Post #70609 by ptheland on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (136)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 2

By definition, if what the states are doing is meaningful in impeding the federal government, it's barred by the Supremacy Clause.

But isn’t that true only if the federal government is doing one of its constitutionally enumerated things? So if we switch the discussion from immigration enforcement to running elections, we should get a different result. Immigration is something the states delegated to the federal government in the constitution. So that is protected by the supremacy clause. But registering voters was not delegated. So can’t states can do a lot more in that area to push back in that area? The federal government has no authority in voting, so if the feds are trying to enforce something, the states are far more free to interfere with federal agents.

—Peter

—Peter

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (136)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.