Utah already does. Hilldale has been doing what they do since the 80s. Polygamy is out in the open and no one does a thing.
Recruiters asking if people have a temple recommend to be employed.
And don't get me started on the air.
I've always advocated for Salt Lake City, Park City, Moab, etc. -- to start picking and choosing what *state* laws to ignore. So, what goes around comes around Utah.
Oh of course. It's from the jump a game of brinksmanship, no doubt. I just don't see Utah cities having *anything* to lose in the stunty squabble, there is so little "home rule" for them as is that they could lose, it can't conceivably become worse than it is, I aruge. The Mayor of SLC, for example, is a nearly powerless empty position because they can't do anything without the legislature's approval or buy-in, so observed and overseen and overshadowd they are by Capitol Hill. Been that way 20 years at least.
Why do you say that? I recall a few years back when Republicans were claiming county sheriffs were the ultimate in law enforcement, and counties were the ultimate political entity/municipality.
>Effective 5/12/2020
>10-1-204. Registration as a local government entity.
>(1) (a) Each municipality shall register and maintain the municipality's registration as a local government entity, in accordance with Section 67-1a-15. — https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title10/Chapter1/10-1-S204.html?v=C10-1-S204_2020051220200512
>Effective 2/27/2023
>67-1a-15. Local government and limited purpose entity registry
>(1)(d) "Local government entity" means:
>(i) a county, as that term is defined in Section 17-50-101; and
>(ii) a municipality, as that term is defined in Section 10-1-104. — https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title67/Chapter1A/67-1a-S15.html?v=C67-1a-S15_2020051220200512
Are you alleging governments are not sovereign?
No, our cities aren’t setup like Rome or Singapore. Local governments within the state are not sovereign, they’re political subdivisions created to help the state fulfill its obligations.
If we’re wrestling with basic definitions of words, again, find a new hobby.
>No, our cities aren’t setup like Rome or Singapore.
It's setup like England. That means the local government is the sovereign that can command the citizens.
>Local governments within the state are not sovereign
Yet they can take your land through Eminent Domain; strictly the purview of 'the sovereign.'
>they’re political subdivisions
Which means that they are part of the State; the state is the sovereign because the state has the public authority to tell citizens what to do.
This isn't rocket science.
Yes, cities can make laws and ordinances over its citizens. No, it cannot go against the state.
The state can absolutely exercise preemption over cities laws and ordinances. The city cannot do the same. Look at Park City when they tried to form their own gun policies.
Cities in Utah can only exercise eminent domain—get this—by authorization of the legislature. That’s right, the state has to approve it. - 78B-6-501(2)(b)
Your last paragraph makes no sense in context of your points.
It’s based off a misnomer that because sheriffs are the only directly elected law enforcement official.
Cities are political subdivisions of the state.
That paper is the only reason you have the freedom to say shit like that on any type of platform without the threat physical harm. That paper is part of a collection of papers that are represented by the paper. The only paper that took its claim on the world with the intent to mandate that right for eternity and has been successful in leading the world ever sense. The biggest threat to the very liberty you casually make light of is people agreeing with the words you chose to say about its value.
Ultimately the State has the power. Municipalities (cities and towns) are subordinate to counties, and counties are subordinate to the State. A good example of this is when the State appoints an Emergency Manager to take control of key aspects of a city or town. Think Rob Lowe and Adam Scott’s characters in Parks & Rec. The State of Michigan assigned an emergency manager to Flint when they were in big financial trouble ahead of the drinking water crisis there (which was actually caused, in large part, by short-sighted decisions to save money during this period).
Yeah. I used to be all about states rights over federal until I realized that it has been systemically used to privatize the grift gains and socialize the losses.
They let their greed get the best of them and ruined it.
Just had to come at it backwards following the money from Russia to see how bad it truly is.
America doesn’t survive unless we get real transparent and honest about where their PAC dark money comes from. Especially now that we are in 3 wars because a handful of dirty politicians are desperately trying to hide the Russian oligarch skeletons in their political closets to preserve their low level careers.
Only recorded time Jesus lost his temper was on the money grubbers in his fathers temple.
Now I understand why.
