Do you believe that states rights trump federal law?

by Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru Posted 2012/05/09 13:01:56

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	38 votes	73%
	No	14 votes	27%

More polls by Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru

cynsity 2012/05/11 02:32:55

No

the federal law aka the federal constitution is the supreme law of the land.... So a state can not have a law or give or take a "right" that is promised by that federal constitution...

However federal supremecy is supposed to be LIMITED to just what is in teh federal constitution and by the application of teh 10th amendment anything not specifically stated as a federal law is then teh will of teh states

reply
scbluesman13 2012/05/09 21:27:21

No

They do not, at least not when there is an issue of redundant law. States are not allowed to make stricter versions of laws that already exist at the federal level (read: immigration enforcement).

reply
goatman112003 2012/05/09 17:57:23

Yes

The Feds have been doing this crap for years and milking the states dry. Now the states are exercising their rights and saying No.

reply
cindy 2012/05/09 17:52:20

Yes

Always !

reply
prosperhappily 2012/05/09 17:49:26

Yes

In many cases. the constitution defines this.

reply
whitewulf--the unruly mobster 2012/05/09 16:59:03
Met 2012/05/09 16:57:49 (edited)

Yes

Well it depends on the issue.

I believe federal law trumps state laws in constitutional matters. If a state law or constitution is in contrast with the Big Constitution, then the Big constitution wins.

I guess what it boils down to for me, state law should not be allowed to take rights away from people. If that's the case Federal law trumps.

However if States are looking at an issue and popular vote is relaxing the restrictions on the populace in state after state, then Federal Law should then follow suit, or at least cease enforcement, unless there's a damn good reason for sticking to their guns.

reply
Seonag 2012/05/09 16:19:40

Yes

+3
According to the 10th Amendment, if the Power isn't delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution, then it belongs to the State!

reply
Assassi... to Seonag 2012/05/09 16:47:25

+1
Thats a big IF.

reply
Ken 2012/05/09 15:21:55

Yes

+2
Yes

reply
Richard Hungwell AKA Relent... 2012/05/09 15:21:00

Yes

+2
I believe they should, not that they currently do.

reply
Flowers 2012/05/09 15:15:59

No

+1
I think Federal law should not be so controlling, I think individual state law should not be so controversial. The more I read about politics and how our government works, the more I see individual elected officials making laws that matter to THEM instead of what is best for the most people they are responsible for. Like gun laws, or marriage laws, or keeping marijuana illegal for example. Each state has a different take on these three examples, and some of them conflict with federal law. It's creating a HUGE mess of our government and at some point when does it become too much?

reply
Philo-Publius 2012/05/09 14:52:29

Yes

+1
Not in the powers enumerated (delegated to the federal government by the states) in the Constitution, and not in any pretended executive or legislative power that would infringe on the rights or protections of citizens or other people within their jurisdiction, as incorporated into the 14th Amendment.

Outside of these areas, however, yes, the 10th Amendment is very specific – and these non-delegated powers reside, according to it, not merely with the states, but with the people, let's not forget.

reply
Cliff 2012/05/09 14:05:47

Yes

+4
The only powers the federal government is supposed to have are those clearly spelled out in the constitution. All other powers belong to the states. The federal government has grossly violated the constitution in that regard and that needs to be corrected.

reply
Waldorf 2012/05/09 14:04:58

No

+1
It is a question of whether they should or whether they do legally. The 14th Amendment intends to prevent States from negating anything guaranteed to US citizens and those others under its jurisdiction by the federal government. The Supreme Court conveniently has not yet allowed that the 14th applies to the 2nd Amendment, while constitutional scholars argue that it clearly does apply and was specifically intended to do so.

reply
Ron 2012/05/09 14:01:08

No

+2
The US Constitution trumps states rights in almost all cases.

reply
Assassi... to Ron 2012/05/09 14:02:26

+1
See I agree. There seems to be confusion over the issue.

