3 ms·

Didn't we fight the bloodiest war in the history of this country based on which laws (State or Federal) had primacy? And it's still not settled due to Obama's

Didn't we fight the bloodiest war in the history of this country based on which laws (State or Federal) had primacy? And it's still not settled due to Obama's weed policies.

ksherlock 4y ago
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.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  The comment you’re responding to is referring to the supremacy clause.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    OP said, "Federal laws do trump state laws in most cases." That is quite properly nuanced, and "in most cases" means "those cases where the Federal law is constitutional." SCOTUS rules on that issue all the time.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  Interstate commerce clause is the federal government's loophole for this inconvenient fact.
  - prottog 4y ago
    The same interstate commerce clause that the federal government interpreted as giving them regulatory authority over intrastate non-commerce, in Wickard v. Filburn.
jonathanlb 4y ago
> based on which laws (State or Federal) had primacy Primacy to do what?
kodyo 4y ago
A war was fought because one country didn't want part of itself to become another country.
michaelsshaw 4y ago
Federal laws do trump state laws in most cases, it is settled. This case is due to the fed's noninterference policy, which they chose for themselves, it's not being forced on them because of some Civil War-era debate.
- funstuff007 4y ago
  The Feds should never fear interfering with state laws when federal law is in direct opposition. It's the basis of the entire system.
  - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
    The Feds don’t have the resources to handle local law enforcement, even if they wanted to. I can’t see that this is a way for either party to pick up a bunch of votes, so interest is low.
  - dalbasal 4y ago
    Never is a foolish frame, if you're talking about real politics in the real world.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    > It's the basis of the entire system No, it isn't. The Constitution is the basis of the entire system, and it defines the powers of the Federal government. The 10th amendment says: 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.
    - funstuff007 4y ago
      The conclusion of the data you provided is in agreement with my statement.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  > Federal laws do trump state laws in most cases, it is settled. This simply isn't true. There are areas where federal laws can contravene states laws and areas where they cannot. Additionally, the federal laws often don't "trump" state laws, but supplement them. Generally speaking (there are exceptions), state law enforcement can only enforce state laws.
Finnucane 4y ago
Not really,no.
tyre 4y ago
No, the US fought a war over slavery. The "states' rights" framing of the US Civil War skips over which specific right the southerns states were willing to die for. It wasn't abstract, though it was papered over as such. The history of later southern political leaders (e.g. Richard Russell) confirms that the fundamental issue was the enslavement (ideal, for them) or segregation and oppression of blacks in the US. Which isn't to say that the state vs. federal power struggle of constitutional interpretation isn't still happening. These cases rise to the SCOTUS regularly. The US Civil War, however, wasn't that.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  > No, the US fought a war over slavery. Seems to me these aren't mutually exclusive. I find your argument to be overly concerned with injustice of slavery. No one is defending it. And the southern states absolutely did not want to adhere to the laws set by the northern states.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Seems to me these aren't mutually exclusive In the abstract, they are not. Its just that the slavery explanation is factually true and the other is false, though it represents part of one sides propaganda (and more strongly that of the retrospective sympathizers of that side than the actual side, which was quite explicit about slavery specifically as the motivation.)
  - Retric 4y ago
    It’s mutually exclusive because it wasn’t the internal rights of individual states that set off the civil war, but the question of which way western states would be. In other words southern states wanted to impose rules on the union outside their borders. Florida trying to tell California what to do is by definition not a states rights issue.
  - sidlls 4y ago
    The context is important: southern states were fighting specifically for the right to continue to enslave people. Any argument that doesn't focus on slavery in the context of the civil war we had isn't valid, or at least is incomplete, because it elides the reason for the war in the first place.
Dawnyhf2 4y ago
I noticed there’s a huge push on this site to link Obama with negative policy’s. Look how many comments are flat out confused by the above post. It’s literally just a name drop. Like “something-something holocaust something-something George W Bush” level of criticism, not really adding anything to the conversation.

