acesfull86
Well-known member
How many lies in one tweet? I count 4…
The Biden Presidency
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
How many lies in one tweet? I count 4…
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
Clearly. It's great that you wanna make this weird semantic argument. I will certainly read your law review article on "are unconstitutional laws still federal law?" (And I mean that with complete seriousness, if you wanna write one) It doesn't make it wrong or "crazy oversimplified" for other people to state basic tenets of federalism.
Hmm... real tough one there... lemme just type that into WestLaw:
"Where state and federal law “directly conflict,” state law must give way. PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011).
"
"Congressional enactments that do not exclude all state legislation in same field nevertheless override state laws with which they conflict." Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519, 525–26 (1977)
It's almost like in the situation you described there isn't actually a "direct conflict" because your personal definition isn't how the system actually works. But I dunno, maybe SCOTUS is just confused.
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
I had a buddy in that; worked medical in a prison. Didn't end up being as glamorous as he was hoping.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
https://www.motherjones.com/politic...xit-plan-biden-infrastructure-deal-exclusive/
In recent days, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) has told associates that he is considering leaving the Democratic Party if President Joe Biden and Democrats on Capitol Hill do not agree to his demand to cut the size of the social infrastructure bill from $3.5 trillion to $1.75 trillion, according to people who have heard Manchin discuss this. Manchin has said that if this were to happen, he would declare himself an “American Independent.” And he has devised a detailed exit strategy for his departure.
...
He told associates that he has a two-step plan for exiting the party. First, he would send a letter to Sen. Chuck Schumer, the top Senate Democrat, removing himself from the Democratic leadership of the Senate. (He is vice chairman of the Senate Democrats’ policy and communications committee.) Manchin hopes that would send a signal. He would then wait and see if that move had any impact on the negotiations. After about a week, he said, he would change his voter registration from Democrat to independent.
...
Still, he has informed associates that because he is so out of sync with the Democratic Party he believes it is likely he will leave the party by November 2022.
Manchin has repeatedly said that he has a significant philosophical difference with most of his fellow Democrats. He has told reporters that he believes major programs in the Build Back Better bill would move the United States toward an “entitlement mentality” and that he cannot accept that. In a recent meeting with Biden, Manchin told the president that he sees government as a partner with the public not the ultimate provider, according to people who heard the senator’s account of the conversation. He explained to the president that in his view Biden didn’t win the presidency last year by championing progressive proposals, and he pressed the president to recall his campaign promise to bring people together. He also reminded Biden that he has vowed not to support any package unless it contains the Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of federal funds to pay for abortions, except in cases of incest or when the life of the mother is at risk.
Just call it for what it is.
The American Democrat party has turned into a party of Communism.
I'm now in the camp that I think its fine if Trump stays away moving forward but his presidency is what will end up saving the country because he infuriated the left so much that they showed their hand faster than they were planning.
The American Democrat party has turned into a party of Communism.
I'm now in the camp that I think its fine if Trump stays away moving forward but his presidency is what will end up saving the country because he infuriated the left so much that they showed their hand faster than they were planning.
striker42
Well-known member
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1260
The Federal Government lacks the power to ban guns in a school zone (and likely other similar places). So in my example of a federal law outlawing carrying a gun on public land while a state law makes it legal, the state law prevails because that power is the states.
Where the supremacy clause matters is where both the states and the federal government have concurrent power. Where power overlaps and there are conflicting laws, the federal law wins. But if the feds lack the power to do something and the states have that power, the state law is supreme.
You can read Psaki's statement as only applying to valid, enforceable federal law but that's not how I read it. Blanket statements set off alarm bells for attorneys.
striker42
Well-known member
Doesn't sound like they get many officers who end up with statues in Washington.
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
Yes. But above you said this second situation was a “direct conflict.” It’s not, because as you say, if there was a conflict the state law would lose. And there is no conflict because… there is no federal law to conflict with beyond the limits set on federal power. Voila, we did it.
I also went to law school. Reciting basic principles of federal law directly stated in the constitution and regularly repeated by rote in SCOTUS opinions does not set off alarm bells for me.
striker42
Well-known member
In the example I gave, you have a federal law banning guns on public land and state law allowing them in state parks. Those laws, by their words, are in direct conflict. That conflict goes to the courts to decide which law applies. The court rules the federal government lacks the power to regulate guns on state land and so the state law prevails. The fact that the federal law was deemed unconstitutional as applied doesn't mean that there was never any conflict between the two laws.
Going to law school you should know the problem with blanket statements about the law. The one constant is that there are always exceptions. Even the most fundamental principles have exceptions.
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
We are just going around and around on this striker.
If they were “laws in direct conflict” the answer would be federal law wins, see direct cites above. If federal law isn’t winning, there is no direct conflict. QED. Full stop. “The court rules” explicitly that there is no conflict because there is no longer federal law in the scenario you are describing.
And yes, they would be in conflict before the fed statute was thrown out. But in that a priori situation, state law loses and the federal law is supreme. If you go to court and don’t challenge the constitutionality of the federal law, but only ask the court to enforce the state law because this is a “state domain,” you will lose.
But I will eagerly await your criticism of every other anodyne “blanket statement of law” said by a public official. You will be very tired. Here’s a scary one, also straight from the constitution, so I’m sure you will find all the numerous exceptions:
Me, definitely a public official: “you have to be 35 to be president, sorry bro.”
If they were “laws in direct conflict” the answer would be federal law wins, see direct cites above. If federal law isn’t winning, there is no direct conflict. QED. Full stop. “The court rules” explicitly that there is no conflict because there is no longer federal law in the scenario you are describing.
And yes, they would be in conflict before the fed statute was thrown out. But in that a priori situation, state law loses and the federal law is supreme. If you go to court and don’t challenge the constitutionality of the federal law, but only ask the court to enforce the state law because this is a “state domain,” you will lose.
But I will eagerly await your criticism of every other anodyne “blanket statement of law” said by a public official. You will be very tired. Here’s a scary one, also straight from the constitution, so I’m sure you will find all the numerous exceptions:
Me, definitely a public official: “you have to be 35 to be president, sorry bro.”
Last edited:
striker42
Well-known member
I will admit that I do really dislike Psaki. I don't feel she's very good at her job. It's almost like she doesn't even try to spin things. She just says something and expects people to lap it up. It's kind of insulting. I know it's the job of a press secretary to lie and misdirect but at least give me the courtesy of trying to hoodwink me.