3 ms·

That doesn't quite make sense to me. A federal policy or a federal executive order only applying to federally-managed bodies, I could understand. But federal

That doesn't quite make sense to me. A federal policy or a federal executive order only applying to federally-managed bodies, I could understand. But federal laws outweigh state and local laws.

glitchc 3y ago
This power stems from the Tenth Amendment, which states that any power not delegated to the Federal government becomes the purview of the State. Given that the state has a number of laws, it must operate its own police force to enforce those laws. Therefore, since a state is required to operate said police force, governance of that force falls under the purview of the state and cannot be delegated to an external authority. If that were possible, the federal government could take control of a state police force to enforce laws contrary to the state's own laws. It sounds circuitous, but the meaning is clear: The state has to be able to govern and control its own police force if it wants to enforce its own laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_constitutional_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_co...
- brewdad 3y ago
  You have the causality wrong. The state and local police forces are necessary to enforce local laws because there are many things are are not illegal at the federal level. They simply aren't addressed at all. There also may be consistency in the legality but not the punishment. As an example, when I was in college the max penalty for getting caught with a single marijuana joint ranged anywhere from a $5 fine to a year in prison depending on whether you were caught by a city cop, campus police, county sheriff, or state police officer. I suppose it would have been possible to end up in federal prison if you somehow pissed off the wrong FBI agent.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

3 ms·

That doesn't quite make sense to me. A federal policy or a federal executive order only applying to federally-managed bodies, I could understand. But federal

by MereInterest 3y ago

That doesn't quite make sense to me. A federal policy or a federal executive order only applying to federally-managed bodies, I could understand. But federal laws outweigh state and local laws.

glitchc 3y ago
This power stems from the Tenth Amendment, which states that any power not delegated to the Federal government becomes the purview of the State. Given that the state has a number of laws, it must operate its own police force to enforce those laws. Therefore, since a state is required to operate said police force, governance of that force falls under the purview of the state and cannot be delegated to an external authority. If that were possible, the federal government could take control of a state police force to enforce laws contrary to the state's own laws. It sounds circuitous, but the meaning is clear: The state has to be able to govern and control its own police force if it wants to enforce its own laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_constitutional_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_co...
- brewdad 3y ago
  You have the causality wrong. The state and local police forces are necessary to enforce local laws because there are many things are are not illegal at the federal level. They simply aren't addressed at all. There also may be consistency in the legality but not the punishment. As an example, when I was in college the max penalty for getting caught with a single marijuana joint ranged anywhere from a $5 fine to a year in prison depending on whether you were caught by a city cop, campus police, county sheriff, or state police officer. I suppose it would have been possible to end up in federal prison if you somehow pissed off the wrong FBI agent.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]