Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can the federal government punish a state for upholding a federal law that the federal government itself created, but chooses not to enforce.....at the detriment of that states population?
Arizona The new Confederate States of America. Or should I say the new Confederate State of America.
The way it looks, Arizona, Wyoming and and other states may comprise this new Confederacy. It'll be nonviolent this time, and pro-gun Blacks are invited
The way it looks, Arizona, Wyoming and and other states may comprise this new Confederacy. It'll be nonviolent this time, and pro-gun Blacks are invited
Guns, what an odd thing to base one's politics on. It's like basing your politics on hammers or sawzalls. Pliers.
Interesting. The Constitution grants powers to the people that the Articles of Confedration reserved to the states; thus since the broadening of Federal powers are the will of the people as expressed by the election of those who broadened those powers, they are in that sense constitutional.
I can understand why major metropolitan areas like Chicago, New York City, Boston, etc. would want to enact stricter guns laws, given their concentrated and diverse populations. However the average Idaho farmer or Arizona truck driver lives in a different environment. To him/her, Chicago might as well be on Mars.
Columnist Fred Reed called it right. The two have different and irreconcilable views of life and (figurably if not literally) live in two different countries.
I can understand why major metropolitan areas like Chicago, New York City, Boston, etc. would want to enact stricter guns laws, given their concentrated and diverse populations. However the average Idaho farmer or Arizona truck driver lives in a different environment. To him/her, Chicago might as well be on Mars.
Columnist Fred Reed called it right. The two have different and irreconcilable views of life and (figurably if not literally) live in two different countries.
I don't think a person needs a 30 round self-loading rifle in either Arizona or Chicago. Maybe Mars. But if people out in Arizona want to play with such toys that's their affair.
I think lots of people out west just put on a different pose than those in eastern cities and pretend to be far more independent and self sufficient than they really are. People in Chicago may pretend they're in a Jimmy Cagney movie and those in Arizona may pretend they're in a John Wayne movie but both poses are equally nonsensical. We're all tied into the same economic and social system.
It all depends on the will of the federal government to enforce the federal law no matter what the state law may be. Just think about what happened in Arizona regarding school desegration. Arizona asid, "No way" the government of the USA said you have no choice to obey this law and we will see that you do. In the end they sent in the army to enforce the "Federal" law. The only thing a State can do is challenge the law through the courts. This is often done and the SCOTUS makes the final decision.
I don't think sending in the army would be a good idea this time around, it would most likely be the linchpin that starts the 2nd civil war.
bill
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