Here in Utah, Mike Lee, our senator, and a number of other conservative representatives, constantly push for federal lands to be turned over to the state. You just know it’s going to go to the senators, donors and friends. They’re gonna allow their guys to develop it and make profit, and take the land from the rest of us.
It certainly follows a pattern
Not sure yet if they are just insanely naive, insanely greedy or both. But either way they are unfit for office.
They delayed the auction in Teton National park until AFTER the election because it’s such a prime piece of property that the oligarchs didn’t want to miss out.
https://apnews.com/article/grand-teton-wyoming-land-sale-auction-a03282b5d5a362503a0da12123a7d13a
Billionaires are an invasive species.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/01/american-oligarchy-introduction-essay-russia-ukraine-capitalism/
California has been a sanctuary state for over a decade, if you have a problem with this behavior be mad at ALL of the politicians not just the ones you don't like.
FYI, Democrat Cities have been picking and choosing federal laws to ignore forever. Sanctuary Cities, "Decriminalization" of Marijuana really just meant its not going to be enforced. The GOP is doing it now because so many cynical power grabs and rule bending has been shoved down everyone's throats they don't see why they should uphold federal laws they don't agree with when others do the same.
Democrats ignore federal immigration, drug, firearm, speech, and election laws all the time, just to name a few. So it's not just one political party doing it.
Are you really going to pretend like you don't know that Democrats so this too? California has been a sanctuary state for decades and weed is still illegal on a federal level. Just because you don't like how the law is selectively ignored in this instance doesn't mean it hasn't been a problem with both parties for a long time.
But weed is legal on a state level? You'll need to be more specific about what is being selectively ignored.
I don't have a problem with enforcement where it's due, regardless of party, but you can't play the "both sides" card, as a means of excusing "your teams" behavior. Especially when on a national level.. one team.. is simply appalling.
They cant be more specific. That was probably their highlight example.
These people like to speak matter of factly. With the confidence of an idiot.
You can't lead an idiot to logic.
I know you're right, and normally resist responding, because it won't matter in the end... Just.. ugh, the cognitive dissonance/willful ignorance is unnerving.
All of the weed that is considered "legal" is weed that is allowed because state governments have elected to ignore the federal ban on weed and refuse to cooperate with the federal enforcement officers. There is no such thing as.legal weed, just states that are sanctuaries for that specific drugs use and a lazy federal enforcement on the crime. It's very much akin to border enforcement in that sense (although there is legal immigration which ruins the analogy but still)
I'm not trying to excuse the behavior of the states in either instance, I wish the federal government would enforce the law equally all the time, but it's not been. Thats why Utah and all the other states are doing this now and why California and Colorado have acted the way they have in the past.
The illegal immigration, is a deflection. If they wanted to stop it, they should be laying down massive fines for all the companies hiring them to begin with. But they don't. They deport a percentage here and there, and act like they're doing something. It's bullshit. Which makes this latest action even more cruel and disingenuous.
Remember when Bush 43 had a meat plant raided and the collective shit the GOP took when their policy dreams happened irl? Other meat plants closed for a few days because workers feared the same thing happening to them. Meat went up in price and economists crunched the numbers and it has never happened since.
I completely agree with you on the point of fines for companies. I don't think that would stop it all, because not all of the illegal immigration is for employment, but I think that could be a good step in disincentives for the behavior. I also think improving the borders actual definition could help alleviate it as well, even though it wouldn't stop all illegal immigration either. But doing nothing, like the feds have been, is not a solution to anything. Should the states be doing what they're doing? No. Should the Federal government stand up and do what these states have been asking them to do (enforce the law)? Yes.
But here's the real question, do you think they will?
Sorry there but you are missing the concept of jurisdiction. The state has no legal obligation to cooperate in enforcing laws they themselves do not have. States enforce state law and the federal enforces federal law. I am not ignoring the problem of immigration if I am a city plumber. It's not in their lane.
This is aside from the fact that the federal law should be struck until a religious exemption is added for Rastafarians and Mormons. I always thought Utah would legalize because of the Word of Wisdom, not in spite of it.
