Without a corrupt federal judiciary they’d lose almost all of the power they have usurped over the last half century.
Nullification was never legitimate.
Not the same. This is a state trying to make federal law inapplicable within its boundaries. Locales and states cannot be made to enforce federal law, which is different.
Being a “sanctuary state” isn’t the same as trying to nullify federal law.
Do you guys remember this one?
In 2004, the ATF declared that our shoelaces are automatic weapons.
It took them three years before they figured out that they needed to be attached to a semi-auto rifle before the machine gun stuff kicked in.
Don’t steal my line.
What do you call laws such as CA’s sanctuary law that make it unlawful for state LEO’s or other employees to even report having illegals in custody to the fed’s?
That might be a gray area because I don’t know if those rules are more like criminal penalties or more like job guidelines.
Gee, I thought I was being less snarky with you than usual.
Snark is irrelevant, you’re crawfishing.
They all are. They want freedom, so long as it doesn’t mean people doing things they don’t like.
Right. States don’t have to enforce federal law.
They can if they want to.
California chooses not to.
What’s the beef?
You don’t like it. Move to Callie and change the law.
Unaware that I’m not okay with gun control?
And what am I “crawfishing” for?
“Corrupt” meaning “being for things I, WildRose, do not like”.
Which has nothing at all to do with their sanctuary law.
Nobody is demanding they enforce federal law nor has anyone been demanding same.
It’s a fraudulent argument from the get go.
No, even if a decision came down I agreed with the principle would remain the same.
The Judiciary has no business writing things into the constitution that do not exist or making up laws on their own.
Nullification, a great idea that should be used regularly.
Okay, but your opposition does NOT believe that the judiciary is “writing things into the constitution”.