The Biden Presidency

Its deliberate.

The CCP fully infected our great nation and the useful idiots like the lecturer support it.

Its time to get really radical when we take power and fix what has been done to this nation for the past few decades.
 
Metaphysicist said:
Striker, you are just using words in ways that no one actually uses them to call a completely boring statement of 5th grade civics wrong. The Supremacy Clause says “the Laws of the United States [i.e. federal law] … shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding.” It is painfully straightforward: Federal Law beats state law where they conflict. Thats all she said. She didn’t say “federal law is infinite in scope and we can therefore make anybody do anything.” Her statement is boring and uncontroversial.

Your “struck down laws are still federal law so actually this is very complicated” premise is plainly wrong because if they were still “law” they would still be binding on the state courts under the Supremacy Clause. But obviously thats not the case. Reductio ad absurdum. This is Marbury judicial review means “saying what the law is” stuff. Striking it down means it is not law. But until a court says otherwise, its the law. This is the status of “questionable” laws. They are supreme until a court says they are not law.

You are also conflating the limits of federal law with authority of federal law, but she didn’t say “federal law can be about anything.” Yes, the scope of federal law is limited and it doesn’t reach certain subject matter. That doesn’t mean state law “wins” there. It means there is no federal law so the state is the highest authority. After Lopez struck down the gun free school zone law, no one said “welp federal law still says this but i guess we have to let state law trump,” they said “federal law doesn’t reach this issue, so this is not federal law.” There are no federal laws beyond the scope of federal laws. Again, it is an absurdity.

Yes, some states pass unenforceable abortion laws or whatever because they are waiting for a change in the law. Those laws are unenforceable because … drumroll… Federal Law beats state law.

There are NO times where “Federal Law has been prevented from overriding State Law because Congress or an executive agency lacked the power to do it.” In the scenarios you are talking about a Court finds that an action/statute is unconstitutional and is therefore NOT FEDERAL LAW. They absolutely do not say “huh, yeah, this is still a federal law but state law wins here.”

It is very annoying that you who went to law school are giving cover for this very dumb thing sturg said.
Click to expand...

I don't care what Sturg said. A blanket statement that federal law trumps state law is not correct. I'm saying this as someone who went to law school and who has studied Constitutional Law at length.

I think the issue here is that we have differing interpretations of what Psaki said. Your definition of federal law requires that the federal law be valid and enforceable or else it's not federal law. So you have her implying that the federal law she is talking about is valid and enforceable. That's fine, I don't.

I define law a little differently. When a law is struck down by a court I don't consider it as no longer a law, it's just no longer an enforceable law. So when federal statute encroaches into the domain of states and is struck down, I still consider it federal law, it's just not enforceable. This is not a definition no one uses. It's a legally correct definition.

And I again come back to as applied challenges. Courts actually strike down statutes "as applied" much more than they do on their face. There are times where a federal law is a valid law but it is applied in a way in which it cannot trump state law because the federal government lacks the power.

Suppose Congress passes a law stating that carrying a gun on any publicly owned property is a felony. Now suppose Georgia passes a law allowing people with carry permits to carry guns on state owned property. Congress' law wouldn't be unconstitutional on its face. It absolutely has the power to ban the carrying of firearms on federal land. But what if you go into a Georgia state park with a gun? The laws are in direct conflict so which one controls?

In this case it's the state law. Congress lacks the power to ban guns on land owned by Georgia and Georgia absolutely has the power to regulate who can carry a gun on state land. So in this scenario, state law is supreme. While the federal law is valid on its face since it can apply to federal lands, the law is still valid. However, it's invalid as applied to state owned land.

I detest blanket statements about the law. There are so many exceptions in the law.
 
Everything the left says with their backing of 'experts' (code word for pathetic academics like Meta who sell their souls for their donors because they can't generate real income) is shown to be wrong over a long enough timeframe.
 
I take it these churches pay taxes, since this would be illegal otherwise?

