4 ms·

Good question and I don't know the answer but this is sure to be a battleground in the coming years, states refusing to enforce federal law or to act as agents

Good question and I don't know the answer but this is sure to be a battleground in the coming years, states refusing to enforce federal law or to act as agents of the federal government.

spondylosaurus 2y ago
Well, since "federal law can't impose on state law" has been the SCOTUS party line for the last X years, we might as well use that line of reasoning here...
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  Where did you get that from? Federal laws usually do override state laws. Whether the states have to help enforce federal law is a different question, though, and seems to be a "no" given the examples of marijuana and immigration.
  - mtnGoat 2y ago
    Look up “The Cole memo”, that is why the cannabis stuff is happening the way it is currently.
    - pclmulqdq 2y ago
      Oh, I see. That's a memorandum explicitly stating that marijuana is an exception to this rule - the federal government basically ceded authority on this issue during the Obama era. The exception proves the rule, however.
      - ddtaylor 2y ago
        An interesting note about the history here. We can all spend some time talking about the reasons why the federal government has no reason regulating that plant and other things, but from a legal perspective I think this precedent was terrible. My understanding is that cannabis regulation in the United States is mostly predicated on a case where a farmer grew his own non-cannabis, I believe it was wheat, and then the government compelled everyone to sell their wheat at a specific price, which he did not want to do. He protested and I believe turned the wheat into other products, which caused this court case. The result of the case was that the government was able to justify use of the Interstate Commerce clause because the actions of NOT selling the wheat could cause economic disruption. The case is Wickard v. Filburn (1942) This was essentially re-upped in 2005 with Gonzales v. Raich (2005) Wickard v. Filburn established "activities local in nature can still be regulated by Congress if, in the aggregate, they could substantially affect interstate commerce." The effects of this ruling are broad. Like all things there are plenty of things that as it stands right now are built on top of that legal "system" like bills that enforce clean drinking water, but those can be done a different and correct way and we don't need the government using this method to accomplish that.
        pclmulqdq 2y ago
        I'm not sure we disagree on anything, but yes, the government has interpreted the interstate commerce clause rather broadly. Too broadly, IMO, but the same overreach gets us good things like the FDA/USDA and the FCC. It's possible they are avoiding the marijuana fight in order to keep this broad interpretation, though. I have a pet theory that the equal rights amendment isn't in the constitution to avoid a legal fight that would also strike down the income tax, but these are all sort of just theories.
    - davidf18 2y ago
      [dead]
  - ddtaylor 2y ago
    My understanding is the federal laws only "override" state laws in the context of the "enumerated powers" in the constitution, which are supposed to be few and narrow. This is why no State can pass a "law" that would allow you to enslave others or violate their other rights granted by those "enumerated powers" of the federal government.
- ddtaylor 2y ago
  That's not a new party line or anything that is the 10th amendment: > 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.
rayiner 2y ago
It’s well established that the federal government can’t press state officials and employees into the service of enforcing federal law. The upcoming conflict, however, is going to be about a different issue: state and local governments actually interfering with and hindering the enforcement of federal law. I suspect that is going to get smacked down hard on supremacy clause grounds.
- ddtaylor 2y ago
  My concern is that for blue states, like Oregon, the funding is tied up in federal money. They will withhold and play games and I don't know if Oregon has the "willpower" to avoid mutating their ideals in an effort to keep their kids in school and keep renting houses.

Good question and I don't know the answer but this is sure to be a battleground in the coming years, states refusing to enforce federal law or to act as agents of the federal government.

spondylosaurus 2y ago

Well, since "federal law can't impose on state law" has been the SCOTUS party line for the last X years, we might as well use that line of reasoning here...

pclmulqdq 2y ago
Where did you get that from? Federal laws usually do override state laws. Whether the states have to help enforce federal law is a different question, though, and seems to be a "no" given the examples of marijuana and immigration.
- mtnGoat 2y ago
  Look up “The Cole memo”, that is why the cannabis stuff is happening the way it is currently.
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    Oh, I see. That's a memorandum explicitly stating that marijuana is an exception to this rule - the federal government basically ceded authority on this issue during the Obama era. The exception proves the rule, however.
    - ddtaylor 2y ago
      An interesting note about the history here. We can all spend some time talking about the reasons why the federal government has no reason regulating that plant and other things, but from a legal perspective I think this precedent was terrible. My understanding is that cannabis regulation in the United States is mostly predicated on a case where a farmer grew his own non-cannabis, I believe it was wheat, and then the government compelled everyone to sell their wheat at a specific price, which he did not want to do. He protested and I believe turned the wheat into other products, which caused this court case. The result of the case was that the government was able to justify use of the Interstate Commerce clause because the actions of NOT selling the wheat could cause economic disruption. The case is Wickard v. Filburn (1942) This was essentially re-upped in 2005 with Gonzales v. Raich (2005) Wickard v. Filburn established "activities local in nature can still be regulated by Congress if, in the aggregate, they could substantially affect interstate commerce." The effects of this ruling are broad. Like all things there are plenty of things that as it stands right now are built on top of that legal "system" like bills that enforce clean drinking water, but those can be done a different and correct way and we don't need the government using this method to accomplish that.
      - pclmulqdq 2y ago
        I'm not sure we disagree on anything, but yes, the government has interpreted the interstate commerce clause rather broadly. Too broadly, IMO, but the same overreach gets us good things like the FDA/USDA and the FCC. It's possible they are avoiding the marijuana fight in order to keep this broad interpretation, though. I have a pet theory that the equal rights amendment isn't in the constitution to avoid a legal fight that would also strike down the income tax, but these are all sort of just theories.
  - davidf18 2y ago
    [dead]
- ddtaylor 2y ago
  My understanding is the federal laws only "override" state laws in the context of the "enumerated powers" in the constitution, which are supposed to be few and narrow. This is why no State can pass a "law" that would allow you to enslave others or violate their other rights granted by those "enumerated powers" of the federal government.
ddtaylor 2y ago
That's not a new party line or anything that is the 10th amendment: > 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.

rayiner 2y ago

It’s well established that the federal government can’t press state officials and employees into the service of enforcing federal law. The upcoming conflict, however, is going to be about a different issue: state and local governments actually interfering with and hindering the enforcement of federal law. I suspect that is going to get smacked down hard on supremacy clause grounds.

ddtaylor 2y ago
My concern is that for blue states, like Oregon, the funding is tied up in federal money. They will withhold and play games and I don't know if Oregon has the "willpower" to avoid mutating their ideals in an effort to keep their kids in school and keep renting houses.