Didn't we fight the bloodiest war in the history of this country based on which laws (State or Federal) had primacy? And it's still not settled due to Obama's weed policies.

ksherlock 4y ago

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.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
The comment you’re responding to is referring to the supremacy clause.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  OP said, "Federal laws do trump state laws in most cases." That is quite properly nuanced, and "in most cases" means "those cases where the Federal law is constitutional." SCOTUS rules on that issue all the time.
nonethewiser 4y ago
Interstate commerce clause is the federal government's loophole for this inconvenient fact.
- prottog 4y ago
  The same interstate commerce clause that the federal government interpreted as giving them regulatory authority over intrastate non-commerce, in Wickard v. Filburn.

jonathanlb 4y ago

> based on which laws (State or Federal) had primacy Primacy to do what?

kodyo 4y ago

A war was fought because one country didn't want part of itself to become another country.

michaelsshaw 4y ago

Federal laws do trump state laws in most cases, it is settled. This case is due to the fed's noninterference policy, which they chose for themselves, it's not being forced on them because of some Civil War-era debate.

funstuff007 4y ago
The Feds should never fear interfering with state laws when federal law is in direct opposition. It's the basis of the entire system.
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  The Feds don’t have the resources to handle local law enforcement, even if they wanted to. I can’t see that this is a way for either party to pick up a bunch of votes, so interest is low.
- dalbasal 4y ago
  Never is a foolish frame, if you're talking about real politics in the real world.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  > It's the basis of the entire system No, it isn't. The Constitution is the basis of the entire system, and it defines the powers of the Federal government. The 10th amendment says: 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.
  - funstuff007 4y ago
    The conclusion of the data you provided is in agreement with my statement.
shkkmo 4y ago
> Federal laws do trump state laws in most cases, it is settled. This simply isn't true. There are areas where federal laws can contravene states laws and areas where they cannot. Additionally, the federal laws often don't "trump" state laws, but supplement them. Generally speaking (there are exceptions), state law enforcement can only enforce state laws.

Finnucane 4y ago

Not really,no.

tyre 4y ago

No, the US fought a war over slavery. The "states' rights" framing of the US Civil War skips over which specific right the southerns states were willing to die for. It wasn't abstract, though it was papered over as such. The history of later southern political leaders (e.g. Richard Russell) confirms that the fundamental issue was the enslavement (ideal, for them) or segregation and oppression of blacks in the US. Which isn't to say that the state vs. federal power struggle of constitutional interpretation isn't still happening. These cases rise to the SCOTUS regularly. The US Civil War, however, wasn't that.

nonethewiser 4y ago
> No, the US fought a war over slavery. Seems to me these aren't mutually exclusive. I find your argument to be overly concerned with injustice of slavery. No one is defending it. And the southern states absolutely did not want to adhere to the laws set by the northern states.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Seems to me these aren't mutually exclusive In the abstract, they are not. Its just that the slavery explanation is factually true and the other is false, though it represents part of one sides propaganda (and more strongly that of the retrospective sympathizers of that side than the actual side, which was quite explicit about slavery specifically as the motivation.)
- Retric 4y ago
  It’s mutually exclusive because it wasn’t the internal rights of individual states that set off the civil war, but the question of which way western states would be. In other words southern states wanted to impose rules on the union outside their borders. Florida trying to tell California what to do is by definition not a states rights issue.
- sidlls 4y ago
  The context is important: southern states were fighting specifically for the right to continue to enslave people. Any argument that doesn't focus on slavery in the context of the civil war we had isn't valid, or at least is incomplete, because it elides the reason for the war in the first place.

Dawnyhf2 4y ago

I noticed there’s a huge push on this site to link Obama with negative policy’s. Look how many comments are flat out confused by the above post. It’s literally just a name drop. Like “something-something holocaust something-something George W Bush” level of criticism, not really adding anything to the conversation.