Monday, April 8, 2013 2:49:16 AM
I don't see where a state choosing to ignore a federal law should result in a withdrawal of federal funding, except for maybe funding related directly to the law being ignored. If the fed outlaws sky-blue cars (silly, I know, its an example), and a state chooses not to arrest people for driving sky-blue cars, then, by all means, the fed can withhold funds for training law enforcement on how to tell the difference between sky-blue, cornflower blue, and baby blue. However, it would be ridiculous for the fed to withhold, say, funding for a large highway upgrade because of it. Besides, a state choosing to ignore a federal law doesn`t mean that the law doesn`t exist in that state, just that the state won`t enforce it. If a federal officer issues a citation/arrests someone for the federal law, that would be "legal", but the state won`t do it for them.
Sunday, April 7, 2013 9:50:53 AM
If Feds pass laws they shouldn't that`s up to the courts to decide, not the states. The states are subordinate to the Law of the Land as they are all part of the same damn country.
This whole Stoner`s Dilemma you`ve brought up here sets the stage for a future court challenge, and that boys and girls is how law is adjudicated here in the USA. The more you know.
Saturday, April 6, 2013 9:19:33 PM
It works like this: states should obey all the federal laws that liberals agree with, and they should ignore all the federal laws that liberals disagree with. Any questions?
Saturday, April 6, 2013 4:49:36 PM
@CaptKangaroo: then every state that has legalized weed, for any usage whatsoever, also needs to be stripped of federal funding until compliance of the Federal law.
People want things to change, but no one wants to stand up and change it. Here we have a group of people wanting to change the status quo and is receiving backlash. Can't have your cake and eat it too, eh?