Quote:
Originally Posted by zico20
Liberals do not mind this at all. What if Idaho started manufacturing and selling machine guns and grenades, violating federal law. Or if South Dakota stops a woman from getting an abortion, etc. There will be anarchy if each state violated federal law. There is already a 200 year old SCOTUS decision on this. McCulloch vs Maryland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland
This case established two important principles in constitutional law. First, the Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government. Second, state action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government. |
That's an excellent article. Thank you.
It appears to me that the issue here has been (as someone else colorfully mentioned) gradual. Over time California has gently pushed the envelope, first choosing to ignore enforcement of federal law, then circumventing, then openly resisting, and finally, putting elements into play that actually are in direct opposition to the law.
Certainly there is a day of reckoning coming, but how will it play out?
In what could be a test case the
government lost while trying to withhold fed funds from Philadelphia for being a sanctuary city this year.
There is also the logical side: If the fed funds for welfare are withheld from California, how many days does it take for the riots to engulf more than just the poor areas? If it continues, how long before it spills over across the entire west?
It appears that states can do pretty much as they damn well please and the federal money will continue to flow.
I'd really like to be wrong, so welcome explanations of how it can play out.
Regards,
Dave Schwartz