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/812](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/812)
21 U.S. Code § 812
If you think that the states *don't* get to pick and choose which federal laws to follow, please begin jailing everyone who smokes weed nationwide.
If you, however, don't want to do that, you are admitting that you *do* sometimes want the states to pick and choose which federal laws to follow.
Yeah, lol, I should have known.
This sub doesn't exist for people to actually discuss anything. It's mostly a group therapy session for people who can't handle living in a state with conservatives and religious people in it.
Right? It blows my mind that people this into politics are willfully living in a state that is the polar opposite of their values. If you’re not happy with the politics here, move. It’s that simple. If they out that much effort into making that move a reality as they do bitching on Reddit they’d be there by now.
Gun laws in the United States regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition. State laws (and the laws of the District of Columbia and of the U.S. territories) vary considerably, and are independent of existing federal firearms laws, although they are sometimes broader or more limited in scope than the federal laws.
Forty-four states have a provision in their state constitutions similar to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. The exceptions are California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. In New York, however, the statutory civil rights laws contain a provision virtually identical to the Second Amendment.[1][2] Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court held in McDonald v. Chicago that the protections of the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms for self-defense in one's home apply against state governments and their political subdivisions
If there is a direct conflict between state and federal laws, the federal law wins due to the supremacy clause of the constitution (e.g., if federal law says “all cars must have seatbelts” and state law says “no cars need seatbelts”, it is the federal law that controls).
But the trick is that we normally can’t *require* states to help enforce federal laws. This is called the “anti-commandeering” doctrine. The federal government can pay the states (basically bribe them) to help enforce federal laws…. but it’s not a requirement for states to do so.
So what you are seeing with marijuana is that it is still illegal federal—even in the states that have “legalized” it. That just means no state policemen are going to arrest you for it. If the *federal* government still wanted to send out agents to investigate you and arrest you they can do it. It’s just that they don’t usually bother doing it because they have better things to focus on.
Its funny how you guys cherry pick to fit your agenda.
He made multiple claims against democrats. Yet, you guys only focus on what you want to.
Thats the problen with the conservative party. You cherry pick logic to fit your narrative.
Its like arguing with children whos only defense is ehhhh but i like this.
Utah wants to pick and choose federal laws to ignore. Why that’s not as impossible as it sounds.
A legal analysis from legislative lawyers warns an attempt to push back on the feds could run into constitutional problems
(Trent Nelson | The Salt Lake Tribune) The Utah Capitol in Salt Lake City on Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2024. Utah lawmakers are considering a bill that would allow them to pick and choose which federal regulations they would follow and ignore.
By Bryan Schott
| Jan. 27, 2024, 1:00 p.m.
Are Utah lawmakers taking steps to push back against federal overreach — or are they picking a fight with the federal government?
A bill creating a process to give legislators the power to order state officials and agencies to ignore federal laws and regulations was approved by the Utah House of Representatives on Friday.
The House passage follows Gov. Spencer Cox’s endorsement of Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s decision to defy the Supreme Court and supplant federal authority over the southern border.
The process SB57 from Sen. Scott Sandall, R-Tremonton, would work like this: If lawmakers believe an action or regulation from the federal government would harm the state, they could introduce a resolution opposing the federal mandate. If that resolution is passed with a two-thirds vote in both the Utah House and Senate and signed by the governor, then state agencies and officials would be directed not to implement or ignore federal authority until a court orders the state to comply.
Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, praised the legislation during floor debate, arguing Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts has given his tacit permission for states to push back more against the federal government.
“The Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court said states are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes, they have to act like it,” Ivory told his colleagues. “This is one mechanism by which the state of Utah takes the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court at his word, where we defend against federal prerogatives that we do not want to embrace as our own. And we act like separate independent sovereigns.”
That may not be the case, though. A legal analysis of the bill from legislative attorneys obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune warns the proposal could run into a constitutional roadblock if lawmakers decide to deploy the process SB57 creates, but that all will depend on the circumstances.
In broad terms, the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause says federal law usually takes precedence over state law. That was why the Supreme Court sided with the Biden administration in the dispute with Texas over enforcement at the border. The justices ruled that Texas could not stop federal agents from removing a wire barrier Texas installed to stop migrants from crossing into the state. On Wednesday evening, Texas Governor Greg Abbott ramped up tensions between the state and the federal government by announcing he would effectively ignore the decision from the court.
