Federal vs State


“The state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.


So it may turn out that the principle of federal supremacy over immigration established by the Obama administration will help the Trump Justice Department achieve diametrically different goals.

professor at Yale, said she detected political parallels between the two suits.

“Both administrations claim that the state laws they challenge impermissibly interfere with the executive branch’s ability to enforce the immigration laws,” she said. “But both lawsuits are also clearly designed to take on visible and politically powerful local officials whose vision of immigration policy conflicts with the president’s and his supporters’.”


I detest nearly every aspect of the Trump administration. However, on is issue, I agree. The mayor of Oakland should not have tipped off the city that ICE is coming. Federal Law supersedes state law ---- we need to be a nation of laws.


Thanks to the cry babies in the conservative side, states can use the Commandeering doctrine.

If we want to be a country of law, let’s start with Jeff Sessions lying under oath, not once, but two, no, three times! So, how do you expect a liar asking states to uphold justice?

Using my favorite expression, “unless you are an idiot”, you should know that once you raise your hand and respond “I do” when warned that what you are saying is the truth, nothing but the truth, you are in big trouble if you go back and say “oh, by the way, I forgot to tell that yes, I did such and such even though I said I didn’t meet the Russian” How many times do you think a judge would allow you to lie? None!

So, once we debate Sessions the liar, a person that should be a subject of perjury, then we can talk about the cowards bending over this disgraceful administration full of liars and criminals.

And, find out what was said during the meeting between the Russian president Trumpovich, and his bosses the Russians who met in the white house, something that never happened in history where the national press wasn’t present, where we found out what “was said” through the Russian press, the only one present.

And, I believe this liar president is having a “Stormy” problem. :laughing:

The anti-commandeering doctrine, recently announced by the Supreme Court in New York v. United States and Printz v. United States, prohibits the federal government from commandeering state governments: more specifically, from imposing targeted, affirmative, coercive duties upon state legislators or executive officials. This doctrine is best understood as an external constraint upon congressional power—analogous to the constraints set forth in the Bill of Rights—but one that lacks an explicit textual basis. Should the Constitution indeed be interpreted to include a judicially enforceable constraint upon national power—and, if so, should that constraint take the form of an anti-commandeering rule?