They don't have the right to violate their citizens rights under the constitution.
So yeah, you can just fuck right off with that states rights shit in regards to this case. Fucking racist POS.
They don't have the right to violate their citizens rights under the constitution.States have rights too.
The two greatest frauds in the world are AmeriKKKa and religion.It's so insane that in America Politicians pick their voters.
I assume a federal court can force a map on the state of the state refuses to comply, right?
This is a dangerous game for conservatives to play and one they probably don’t want to. If Alabama can ignore SCOTUS rulings so can Biden.
You are the racist and also cookoo as well. If AL is happy with what they have, who are you to say otherwise?They don't have the right to violate their citizens rights under the constitution.
So yeah, you can just fuck right off with that states rights shit in regards to this case. Fucking racist POS.
You are the racist and also cookoo as well. If AL is happy with what they have, who are you to say otherwise?
So you can go fuck right off with telling states what to do. 😀
I don't agree with AL, I'm just making a point that they can make their own rules.You mean, back in the days when conservatives were worried about setting precedents?
How dare anyone question Alabama's right to disenfranchise their black citizens.You are the racist and also cookoo as well. If AL is happy with what they have, who are you to say otherwise?
So you can go fuck right off with telling states what to do. 😀
This is actually a good example - the feds are free to come arrest them for any federal laws they have broken and the state cannot stop them because of the supremacy clause. Similarly, states cannot make election laws that violate federal election laws or the Constitution.I don't agree with AL, I'm just making a point that they can make their own rules.
Just look at all the states that allow potheads to run amock with 'legal' weed despite federal drag laws.
When things go amuck, they are wildly out of control. Someone running amuck is showing no self-control. This is a word that has to do with chaos and disorder. A riot is an example of people running amuck. In a cafeteria, if people are yelling and throwing food, they are going amuck.Isn't it amok?
And how about the question I asked above?
MaybeIsn't it amok?
And how about the question I asked above?
So if I sue the states that are letting potheads turn everything to shit in their states and the SC agrees with me, then those states will need to outlaw pot again and throw the druggies in the hoosegow?This is actually a good example - the feds are free to come arrest them for any federal laws they have broken and the state cannot stop them because of the supremacy clause. Similarly, states cannot make election laws that violate federal election laws or the Constitution.
So no, Alabama can only make its own rules so far as they comply with federal law. They didn't do that here.
You could try, but you'd also have to show standing first. I think that would be a fairly substantial legal hurdle.So if I sue the states that are letting potheads turn everything to shit in their states and the SC agrees with me, then those states will need to outlaw pot again and throw the druggies in the hoosegow?
No, that would make no sense and would violate the Constitution.So if I sue the states that are letting potheads turn everything to shit in their states and the SC agrees with me, then those states will need to outlaw pot again and throw the druggies in the hoosegow?
You couldn't no matter what. It's a separation of powers issue and the federal government has no control as to what actions a state deems criminal. It can provide incentives for states to make certain things criminal but it can't force them. A state also couldn't prevent the feds from coming in and arresting someone who was breaking federal law.You could try, but you'd also have to show standing first. I think that would be a fairly substantial legal hurdle.
It is also still a federal crime in those states, even if it is no longer a state crime
Withholding federal highway maintenance funds for states that did not enact 21 year old minimum liquor requirements would be a perfect example.You couldn't no matter what. It's a separation of powers issue and the federal government has no control as to what actions a state deems criminal. It can provide incentives for states to make certain things criminal but it can't force them. A state also couldn't prevent the feds from coming in and arresting someone who was breaking federal law.
Lord, he is a clueless numbnutThey don't have the right to violate their citizens rights under the constitution.
So yeah, you can just fuck right off with that states rights shit in regards to this case. Fucking racist POS.
Pshaw, Bryce isn't *that* stupit.Lord, he is a clueless numbnut
That was the most outrageous thing ever. If states want to allow 18 yos to gather for an ale like they do in Europe and Mexico, they should be allowed.Withholding federal highway maintenance funds for states that did not enact 21 year old minimum liquor requirements would be a perfect example.
Oh poor Felix, bless your heart, I know you're doing your best.Pshaw, Bryce isn't *that* stupit.
They are allowed. Didn’t you read my post?That was the most outrageous thing ever. If states want to allow 18 yos to gather for an ale like they do in Europe and Mexico, they should be allowed.
States are perfectly welcome to reject federal highway funds and have a lower drinking ageThat was the most outrageous thing ever. If states want to allow 18 yos to gather for an ale like they do in Europe and Mexico, they should be allowed.