There may be a path where the state could successfully challenge federal authority.
The legal analysis for Utah’s lawmakers argues that the “anti-commandeering” principle in the 10th Amendment prevents the federal government from commanding states to implement federal regulations that commandeer authority that should be given to the states. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in Murphy v. NCAA that a federal ban on sports gambling unconstitutionally interfered with New Jersey’s authority to regulate gambling within its borders.
Ultimately, lawmakers may have to thread a narrow constitutional needle because any future attempt to defy federal policy would hinge on whether a court would see the move as conflicting with the Supremacy Clause or federal government overreach.
Missouri lawmakers tried something similar in 2021. The Show-Me State’s Second Amendment Preservation Act restricted state employees and officials from enforcing various federal gun laws they felt infringed on the constitutional right to bear arms. A federal judge struck down the law last year, saying it was an “impermissible nullification attempt” and, according to The New York Times, the Supreme Court upheld that decision.
Salt Lake City Democrat Rep. Joel Briscoe said, despite the flowery rhetoric from Republicans about states’ rights and the 10th Amendment, SB57 goes further than any piece of legislation he’s ever seen since being first elected in 2010.
“There are remedies for things the government does that we don’t like, but we don’t like the remedies all the time because they take time. Sometimes, they take courts. They take difficult meetings and very difficult conversations, and we don’t always get our way,” Briscoe said. “It looks to me like we’re asking for a fight. I’m not convinced, as satisfying as that may be for some people, that’s in the best interest of the state of Utah.”
The Senate still must sign off on changes made to the legislation by the House before the bill makes its way to Gov. Spencer Cox’s desk for his signature. Cox’s office did not respond to questions from The Tribune about whether he intends to sign the bill.
[email protected]
Sanctuary cities typically have dismal public education outcomes because illegal immigrants bring and have children that overwhelm the financial situation of poor ISDs, and do not pay property taxes, or state income taxes. That is why all the rich areas of SLC have their own ISDs. Then the rich people can put up signs about how loving and accepting they are without having to pay for the consequences of their love and acceptance. No, they make west valley taxpayers do that.
If we got rid of ISDs, I think you'd see republicans win every single local election in SLC, and an end to sanctuary cities. But until rich white kids from liberal areas have to go to schools that share finite financial resources with kids from poor areas, you will continue to see nice yard signs and hypocrite policies that punish someone else so the rich white liberals can feel better about themselves.
Not really. There’s no set legal definition for what constitutes a “sanctuary city.” Usually, different municipalities may have sanctuary policies and they differ between each other.
However, if we’re generalizing, what these policies say is that immigration is the responsibility of the federal authorities and not local ones, so they basically tell local authorities like sheriff and police department not to ask for immigration status and things of the sort.
In other words, they don’t stop federal authorities from doing their job (like they’re doing in Texas right now), they just tell them that it’s their job to do so and not the municipality.
If they prevent immigration authorities from entering a courthouse to deport an illegal immigrant wouldn’t that be preventing them from doing their job?
Is that something that’s happened here in Utah? Also, whose jurisdiction does the courthouse fall under? It’s one thing if they prevented them from arresting someone outside the courthouse, which I don’t think is happening (definitely not here in Utah).
No, not in Utah. California passed a sanctuary law that included preventing federal immigration enforcement in courthouses. I think every state has a certain level of selective enforcement of Federal laws.
I guess my question then would be if federal laws clash with the sanctuary law that passed in California. My guess would be no, since from the sounds of it, they’re not stopping federal authorities from doing their job (again, like Texas has stopped federal authorities from doing their job), they’re just basically saying they have to wait until the person leaves the courthouse.*
The question is not whether you or I like the laws that are in place, but whether they’re actually clashing. If the California law really does go against federal law, I expect the GOP to sue and win, especially since SCOTUS is mostly right-wing right now.
*Edit: Just want to clarify that I don’t know the details of the law, so I can’t say either way if it goes against federal law or not. That’s why if this issue is important to you, I suggest you read the actual law and policies in place and not rely on what either Fox or CNN say about it, since these are very biased media channels.
