An Illegal Law!

[Reagan]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[BS Wildcats]

Like the article says, I hope Trump and the govt. go after California for their lawless act.

[TxHoops]

Serious question (it’s a shame I have to preface with that - and that is not a slam on the “right” on this board, applies just as much if not more to “left” posters who like to “troll”):

I don’t like labels in any form or fashion because I agree and identify with certain principles that are generally identified with one “side” or the other.  But one of the tenets of the GOP that I wholeheartedly agree with is “state’s rights.”   Even if it happens to be counterintuitive to what I believe is good for the country.  I am a proud Texan, love my state, but sometimes disagree with our State’s laws.  But we live in a democracy and I will honor and respect those laws, even though I might philosophically disagree.  I choose to live here and wouldn’t have it any other way.

So if California chooses to be a sanctuary state, is that not their right?  I realize a counter-argument is compromising the security of our country as a whole (e.g., a state offering sanctuary to ISIS members).  But to narrow, if they want to offer sanctuary to undocumented Mexicans, should they not have that right?  

Marijuana is now “legal” in over half the states. Some of which have made it legal recreationally, even though it is still illegal under federal law.  So I’m not sure saying California passed an illegal law is unique, although maybe technically true. 

Of course, the federal government can always respond to a renegade State with its wallet, but that’s another discussion.  

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

Serious question (it’s a shame I have to preface with that - and that is not a slam on the “right” on this board, applies just as much if not more to “left” posters who like to “troll”):

I don’t like labels in any form or fashion because I agree and identify with certain principles that are generally identified with one “side” or the other.  But one of the tenets of the GOP that I wholeheartedly agree with is “state’s rights.”   Even if it happens to be counterintuitive to what I believe is good for the country.  I am a proud Texan, love my state, but sometimes disagree with our State’s laws.  But we live in a democracy and I will honor and respect those laws, even though I might philosophically disagree.  I choose to live here and wouldn’t have it any other way.

So if California chooses to be a sanctuary state, is that not their right?  I realize a counter-argument is compromising the security of our country as a whole (e.g., a state offering sanctuary to ISIS members).  But to narrow, if they want to offer sanctuary to undocumented Mexicans, should they not have that right?  

Marijuana is now “legal” in over half the states. Some of which have made it legal recreationally, even though it is still illegal under federal law.  So I’m not sure saying California passed an illegal law is unique, although maybe technically true. 

Of course, the federal government can always respond to a renegade State with its wallet, but that’s another discussion.  

It’s not their right.  It is the responsibility of the Federal gov to project our borders and no state has the right to infringe on that responsibility.

i am a state’s rights guy and agree with the marijuana example but we can’t allow an invasion of our borders by a state.  What if a state decided they wanted to allow Russia to stockpile weapons in it...is this a right they should be allowed?

[stevenash]

2 hours ago, TxHoops said:

Serious question (it’s a shame I have to preface with that - and that is not a slam on the “right” on this board, applies just as much if not more to “left” posters who like to “troll”):

I don’t like labels in any form or fashion because I agree and identify with certain principles that are generally identified with one “side” or the other.  But one of the tenets of the GOP that I wholeheartedly agree with is “state’s rights.”   Even if it happens to be counterintuitive to what I believe is good for the country.  I am a proud Texan, love my state, but sometimes disagree with our State’s laws.  But we live in a democracy and I will honor and respect those laws, even though I might philosophically disagree.  I choose to live here and wouldn’t have it any other way.

So if California chooses to be a sanctuary state, is that not their right?  I realize a counter-argument is compromising the security of our country as a whole (e.g., a state offering sanctuary to ISIS members).  But to narrow, if they want to offer sanctuary to undocumented Mexicans, should they not have that right?  

Marijuana is now “legal” in over half the states. Some of which have made it legal recreationally, even though it is still illegal under federal law.  So I’m not sure saying California passed an illegal law is unique, although maybe technically true. 

Of course, the federal government can always respond to a renegade State with its wallet, but that’s another discussion.  

Lets assume your suggestion is a valid one.   So, now they allow all of the people they want into the California.   I believe its mostly federal monies from which these folks benefit.  If the state has the right you suggest, it would seem appropriate that the fed has the right to deny those monies to the state?

[TxHoops]

38 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

It’s not their right.  It is the responsibility of the Federal gov to project our borders and no state has the right to infringe on that responsibility.

i am a state’s rights guy and agree with the marijuana example but we can’t allow an invasion of our borders by a state.  What if a state decided they wanted to allow Russia to stockpile weapons in it...is this a right they should be allowed?

Your example is a more extreme example (I think) of my ISIS example.  It’s a valid argument.  Not sure this is security issue though.  And again, technically any law that is in contravention of a federal can be argued to be outside a State’s rights.

[TxHoops]

7 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Lets assume your suggestion is a valid one.   So, now they allow all of the people they want into the California.   I believe its mostly federal monies from which these folks benefit.  If the state has the right you suggest, it would seem appropriate that the fed has the right to deny those monies to the state?

Absolutely.  Precisely what I meant by the last sentence of my post you quoted, although I did a poor job of spelling it out.