The Biden Presidency

sturg33 said:
They dont even pretend to respect the constitutional restrictions. They see themselves as our rulers

[Tw]1448732671979446276[/tw]
Click to expand...

Both positions are crazy oversimplified. A fair bit of your Con Law class in law school focuses on federalism.
 
sturg33 said:
They dont even pretend to respect the constitutional restrictions. They see themselves as our rulers

[Tw]1448732671979446276[/tw]
Click to expand...

I’m no constitutional scholar, but wouldn’t there be a pretty compelling interstate commerce argument here?
 
Last edited:
striker42 said:
Both positions are crazy oversimplified. A fair bit of your Con Law class in law school focuses on federalism.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and Federalism rule number one is exactly what Psaki said.

EDIT: There are obviously arguments that federal law may not allow certain things because of constitutional restrictions, but that's a question of "what is federal law?" There is no question that a valid federal law trumps state law absent a Congressional carve out (which is itself... federal law). This was violently settled 150 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Metaphysicist said:
Yeah, and Federalism rule number one is exactly what Psaki said.

EDIT: There are obviously arguments that federal law may not allow certain things because of constitutional restrictions, but that's a question of "what is federal law?" There is no question that a valid federal law trumps state law absent a Congressional carve out (which is itself... federal law). This was violently settled 150 years ago.
Click to expand...

The problem with what Psaki said is that it's oversimplified. You added "valid' to the phrase "federal law" which is a big change. There are all kinds of federal laws on the books that are unenforceable because Congress lacks the power to pass them. Whether the federal law is valid is the whole argument.

The federal government is one of enumerated powers. If Congress isn't granted the power then the states are given that power. This includes general police powers. The power to regulate the health, safety, welfare, and morals of the populace. Congress doesn't really have the power to do that. It's why you've seen the steady growth in the commerce clause over the last 200 years.

So her statement kind of assumes away the argument.
 
striker42 said:
There are all kinds of federal laws on the books that are unenforceable because Congress lacks the power to pass them.
Click to expand...

Would love to know what statutes "on the books" you are talking about. Anything "on the books" is binding on the states until a court says otherwise (at which point it is not "on the books" or even federal law). "Valid" above meant "not struck down."

striker42 said:
So her statement kind of assumes away the argument.
Click to expand...

No her statement is literally the supremacy clause.
 
Last edited:
msstate7 said:
Like marijuana is illegal by federal law yet legal in some states
Click to expand...


And it was Conservatives who argued federal law overruled states trying to legalize.



https://www.forbes.com/sites/willya...signals-legalization-is-near/?sh=b3646e553215



In June of this year Clarence Thomas made some surprising remarks regarding marijuana and federalism. He does not support the belief that states gave the right to legalize because federal law overrides it. He now says that because the federal government is allowing legalization to go unmolested in states that they are giving up the right to overrule state laws on the issue. He said that he believed the federal goverment could override state law regarding marijuana as a way of setting national policy and that allowing even 1 state to legalize would hurt their ability to enforce prohibition in the other states.




So to be clear federal law on marijuana does override state law. It's only because of Presedential and Congressional mandates telling DoJ and federal prosecutors to not spend money enforcing the federal marijuana law in states where it's legal. And they were actually still doing it. It was a big deal during the Obama admin because he promised to stop the raids of state legal medical marijuana stores. Some cops were literally treating them like ATMs. Send a search team in, take their money, arrest no one, civil asset forfeiture their money and assets.



 
Last edited:
When they created OSHA and delegated rule-making authority to it, thereby intending it's regulations to be federal law. Happy to help if you have additional questions.
 
msstate7 said:
Like marijuana is illegal by federal law yet legal in some states
Click to expand...

They can and did raid and arrest people early on

They still could if they wanted to

Obama said they wouldn’t do that anymore

But it’s insane that we have states still sending people to jail for it while half the country allows it legally

It’s why we need federal legislation to stop the, mostly, dumb as **** slave states that keep it illegal
 
They never look for the best person for the job. They look at who who scores highest on the intersectionality chart and go from there. Bonus points for working on the sham of climatizing the armed forces. So much virtue. So much signalling.

[tw]1448825702342610949[/tw]

FBtDTD0XoAIE15Z
 
Shot in the dark but a person rising to Navy Rear Admiral is capable of " Administering" an agency.
Or at least the opportunity to prove she can't.

Your opposition seems to always check the box of women or people of color.
Why ?
////////////////////////

I remember a guy that ran horse shows being named Director of FEMA
Then there is Ivanka and Jared.
You might want to rethink
 
Metaphysicist said:
When they created OSHA and delegated rule-making authority to it, thereby intending it's regulations to be federal law. Happy to help if you have additional questions.
Click to expand...

Oh I see so osha can now do whatever it wants. It can reinstitute slavery if they so choose.

I look forward to voting osha out at next election
 
sturg33 said:
Oh I see so osha can now do whatever it wants. It can reinstitute slavery if they so choose.

I look forward to voting osha out at next election
Click to expand...

This is what pathetic losers say. More and more power to the government.

Its ok though because the agency was created (with no vote and no continuing vote) by the federal government.
 
57Brave said:
Shot in the dark but a person rising to Navy Rear Admiral is capable of " Administering" an agency.
Or at least the opportunity to prove she can't.

Your opposition seems to always check the box of women or people of color.
Why ?
Click to expand...

As my post alluded to, because the Biden Administration isn't picking them because they're the most qualified, they're picking them to rack up wins on an intersectionality bingo card.
 
The previous "administrator" ran a cruise line.
Don't know who he was but he must have done an adequate job due to the fact we never heard his name

One does not become a Rear Admiral by merely racking up political "wins " or ranking " highest on the intersectionality chart

Is that how you have become too?
Judging every nomination and appointment on whether it is a "political win"

Which brings me to the last.
Besides wondering how much "intersectionality" the Administrator of MARAD carries
Let's bear in mind
Rr. Admiral Phillips is subject to Senate confirmation.
I am looking forward to your on going assessment / reports of hearings
 
Last edited:
Jaw said:
As my post alluded to, because the Biden Administration isn't picking them because they're the most qualified, they're picking them to rack up wins on an intersectionality bingo card.
Click to expand...

I would like to go see your thoughts on the in no way qualified picks of trump

Cause if you believe this about Biden’s picks for agencies

You must have some spicy takes for his opposite of what the agency is meant for etc picks he put in power
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top