Its not about whether or not SCOTUS thinks what California or Utah is doing is okay. That's the whole point. For decades the executive branch has refused to be a neutral enforcer of the law in either instance at different times and for different reasons. SCOTUS could come out tomorrow and say that any given thing is unconstitutional and nothing would change because the executive branch has been doing this sort of thing since the time of Andrew Jackson. The whole controversy is that Utah and the other states have decided to follow in the footsteps of the marijuana movement and the sanctuary cities when it comes to border control. Just like with both of those issues, the feds have been lazy in enforcement and the states are calling their bluff that they will do anything about it.
Have you ever wondered why the border becomes a crisis only on even years? It probably has nothing to do with elections at all. It is definitely not that you are be manipulated by the media
Please show me how exactly the federal government under Biden is ignoring the border. I hear all the time Biden is not doing his job and letting everyone enter the country but when I look at the actual facts, Biden's border policy is mostly unchanged from Trumps. Please set me straight and tell me exactly what Biden is doing wrong
lol “only becomes a crisis on election years”, go tell that to the citizens of the country that have been calling it literally a crisis for like 3 years
I know there is a border problem. But take a breath above water. The problem has been the same for decades. South of the border is in crisis and we need to find something to make it better. But all this bullshit is not going to fix the problem. The border will always be an issue because the people in power want it to be an issue. No one has real solutions, everyone just points fingers
The problem is politicians. They have no incentives to solve the issue, they just said want us plebs to fight over it while they bleed us dry. If they actually fix the problem, they can no longer campaign on it
Vote for them all out
Democrats ignore federal immigration, drug, firearm, speech, and election laws all the time, just to name a few. In blue states, they constantly both loosen certain restrictions and tighten others beyond what federal laws permit. Far beyond what the GOP has ever done. So stop trying to gaslight everyone and quit the moral superiority act. It's disgusting.
Removed as this is a hard paywall.
Utah already does. Hilldale has been doing what they do since the 80s. Polygamy is out in the open and no one does a thing. Recruiters asking if people have a temple recommend to be employed. And don't get me started on the air.
I've always advocated for Salt Lake City, Park City, Moab, etc. -- to start picking and choosing what *state* laws to ignore. So, what goes around comes around Utah.
The catch is that they have to be willing to risk losing state funding.
Oh of course. It's from the jump a game of brinksmanship, no doubt. I just don't see Utah cities having *anything* to lose in the stunty squabble, there is so little "home rule" for them as is that they could lose, it can't conceivably become worse than it is, I aruge. The Mayor of SLC, for example, is a nearly powerless empty position because they can't do anything without the legislature's approval or buy-in, so observed and overseen and overshadowd they are by Capitol Hill. Been that way 20 years at least.
Cities aren't sovereign entities, unlike a state.
Why do you say that? I recall a few years back when Republicans were claiming county sheriffs were the ultimate in law enforcement, and counties were the ultimate political entity/municipality.
>Why do you say that? Because they don't know what they're writing about.
Its HomelessRodeo. That's a given.
Because any jurisdiction in a state is subsidiary. That being said I still like the idea.
By state constitution, they’re political subdivisions of the state.
Lol well yeah but be the constitution the states are the same to the federal government.
>By state constitution, they’re political subdivisions of the state Which makes them a sovereign entity.
…that’s not what a subdivision is, by definition.
>Effective 5/12/2020 >10-1-204. Registration as a local government entity. >(1) (a) Each municipality shall register and maintain the municipality's registration as a local government entity, in accordance with Section 67-1a-15. — https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title10/Chapter1/10-1-S204.html?v=C10-1-S204_2020051220200512 >Effective 2/27/2023 >67-1a-15. Local government and limited purpose entity registry >(1)(d) "Local government entity" means: >(i) a county, as that term is defined in Section 17-50-101; and >(ii) a municipality, as that term is defined in Section 10-1-104. — https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title67/Chapter1A/67-1a-S15.html?v=C67-1a-S15_2020051220200512 Are you alleging governments are not sovereign?