[tw]1449510191079301122[/tw]
 
Jaw - You expect the left to play by the same rules as everyone else?

Cheating is how they operate.
 
thethe said:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/09/weather/weather-record-cold-antarctica-climate-change/index.html

Those icecaps must be melting at historic rates.
Click to expand...

From your own article:

Weather versus climate
It is important to understand weather is different from climate. Weather is what happens over shorter periods of time (days to months), such as the seven-day forecast. Climate is what happens over much longer periods of time, such as several years, or even entire generations.
"One such example is a cold snap, which can happen due to sudden changes in atmospheric circulation and may not be linked to climate change," says Tom Slater, Research Fellow at the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at the University of Leeds. "Texas is a good example of this; even though parts of it experienced extreme cold weather earlier this year when air from the Arctic was pushed south, looking at the long-term change in temperature tells us that Texas is 1.5 degrees warmer on average now than it was 100 years ago. That's climate."
Scientists also agree that since the 1950s extreme cold snaps do occur, but climate change is bringing far more heat records than cold records.
"In other words, while the globe may be warmer than average as a whole, some areas will still observe colder temperatures and even severe cold outbreaks," says Zack Labe, Climate Scientist at Colorado State University. "This regional variation is due to the influences of the oceans, mountains, deserts, ice sheets, and other geographic features that all affect our weather and climate. It's also from changes in weather patterns that are related to the position of the jet stream (storm track), which can vary from day-to-day or even month-to-month."
So, this recent winter stretch from June-August is definitely interesting from a research standpoint, but it doesn't necessarily reflect what Antarctica is doing in the long term.

One great example of this is while June-August of this year may have been quite cold, February of the previous year recorded the new all-time record high for the Antarctic continent. On February 6, 2020, the Esperanza Research Station recorded a high temperature of 18.3°C degrees (64.9°F). This broke the previous record for the Antarctic region (continental, including mainland and surrounding islands) of 17.5°C (63.5°F) recorded in March 2015 at the same station.
Click to expand...
 
Oh I know what the defense is to make people still afraid of man made climate change.

Manhattan was supposed to be underwater by now right?
 
sturg33 said:
The stealth messaging change from global warming to climate change was perfect. Whether the climate warms or cools, it is a full blown crisis that requires enormous federal power to stop, with enormous individual sacrifices to liberty as well.
Click to expand...

And the useful idiots happily slurp it up.
 
thethe said:
Oh I know what the defense is to make people still afraid of man made climate change.

Manhattan was supposed to be underwater by now right?
Click to expand...

Climate vs. weather has really been part of the discussion all along. The fact that it can be cold isn’t contradictory to climate change.
 
mqt said:
Climate vs. weather has really been part of the discussion all along. The fact that it can be cold isn’t contradictory to climate change.
Click to expand...

It's great because whether it gets colder or warmer, the solution is always the same. hell even if everything stayed the same they would claim that's not normal and proof of intervention necessary
 
We went from being underwater at the turn of the century to now saying changing temperatures on a short term timeline isn't relevant.

Its an amazing grift to push Marxist ideology into the economy.
 
thethe said:
We went from being underwater at the turn of the century to now saying changing temperatures on a short term timeline isn't relevant.

Its an amazing grift to push Marxist ideology into the economy.
Click to expand...

The national glacier museum had to take down posters claiming that glaciers would be gone by 2021.

Now we have AOC saying the world is gonna end in 2030.

It's always hysteria... they are always wrong.

I'd be less skeptical if the solution didn't involve a massive transfer of power to DC
 
Jaw said:
I take it these churches pay taxes, since this would be illegal otherwise?

[tw]1449510191079301122[/tw]
Click to expand...

That law is probably unenforceable. Premising tax exempt status on content of speech probably runs afoul of of the first amendment. The IRS doesn't even really enforce it.

However, I do find clergy, in their official capacity, advocating for political candidates to be extremely distasteful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top