Home > CONSERVATARIAN > States DON’T have to follow FEDERAL LAWS “Anti-Commandeering Doctrine”

States DON’T have to follow FEDERAL LAWS “Anti-Commandeering Doctrine”


TeddyYou do know their is a law on the books that STATES are not required to follow FEDERAL LAWS…

I have heard that all my life, it has been rooted in the CONSTITUTION, not only are states autonomous from the federal government they were/are called micro-experiments for a reason. This is to let states find what works for them as a state and the voters that vote for specific laws they agreed on.

When  TEXAS wanted to have the voter ID law enacted, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SUED TEXAS for that. What in the hell is the federal government doing suing a state that has this law on the books??? Do they not know this law exists, or do they choose to ignore it? The same was with California when they passed legal marijuana, the feds came in and stomped on the states rights again, and the California Supreme Court of Cali upheld the federal law – a direct violation of the law already on the books… Who let that happen????

FUNNY the so called smart ass people who supposedly oppose these actions enacted by the government, are either stupid or lazy!
Here is the law these idiots need to to enforce just in case they don’t know this?

At least you do now…

The bill’s bite is rooted is anti-commandeering doctrine. This doctrine, which has been well established by the United States Supreme Court (Printz v. United States), dictates that the federal government cannot force state legislatures to enforce federal laws.
According to Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in Printz v. United States, state legislatures are not subject to federal direction. Although Congress may enforce its own laws, they may not force the states to carry out their duties in such laws. According to the Court, the Constitution establishes a system of dual sovereignty where states and the federal government exercise concurrent authority. Giving Congress the power to force states in to service would greatly enhance federal power, and the Court ruled this could not stand.

Advertisements
Categories: CONSERVATARIAN
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: