4 ms·
The USA is post-Constitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution that permits the government to create the FBI and therefore the 10th should apply. As the F
by BirAdam 2y ago
The USA is post-Constitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution that permits the government to create the FBI and therefore the 10th should apply. As the FBI does exist, along with all of the other alphabet soup agencies, we can see that the Constitution no longer truly holds power.
- hiatus 2y agoWho would enforce federal laws if there were no federal law enforcement agencies?
- Schiendelman 2y agoAlmost every cabinet level department ALSO has its own US Marshals already.
- UncleEntity 2y agoThe states? In the early days of the U.S., the first federal criminal code, the Crimes Act of 1790, enumerated 23 federal offenses and established punishments for each.
- hiatus 2y agoThe states can't be compelled to enforce federal laws though can they? Isn't that how like sanctuary cities work? Or how weed is legal in some states but illegal federally? States can decline to assist federal law enforcement.
- lupusreal 2y agoThey can if they want to, but can't be compelled to do so. If a state decides that a federal law won't be enforced by them, then it shouldn't be enforced in that state period. Federal law enforcement are worse than the gangsters they were created to fight.
- hiatus 2y agoSo things like civil rights would depend on the state you're in?
- BirAdam 2y agoWell, today, they can refuse. Historically, they couldn’t. George Washington was willing to use military force to enforce law.
- hiatus 2y agoCould you elaborate a bit on what you mean about George Washington? When did this modern right of refusal come about?
- BirAdam 2y agoAccording to the Constitution and precedence, federal laws are always the law of the land. States are supposed to need to prove that federal laws is unconstitutional, and they then wouldn’t be required to follow a federal law. Of course, a state could simply not enforce a federal law, but this is where the federal government can intervene. In the case of Washington, he used the army to enforce taxes on whiskey in Pennsylvania. Of course, he may not have been the biggest fan of using military force for policing, as he also established the US Marshals, but he was willing to use military force. Regarding states ignoring federal laws, the first I know of resulted in New York v. United States in 1992 where the Court ruled that congress couldn’t require states to enact waste disposal regulations. In more recent history, Oklahoma voted to nullify the Affordable Care Act in 2013. The biggest shift, however, was in marijuana legalization across the country. According to the federal government, pot is illegal. States have explicitly made laws stating the opposite. I can find nothing else quite like it in US history. This is different from previous cases where the states challenged a law on legal grounds. Here, they just ignored the federal government entirely.
- hiatus 2y agoYou made my point for me. States were always free to refuse to enforce federal law, and the federal government needed an enforcement arm at least for that case, be it the military, marshals, or DEA.
- BirAdam 2y agoHistorically, a sherrif. Later, local police departments.
- energy123 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- BirAdam 2y agoCategory error. Federal departments are changes to the structure and function of government that should require Consitutional Amendments. The imbibing of Diet Coke by the POTUS is not substantial to the structure and function of government.
- energy123 2y agoWhere in the Constitution does it say that federal departments require Constitutional Amendments? As far as I am aware, the Constitution says nothing about either that or Diet Coke.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y agoThe 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. I get the point you're trying to make that this seems to suggest that drinking Diet Coke is something also not "delegated to the United States by the Constitution" but I think people who disagree consider that drinking Diet Coke is not a "power" in the same way that operating the FBI is.