Not arresting someone is not “aiding and abetting”.
Thats neat…it would erase 250 years of precedent but its neat…
good Lord, it’s still against federal law, they choose not to enforce.
Here is the memo
Read it and present a synopsis to the forum
Score biggestal99 1 six foot 0
Thanks for playing.
It’s called the supremacy clause.
Is that not exactly what the proposed legislation calls for?
No, the legislation would not require them to aid or abet anyone in the commission of a crime.
Does the supremacy clause apply to every law?
All that I know of yes. In no case does state law supersede federal law.
The difference here though is this bill is actually supported by the Constitution. Unlike your Sanctuary City laws which openly defy the supremacy clause in that very same Constitution. Go figure.
It does when that Federal law is Unconstitutional. Not that you even pretend to care about that really.
The supremacy clause doesn’t apply to Unconstitutional laws. The Constitution IS the Supreme law of the land. It even says so. Right in that very clause you’re trying to interject here.
Which federal law is unconsitutional?
Has SCOTUS been notified?
They are the arbiters of federal law.
I missed the SCOTUS on that issue.
Maybe you can show the forum.
New York v. United States (1992)
‘Congress may not simply “commandeer the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program"’
–Sandra Day O’Connor
Printz v. United States (1997)
“it is apparent that the Brady Act purports to direct state law enforcement officers to participate, albeit only temporarily, in the administration of a federally enacted regulatory scheme.”
–Justice Antonin Scalia
“The legitimacy of Congress’s exercise of the spending power “thus rests on whether the State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of the ‘contract.’ ” Pennhurst, supra, at 17. Respecting this limitation is critical to ensuring that Spending Clause legislation does not undermine the status of the States as independent sovereigns in our federal system. That system “rests on what might at first seem a counterintuitive insight, that ‘freedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one.’ ” Bond, 564 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8) (quoting Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 758 (1999) ). For this reason, “the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions.” New York, supra, at 162. Otherwise the two-government system established by the Framers would give way to a system that vests power in one central government, and individual liberty would suffer.”
–Justice John Roberts
Hmmm. Might want to look into that. Remembering of course the Constitution is a limiting document.
Okay show me a state law that the supremacy clause does apply.
Is that you looking into it?
I thought you knew of one.
Provide the evidence.
Go look into it. Meditate on it. Or don’t.
You sound worried; filling sand bags yet?
Libs are definitely worried about citizens getting unpopular rights back.