3 ms·

We're watching this process play out in real-time in the USA.

by User23 8y ago

pavlov 8y ago
You probably mean Ukraine. As far as I know, no part of the United States has been invaded or annexed by its neighbor.
- User23 8y ago
  No, I mean in the USA. "Watching" means a thing is in progress. "Watched" is what we say when it has been completed. For example, California's "sanctuary state" law is a formal rejection of federal sovereignty over immigration. A full rejection of federal sovereignty would be secession, which we will probably see, at least de facto, within a century if trends continue as they are.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    > California's "sanctuary state" law is a formal rejection of federal sovereignty over immigration. It is not, since they do not attempt to prevent the federal government from enforcing federal immigration laws in California. They refuse to assist such enforcement in any way - but that is a right that was always implicit in the federal structure of the government, and was made explicit by the courts in Printz v. United States (ironically, it was a 5-4 case split along ideological lines, with the liberal minority arguing in favor of the federal government able to commandeer state law enforcement). If you want to see an example of actual formal rejection of federal sovereignty, that would be something like the Kansas' Second Amendment Protection Act, which explicitly declares: "It is unlawful for any official, agent or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas." A historical example would be the states' resistance to the fugitive slave laws. For example, here's Pennsylvania specifically targeting slave hunters in 1826: "If any person or persons shall, from and after the passing of this act, by force and violence, take and carry away, or cause to be taken or carried away, and shall, by fraud or false pretense, seduce, or cause to be seduced, or shall attempt so to take, carry away or seduce, any negro or mulatto, from any part or parts of this commonwealth, to any other place or places whatsoever, out of this commonwealth, with a design and intention of selling and disposing of, or of causing to be sold, or of keeping and detaining, or of causing to be kept and detained, such negro or mulatto, as a slave or servant for life, or for any term whatsoever, every such person or persons, his or their aiders or abettors, shall on conviction thereof, in any court of this commonwealth having competent jurisdiction, be deemed guilty of a felony." That part of the law was stuck down as unconstitutional. But the very same SCOTUS decision - Prigg v. Pennsylvania - also mentioned that the state could ban its officials and law enforcement from assisting in any way, and that's exactly what Pennsylvania did afterwards.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > For example, California's "sanctuary state" law is a formal rejection of federal sovereignty over immigration. No, it is not; it is a (Constitutional, per cases dating back to the federal fugitive slave laws) refusal to expend State resources assisting federal enforcement of federal law. Leaving enforcement of federal laws to the feds is not rejecting federal authority or sovereignty.
- ac29 8y ago
  The US has had wars with its neighbors to the north and south, with military conflicts taking place on what is currently US soil. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812 The British even did heavy damage to Washington DC in 1814, including the Capitol and the White House: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington
  - pavlov 8y ago
    The GP poster was talking about an infringement of US sovereignty playing out “in real-time”.

We're watching this process play out in real-time in the USA.

by User23 8y ago

We're watching this process play out in real-time in the USA.

pavlov 8y ago

You probably mean Ukraine. As far as I know, no part of the United States has been invaded or annexed by its neighbor.

User23 8y ago
No, I mean in the USA. "Watching" means a thing is in progress. "Watched" is what we say when it has been completed. For example, California's "sanctuary state" law is a formal rejection of federal sovereignty over immigration. A full rejection of federal sovereignty would be secession, which we will probably see, at least de facto, within a century if trends continue as they are.
- int_19h 8y ago
  > California's "sanctuary state" law is a formal rejection of federal sovereignty over immigration. It is not, since they do not attempt to prevent the federal government from enforcing federal immigration laws in California. They refuse to assist such enforcement in any way - but that is a right that was always implicit in the federal structure of the government, and was made explicit by the courts in Printz v. United States (ironically, it was a 5-4 case split along ideological lines, with the liberal minority arguing in favor of the federal government able to commandeer state law enforcement). If you want to see an example of actual formal rejection of federal sovereignty, that would be something like the Kansas' Second Amendment Protection Act, which explicitly declares: "It is unlawful for any official, agent or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas." A historical example would be the states' resistance to the fugitive slave laws. For example, here's Pennsylvania specifically targeting slave hunters in 1826: "If any person or persons shall, from and after the passing of this act, by force and violence, take and carry away, or cause to be taken or carried away, and shall, by fraud or false pretense, seduce, or cause to be seduced, or shall attempt so to take, carry away or seduce, any negro or mulatto, from any part or parts of this commonwealth, to any other place or places whatsoever, out of this commonwealth, with a design and intention of selling and disposing of, or of causing to be sold, or of keeping and detaining, or of causing to be kept and detained, such negro or mulatto, as a slave or servant for life, or for any term whatsoever, every such person or persons, his or their aiders or abettors, shall on conviction thereof, in any court of this commonwealth having competent jurisdiction, be deemed guilty of a felony." That part of the law was stuck down as unconstitutional. But the very same SCOTUS decision - Prigg v. Pennsylvania - also mentioned that the state could ban its officials and law enforcement from assisting in any way, and that's exactly what Pennsylvania did afterwards.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > For example, California's "sanctuary state" law is a formal rejection of federal sovereignty over immigration. No, it is not; it is a (Constitutional, per cases dating back to the federal fugitive slave laws) refusal to expend State resources assisting federal enforcement of federal law. Leaving enforcement of federal laws to the feds is not rejecting federal authority or sovereignty.
ac29 8y ago
The US has had wars with its neighbors to the north and south, with military conflicts taking place on what is currently US soil. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812 The British even did heavy damage to Washington DC in 1814, including the Capitol and the White House: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington
- pavlov 8y ago
  The GP poster was talking about an infringement of US sovereignty playing out “in real-time”.