reply
The Truth to Assassi... 2012/05/09 14:11:14

+1
Not 'confusion', conflicting ideas and beliefs.

reply
Assassi... to The Truth 2012/05/09 15:13:18

No the tenth amendment is very specific.

reply
The Truth to Assassi... 2012/05/10 00:00:28

The tenth amendment, is just that, an amendment. Added by an evil cabal bent on the destruction of America.

reply
Ron to Assassi... 2012/05/09 14:16:55

+1
The people that are confused don't understand the Constitution, many of them get their views about the Constitution from people who intentionally lie about what it says knowing that these people will never read it for themselves, will never study SC decisions, and do not consider history and how the nation has evolved from colonial days.

You're right there is a lot of confusion and most of it is from pure ignorance.

reply
Assassi... to Ron 2012/05/09 15:13:31

I agree.

reply
scblues... to Assassi... 2012/05/09 21:27:59

SB1070 is a perfect example of where federal law trumps state law.

reply
irish -liberty or death! 2012/05/09 13:58:49

Yes

+5

reply
DM Twin 2012/05/09 13:57:22

Yes

+1
In some case , Yes. That is NOT the way it works in our Country ... sadly .

reply
The Truth 2012/05/09 13:56:40

No

+1
But they should!

reply
Assassi... to The Truth 2012/05/09 14:02:59

+1
Why should they? What is the point of being the UNITED states of America if there is no federal government?

reply
The Truth to Assassi... 2012/05/09 14:09:47

+2
There should still be a federal government. Just not huge overbearing 'nanny-state' government. 90% of law and law enforcement should be entirety up the states.

reply
Assassi... to The Truth 2012/05/09 15:14:10

Law enforcement should be up to the states. Creating laws? Or restricting equality not so much.

reply
scblues... to The Truth 2012/05/09 21:29:20

Whether the federal government imposes nanny-state regulations or common sense regulations, how can you have a semblance of a United States unless you have a central governing body that at least enforces some kind of common standard?

reply
ManBearPig to Assassi... 2012/05/09 15:09:03

+1
if you understand how the constitution was written, it was written to make a federal gov't rule under the guidelines that the provide an intermediary between states and represent the UNITED states to the rest of the world... what is the point of states' laws if federal gov't is "supposed" to be overall law

from what i remember, when states began writing their own constitutions they were to write it how they wanted their laws, but still fell within the lines of the Constitution... not how federal gov't ruled

reply
lstl5 2012/05/09 13:40:36

No

+2
Federal govt gives money to the states, so therefore federal law trumps state law.

reply
keymanjim to lstl5 2012/05/09 14:03:12

+3
The federal government gets that money from the states. So, no. The feds do not override the states.

reply
lstl5 to keymanjim 2012/05/09 14:04:20

Why are the states always begging for money then?

reply
keymanjim to lstl5 2012/05/09 14:13:32

+2
Because the feds take all of it away.

reply
lstl5 to keymanjim 2012/05/09 14:17:48

Oh, really. No state can stand alone without the federal govt financing them.

reply
ManBearPig to lstl5 2012/05/09 15:10:55

+2
states get their own funding from their own taxes that they apply and then get federal money from taxes that they apply to everyone... so if the states only had to tax people and no federal taxes were applied, the states can set taxes to the total rate that everyone pays in their state (local, state, and national rates combined) and they would still be able to finance themselves

reply
lstl5 to ManBearPig 2012/05/09 15:13:03

+1
No, they wouldnt. They could not possibly finance all.

reply
ManBearPig to lstl5 2012/05/09 15:20:54

look at the logistics... say gov't doesnt tax the people in a state... the money that the federal gov't would be getting from those people would be roughly the amount of money they would be giving to that state anyway and the state can instead tax the people their rates plus the federal rate... wa la theres their financing

reply
lstl5 to ManBearPig 2012/05/09 20:21:23

But the fed govt will still need the money to run the country, pay for defense, etc so states cannot prosper without the federal govt.

reply