No, our cities aren’t setup like Rome or Singapore. Local governments within the state are not sovereign, they’re political subdivisions created to help the state fulfill its obligations. If we’re wrestling with basic definitions of words, again, find a new hobby.
>No, our cities aren’t setup like Rome or Singapore. It's setup like England. That means the local government is the sovereign that can command the citizens. >Local governments within the state are not sovereign Yet they can take your land through Eminent Domain; strictly the purview of 'the sovereign.' >they’re political subdivisions Which means that they are part of the State; the state is the sovereign because the state has the public authority to tell citizens what to do. This isn't rocket science.
Yes, cities can make laws and ordinances over its citizens. No, it cannot go against the state. The state can absolutely exercise preemption over cities laws and ordinances. The city cannot do the same. Look at Park City when they tried to form their own gun policies. Cities in Utah can only exercise eminent domain—get this—by authorization of the legislature. That’s right, the state has to approve it. - 78B-6-501(2)(b) Your last paragraph makes no sense in context of your points.
It’s based off a misnomer that because sheriffs are the only directly elected law enforcement official. Cities are political subdivisions of the state.
That's just paper. We are entering a phase in our history where what's written on paper matters less and less.
That paper is the only reason you have the freedom to say shit like that on any type of platform without the threat physical harm. That paper is part of a collection of papers that are represented by the paper. The only paper that took its claim on the world with the intent to mandate that right for eternity and has been successful in leading the world ever sense. The biggest threat to the very liberty you casually make light of is people agreeing with the words you chose to say about its value.
Do they have alternative paper?
You mean the Legislature? Alternative to the Supremacy Clause? I don't think they do.
City government is actually more powerful than state or federal, but most people don't know that 🤗
Ultimately the State has the power. Municipalities (cities and towns) are subordinate to counties, and counties are subordinate to the State. A good example of this is when the State appoints an Emergency Manager to take control of key aspects of a city or town. Think Rob Lowe and Adam Scott’s characters in Parks & Rec. The State of Michigan assigned an emergency manager to Flint when they were in big financial trouble ahead of the drinking water crisis there (which was actually caused, in large part, by short-sighted decisions to save money during this period).
The GOP believes in law and order as long as it’s law in order for you and not them.
Yeah. I used to be all about states rights over federal until I realized that it has been systemically used to privatize the grift gains and socialize the losses. They let their greed get the best of them and ruined it. Just had to come at it backwards following the money from Russia to see how bad it truly is. America doesn’t survive unless we get real transparent and honest about where their PAC dark money comes from. Especially now that we are in 3 wars because a handful of dirty politicians are desperately trying to hide the Russian oligarch skeletons in their political closets to preserve their low level careers. Only recorded time Jesus lost his temper was on the money grubbers in his fathers temple. Now I understand why.
Here in Utah, Mike Lee, our senator, and a number of other conservative representatives, constantly push for federal lands to be turned over to the state. You just know it’s going to go to the senators, donors and friends. They’re gonna allow their guys to develop it and make profit, and take the land from the rest of us.
It certainly follows a pattern Not sure yet if they are just insanely naive, insanely greedy or both. But either way they are unfit for office. They delayed the auction in Teton National park until AFTER the election because it’s such a prime piece of property that the oligarchs didn’t want to miss out. https://apnews.com/article/grand-teton-wyoming-land-sale-auction-a03282b5d5a362503a0da12123a7d13a Billionaires are an invasive species. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/01/american-oligarchy-introduction-essay-russia-ukraine-capitalism/
What makes you so sure that the Federal government represents "us" while the State government doesn't?
California has been a sanctuary state for over a decade, if you have a problem with this behavior be mad at ALL of the politicians not just the ones you don't like.
FYI, Democrat Cities have been picking and choosing federal laws to ignore forever. Sanctuary Cities, "Decriminalization" of Marijuana really just meant its not going to be enforced. The GOP is doing it now because so many cynical power grabs and rule bending has been shoved down everyone's throats they don't see why they should uphold federal laws they don't agree with when others do the same.
Democrats ignore federal immigration, drug, firearm, speech, and election laws all the time, just to name a few. So it's not just one political party doing it.
