Skip to main content

View Diary: Wyoming Lawmakers Preparing to Nullify the Constitution of the United States (97 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I wonder if they recall an incident (5+ / 0-)

    in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957.  I just wonder if Obama would have the nerve to do what Eisenhower did.  

    Then there were other incidents in Mississippi and Alabama where SCOTUS rulings were flouted by the governors Ross Barnett, Sr. and George Wallace regarding university admissions. That really worked out well for the governors.....Not.

    The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

    by Otteray Scribe on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:05:33 PM PST

    •  OS - help me understand how this law (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      twigg, Otteray Scribe

      and state/federal conflict is different than the pot laws where we have state laws legalizing, to some degree, marijuana while the feds continue to view it as an illegal drug.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:50:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It might seem like a fine distinction but ... (9+ / 0-)

        What the State laws on pot do is say that, within prescribed limits, the State will not enforce Federal law. That is, possession is no longer a State offense, and they leave the Feds to do whatever they want to do.

        Where the Wyoming Bill differs is that it asserts State Law to be above Federal law, and allows enforcement against federal employees who are attempting to enforce federal law.

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        Who is twigg?

        by twigg on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:58:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  What twigg said. (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        twigg, Kentucky Kid, VClib, LinSea, Sue B, ER Doc

        Federal law trumps state law.  If a state does not want to enforce a Federal law, they cannot be forced to do so by any means other than withholding funds.  However, states cannot act in a manner contrary to Federal law.  

        The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

        by Otteray Scribe on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:08:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So how can the two states that just passed (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          twigg, Otteray Scribe

          laws making marijuana "legal" not be acting contrary to federal law? If they can't, then how have they at least semi-done just that?

          I'm just curious as to how the two work (or don't work) along the same lines.....Thanks

          •  They cannnot flaunt Federal law. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            twigg, Kentucky Kid, Massconfusion, ER Doc

            The limit of their ability is to ignore the drug laws.  That does not work out well for some people.  Here is a link to a story Professor Turley posted a few days ago that illustrates the point.

            http://jonathanturley.org/...

            The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

            by Otteray Scribe on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:29:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  It works because they do not challenge (5+ / 0-)

            Federal Law.

            They are simply State Laws, and the Feds are free to enforce their own laws any way they choose.

            In the case of cannabis, the Feds said "If you do it this way, we will not conduct enforcement actions in your State" ... WS and Colorado are doing just that.

            So in those States it is just another law that is not enforced, and there is no conflict.

            It differs in the Wyoming case because that law proposes making it a felony for anyone to attempt to enforce Federal Law. In effect they are making Wyoming law supreme, and that, if it stands, tears up the Constitution.

            The way the Constitution is written now, it would effectively mean that Wyoming seceded.

            I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
            but I fear we will remain Democrats.

            Who is twigg?

            by twigg on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:30:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's a little more complex than that (0+ / 0-)

              Wyoming is drawing a line in the sand about what they consider to be constitutional.

              The real question here (of some interest) is: let's assume that Wyoming is correct and the federal laws they argue against here are actually unconstitutional.

              Can a state establish state law penalties for federal officers enforcing unconstitutional laws? Or do the Feds just get a blanket pass because they are Feds?

              (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
              Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

              by Sparhawk on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 10:33:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Wyoming cannot pass a law (0+ / 0-)

                that nullifies a Federal Law, duly enacted. Nor can they pass a law imposing penalties on Federal employees enforcing that law.

                If they do that, and ignore the Federal Court, then the create a very real constitutional crisis

                It's a matter for them, but it would not end well.

                I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                Who is twigg?

                by twigg on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 10:25:22 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  There is no conflict (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kurt

            Consider: jaywalking is not illegal by federal law. But state law prohibits it (maybe).

            With pot, it's just the reverse. Just like import/export laws, etc, the state just doesn't take a position on it and leaves it up to the Feds.

            There is no 'conflict' because you can comply with both sets of laws simply by abstaining from pot. However, a state law forbidding paying income taxes would be a conflict because it is impossible for joe average citizen to comply with both laws.

            The Wyoming case has some more interesting wrinkles that I am frankly too drunk at present to analyze effectively.

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 10:29:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site