenth amendment. 10A doesn't give states the right to defy/subvert the federal government, 10A gives them the right to govern/regulate things the federal government doesn't.

Open borders (D)umb fucks who try to give "sanctuary" to illegals? Are going to be in a world of shit here pretty soon.


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

This is often called "the federal supremacy clause" it in no way contradicts 10A and in fact re-enforces it.

No, this is you misunderstanding the Tenth amendment. 10A doesn't give states the right to defy/subvert the federal government, 10A gives them the right to govern/regulate things the federal government doesn't.

Open borders (D)umb fucks who try to give "sanctuary" to illegals? Are going to be in a world of shit here pretty soon.


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

This is often called "the federal supremacy clause" it in no way contradicts 10A and in fact re-enforces it.

Since there is and never was anything approaching "open borders" I'll leave you to believe that ignorant fairy tale. But as to your repudiation of what I said, I admit I screwed the pooch on that and I admit it. You are correct as to the federal supremacy clause.

But it also brings up a question:

You are correct in saying the states can't defy/subvert federal authority. And the States that do are going to have to fight that out in court and probably lose. BUT since you pointed out that federal regulations and laws supersede state rules and laws, are you also on board to hold Texas' feet to the fire for interfering with the border patrol and ICE in violation of Federal regulations? A simple yes or no will suffice to answer that one. If it's anything other than "Yes" I'll refer you back to my both sides of the mouth comment.

Comshaw

 

[M_K_Babalon]

States rights doesn't include defiance of federal authority.

How many states did that by making weed legal?

 

[Nicefella]

Immigration is strictly a federal right. In other words, the federal government retains exclusive jurisdiction on how to regulate, legislate, and prosecute, immigration violations. The states do not have any authority to do any of the above.

I think where it gets interesting is when a state refuses to cooperate with the federal government that is trying to carry out immigration prosecutions. The state may argue that that is exclusively a federal prerogative, which is why you are beginning to see states argue, and cities argue that they are “sanctuary“ destinations for migrants.

Likening immigration to abortion and somehow arguing that states rights allow for obstructing. The federal government in prosecuting immigration offenses is simply wrong. I don’t care what kind of constitutional argument you make, you will lose every single time in federal court.

 

[Nicefella]

Immigration is strictly a federal right. In other words, the federal government retains exclusive jurisdiction on how to regulate, legislate, and prosecute, immigration violations. The states do not have any authority to do any of the above.

I think where it gets interesting is when a state refuses to cooperate with the federal government that is trying to carry out immigration prosecutions. The state may argue that that is exclusively a federal prerogative, which is why you are beginning to see states argue, and cities argue that they are “sanctuary“ destinations for migrants.

Likening immigration to abortion and somehow arguing that states rights allow for obstructing. The federal government in prosecuting immigration offenses is simply wrong. I don’t care what kind of constitutional argument you make, you will lose every single time in federal court.

And one more point, just to be clear: states and the federal government enter into cooperation agreements to assist in detaining persons who are suspected to be here illegally. This is gone on for many decades andthe states that refuse to cooperate are within their rights to do so. However, lack of cooperation is not the same as obstructing the federal government from carrying out those duties.

 

[RobDownSouth]

And one more point, just to be clear: states and the federal government enter into cooperation agreements to assist in detaining persons who are suspected to be here illegally. This is gone on for many decades andthe states that refuse to cooperate are within their rights to do so. However, lack of cooperation is not the same as obstructing the federal government from carrying out those duties.

THIS!

 

[UltraChad]

How many states did that by making weed legal?

Which was covered by the grace of both Bill Clinton, GW and Obama choosing not to enforce federal drug laws against them.

They didn't have a Constitutional RIGHT to do so under 10A.

Still don't.... if Trump right now decided to re-ignite the war against weed there wouldn't be much the states could do about it legally. DEA and NG would swarm/storm/raid all they liked and it would be game over for weed legalization.

 

[UltraChad]

Since there is and never was anything approaching "open borders"

You can lie to your self with that bullshit all you like.

But it also brings up a question:

are you also on board to hold Texas' feet to the fire for interfering with the border patrol and ICE in violation of Federal regulations?

You mean doing the job ICE refused to do?? Yes. That's not a violation of 10A, that's a state showing a terrible Democrats POTUS up.

A simple yes or no will suffice to answer that one. If it's anything other than "Yes" I'll refer you back to my both sides of the mouth comment.

Yea you gotta ignore the circumstances around that where you guys SUED A STATE for doing the job you Open Borders lunatics refused to do.

 

[Comshaw]

You can lie to your self with that bullshit all you like.

You mean doing the job ICE refused to do?? Yes. That's not a violation of 10A, that's a state showing a terrible Democrats POTUS up.

It isn't a violation why did the courts direct Texas to remove barriers and stand down? They did because Texas was in violation of US LAW! Damn but you are obtuse.

Yea you gotta ignore the circumstances around that where you guys SUED A STATE for doing the job you Open Borders lunatics refused to do.

It DOESN'T MATTER the circumstances sparky, only IF they violated the law. They did. If the liberal states don't get to violate the law with sanctuary, the ultra-conservative ones don't get to do it because they think the law they are violating is crap. There are ways to change the laws. That's how it should be handled. This is EXACTLY the problem. You Trumpites see breaking a law you don't agree with as right and just, but when the other side does it, you scream for blood. If EVERYONE went by the rule of law, we could all live in peace.

Thank you for demonstrating the thing I said to begin with, a two-faced spouting of Trumpian logic. I will now withdraw and let you spray spittle on others as you rant your idiotic and unhinged theories.


Comshaw

 

[UltraChad]

It DOESN'T MATTER the circumstances sparky,

Yea, ignore those otherwise you look like the open borders psychopath that I said you were in the beginning.