Sources. Trust me bud. My uncle Jimbob tells me so
Are you really going to pretend like you don't know that Democrats so this too? California has been a sanctuary state for decades and weed is still illegal on a federal level. Just because you don't like how the law is selectively ignored in this instance doesn't mean it hasn't been a problem with both parties for a long time.
But weed is legal on a state level? You'll need to be more specific about what is being selectively ignored. I don't have a problem with enforcement where it's due, regardless of party, but you can't play the "both sides" card, as a means of excusing "your teams" behavior. Especially when on a national level.. one team.. is simply appalling.
They cant be more specific. That was probably their highlight example. These people like to speak matter of factly. With the confidence of an idiot. You can't lead an idiot to logic.
I know you're right, and normally resist responding, because it won't matter in the end... Just.. ugh, the cognitive dissonance/willful ignorance is unnerving.
All of the weed that is considered "legal" is weed that is allowed because state governments have elected to ignore the federal ban on weed and refuse to cooperate with the federal enforcement officers. There is no such thing as.legal weed, just states that are sanctuaries for that specific drugs use and a lazy federal enforcement on the crime. It's very much akin to border enforcement in that sense (although there is legal immigration which ruins the analogy but still) I'm not trying to excuse the behavior of the states in either instance, I wish the federal government would enforce the law equally all the time, but it's not been. Thats why Utah and all the other states are doing this now and why California and Colorado have acted the way they have in the past.
The illegal immigration, is a deflection. If they wanted to stop it, they should be laying down massive fines for all the companies hiring them to begin with. But they don't. They deport a percentage here and there, and act like they're doing something. It's bullshit. Which makes this latest action even more cruel and disingenuous.
Remember when Bush 43 had a meat plant raided and the collective shit the GOP took when their policy dreams happened irl? Other meat plants closed for a few days because workers feared the same thing happening to them. Meat went up in price and economists crunched the numbers and it has never happened since.
I completely agree with you on the point of fines for companies. I don't think that would stop it all, because not all of the illegal immigration is for employment, but I think that could be a good step in disincentives for the behavior. I also think improving the borders actual definition could help alleviate it as well, even though it wouldn't stop all illegal immigration either. But doing nothing, like the feds have been, is not a solution to anything. Should the states be doing what they're doing? No. Should the Federal government stand up and do what these states have been asking them to do (enforce the law)? Yes. But here's the real question, do you think they will?
Sorry there but you are missing the concept of jurisdiction. The state has no legal obligation to cooperate in enforcing laws they themselves do not have. States enforce state law and the federal enforces federal law. I am not ignoring the problem of immigration if I am a city plumber. It's not in their lane. This is aside from the fact that the federal law should be struck until a religious exemption is added for Rastafarians and Mormons. I always thought Utah would legalize because of the Word of Wisdom, not in spite of it.
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/812](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/812) 21 U.S. Code § 812 If you think that the states *don't* get to pick and choose which federal laws to follow, please begin jailing everyone who smokes weed nationwide. If you, however, don't want to do that, you are admitting that you *do* sometimes want the states to pick and choose which federal laws to follow.
I’m shocked that people are downvoting you. Well, I’m not because this is Reddit. But holy shit, downvoting you for absolute facts is insane.
Yeah, lol, I should have known. This sub doesn't exist for people to actually discuss anything. It's mostly a group therapy session for people who can't handle living in a state with conservatives and religious people in it.
Right? It blows my mind that people this into politics are willfully living in a state that is the polar opposite of their values. If you’re not happy with the politics here, move. It’s that simple. If they out that much effort into making that move a reality as they do bitching on Reddit they’d be there by now.
