States Rights: I'm curious, do you cons believe in states rights or not? I ask because a majority of the governors on the coast are against offshore drilling yet conservative...

PeterS

I'm curious, do you cons believe in states rights or not? I ask because a majority of the governors on the coast are against offshore drilling yet conservative government is forcing it on them plus Trump and Sessions have come out against Marijuana even though Trump campaigned on support for States Rights. Hypocrisy aside, why do you cons believe the federal government should be able to force it's will on us and create a nanny state?

DJRich Loc: Western Pa

When they agree with whatever stupid conjob policies that trump or sessions want to enforce. Then states rights simply do not matter.

PeterS wrote:

I'm curious, do you cons believe in states rights or not? I ask because a majority of the governors on the coast are against offshore drilling yet conservative government is forcing it on them plus Trump and Sessions have come out against Marijuana even though Trump campaigned on support for States Rights. Hypocrisy aside, why do you cons believe the federal government should be able to force it's will on us and create a nanny state?

Radiance3

PeterS wrote:

I'm curious, do you cons believe in states rights or not? I ask because a majority of the governors on the coast are against offshore drilling yet conservative government is forcing it on them plus Trump and Sessions have come out against Marijuana even though Trump campaigned on support for States Rights. Hypocrisy aside, why do you cons believe the federal government should be able to force it's will on us and create a nanny state?

==================
All federal laws supersede state's laws. Thus marijuana loved by all democrats could not prevail over the federal mandate of its illegal use.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

PeterS wrote:

I'm curious, do you cons believe in states rights or not? I ask because a majority of the governors on the coast are against offshore drilling yet conservative government is forcing it on them plus Trump and Sessions have come out against Marijuana even though Trump campaigned on support for States Rights. Hypocrisy aside, why do you cons believe the federal government should be able to force it's will on us and create a nanny state?

I sure do Pete. I think that since all these other states are ignoring FEDERAL law, Texas should ignore any, and all FEDERAL gun laws, and allow the over the counter sale of fully auto weapons, explosives, etc. with no questions asked.

arapaho Loc: America

archie bunker wrote:

I sure do Pete. I think that since all these other states are ignoring FEDERAL law, Texas should ignore any, and all FEDERAL gun laws, and allow the over the counter sale of fully auto weapons, explosives, etc. with no questions asked.

That is a genuinely great idea... as long as those guns must stay in Texas. Texans could shoot each other to their heart's content! The rest of the country would benefit. May Idaho could do the same?

Kevyn

archie bunker wrote:

I sure do Pete. I think that since all these other states are ignoring FEDERAL law, Texas should ignore any, and all FEDERAL gun laws, and allow the over the counter sale of fully auto weapons, explosives, etc. with no questions asked.

They can as long as the weapons are produced sold and stay in Texas.

rebob14

PeterS wrote:

I'm curious, do you cons believe in states rights or not? I ask because a majority of the governors on the coast are against offshore drilling yet conservative government is forcing it on them plus Trump and Sessions have come out against Marijuana even though Trump campaigned on support for States Rights. Hypocrisy aside, why do you cons believe the federal government should be able to force it's will on us and create a nanny state?

Ummmm........the nanny state exists..........that is the problem and the explanation for the election.

rebob14

Radiance3 wrote:

==================
All federal laws supersede state's laws. Thus marijuana loved by all democrats could not prevail over the federal mandate of its illegal use.

No!!! Fed Law does not supersede State Law. The very term “federal” was used by the founding generation because the original intent was what Jefferson called “a federation of sovereign entities” delegating enumerated powers to a federal gov’t. It is not a national gov’t and the states are not merely provinces of a single nation.

rebob14

arapaho wrote:

That is a genuinely great idea... as long as those guns must stay in Texas. Texans could shoot each other to their heart's content! The rest of the country would benefit. May Idaho could do the same?

If that means the rest of the country would stop migrating here I’m on board!

rebob14

Kevyn wrote:

They can as long as the weapons are produced sold and stay in Texas.

As socialists are far more dangerous than guns, this would require that you can never leave your little blue heaven, wherever that is.

Radiance3

rebob14 wrote:

No!!! Fed Law does not supersede State Law. The very term “federal” was used by the founding generation because the original intent was what Jefferson called “a federation of sovereign entities” delegating enumerated powers to a federal gov’t. It is not a national gov’t and the states are not merely provinces of a single nation.

================
You need to read and learn about the Constitution.

Here it is, Federal Law under the constitution supersedes all State laws.
The preemption doctrine originates from the supremacy clause of Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution. This doctrine states that any federal law, even if it is only a regulation from a federal agency, supersedes any conflicting state law, even if that law is part of the state's constitution.

Kevyn

rebob14 wrote:

If that means the rest of the country would stop migrating here IÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ¢ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂm on board!

You do realize that every time a Yankee moves to Texas it raises the collective IQ of both places. They just head south until they smell it and west until they step in it.

PeterS

Radiance3 wrote:

==================
All federal laws supersede state's laws. Thus marijuana loved by all democrats could not prevail over the federal mandate of its illegal use.

They can supersede all they want but if they are not enforced they are irrelevant? Do you guys only believe in states rights when it's for something you are for? And what of off shore drilling? Shouldn't the states have their own say in how their resources are used?

Are you for or against states rights. Only a hypocrite is for both...

Radiance3

PeterS wrote:

They can supersede all they want but if they are not enforced they are irrelevant? Do you guys only believe in states rights when it's for something you are for? And what of off shore drilling? Shouldn't the states have their own say in how their resources are used?

Are you for or against states rights. Only a hypocrite is for both...

==================
There are Federal Guidelines on how they are used. States must follow those guidelines.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

PeterS wrote:

They can supersede all they want but if they are not enforced they are irrelevant? Do you guys only believe in states rights when it's for something you are for? And what of off shore drilling? Shouldn't the states have their own say in how their resources are used?

Are you for or against states rights. Only a hypocrite is for both...

Pretty damn funny Peter! During Obama reign of terror, you people thought the opposite. This is soooooo frigging funny to watch!!

Admit it boy! You want everything, and every individual under the control of the federal government! But, only the government YOU choose!! Admit it boy!!