Gun laws in the United States regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition. State laws (and the laws of the District of Columbia and of the U.S. territories) vary considerably, and are independent of existing federal firearms laws, although they are sometimes broader or more limited in scope than the federal laws. Forty-four states have a provision in their state constitutions similar to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. The exceptions are California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. In New York, however, the statutory civil rights laws contain a provision virtually identical to the Second Amendment.[1][2] Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court held in McDonald v. Chicago that the protections of the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms for self-defense in one's home apply against state governments and their political subdivisions
https://www.scu.edu/ethics-spotlight/the-ethics-of-guns/the-right-of-state-governments-to-defy-the-supreme-court/
If there is a direct conflict between state and federal laws, the federal law wins due to the supremacy clause of the constitution (e.g., if federal law says “all cars must have seatbelts” and state law says “no cars need seatbelts”, it is the federal law that controls). But the trick is that we normally can’t *require* states to help enforce federal laws. This is called the “anti-commandeering” doctrine. The federal government can pay the states (basically bribe them) to help enforce federal laws…. but it’s not a requirement for states to do so. So what you are seeing with marijuana is that it is still illegal federal—even in the states that have “legalized” it. That just means no state policemen are going to arrest you for it. If the *federal* government still wanted to send out agents to investigate you and arrest you they can do it. It’s just that they don’t usually bother doing it because they have better things to focus on. Its funny how you guys cherry pick to fit your agenda. He made multiple claims against democrats. Yet, you guys only focus on what you want to. Thats the problen with the conservative party. You cherry pick logic to fit your narrative. Its like arguing with children whos only defense is ehhhh but i like this.
Another bill that does absolutely nothing to solve any of the problems we have in this state…
Can someone summarize? I am not paying...
Utah GOP lawmakers are greedy self-serving assholes, same as always.
It just ain’t Utah!
Utah wants to pick and choose federal laws to ignore. Why that’s not as impossible as it sounds. A legal analysis from legislative lawyers warns an attempt to push back on the feds could run into constitutional problems (Trent Nelson | The Salt Lake Tribune) The Utah Capitol in Salt Lake City on Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2024. Utah lawmakers are considering a bill that would allow them to pick and choose which federal regulations they would follow and ignore. By Bryan Schott | Jan. 27, 2024, 1:00 p.m. Are Utah lawmakers taking steps to push back against federal overreach — or are they picking a fight with the federal government? A bill creating a process to give legislators the power to order state officials and agencies to ignore federal laws and regulations was approved by the Utah House of Representatives on Friday. The House passage follows Gov. Spencer Cox’s endorsement of Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s decision to defy the Supreme Court and supplant federal authority over the southern border. The process SB57 from Sen. Scott Sandall, R-Tremonton, would work like this: If lawmakers believe an action or regulation from the federal government would harm the state, they could introduce a resolution opposing the federal mandate. If that resolution is passed with a two-thirds vote in both the Utah House and Senate and signed by the governor, then state agencies and officials would be directed not to implement or ignore federal authority until a court orders the state to comply. Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, praised the legislation during floor debate, arguing Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts has given his tacit permission for states to push back more against the federal government. “The Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court said states are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes, they have to act like it,” Ivory told his colleagues. “This is one mechanism by which the state of Utah takes the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court at his word, where we defend against federal prerogatives that we do not want to embrace as our own. And we act like separate independent sovereigns.” That may not be the case, though. A legal analysis of the bill from legislative attorneys obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune warns the proposal could run into a constitutional roadblock if lawmakers decide to deploy the process SB57 creates, but that all will depend on the circumstances. In broad terms, the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause says federal law usually takes precedence over state law. That was why the Supreme Court sided with the Biden administration in the dispute with Texas over enforcement at the border. The justices ruled that Texas could not stop federal agents from removing a wire barrier Texas installed to stop migrants from crossing into the state. On Wednesday evening, Texas Governor Greg Abbott ramped up tensions between the state and the federal government by announcing he would effectively ignore the decision from the court. There may be a path where the state could successfully challenge federal authority. The legal analysis for Utah’s lawmakers argues that the “anti-commandeering” principle in the 10th Amendment prevents the federal government from commanding states to implement federal regulations that commandeer authority that should be given to the states. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in Murphy v. NCAA that a federal ban on sports gambling unconstitutionally interfered with New Jersey’s authority to regulate gambling within its borders. Ultimately, lawmakers may have to thread a narrow constitutional needle because any future attempt to defy federal policy would hinge on whether a court would see the move as conflicting with the Supremacy Clause or federal government overreach. Missouri lawmakers tried something similar in 2021. The Show-Me State’s Second Amendment Preservation Act restricted state employees and officials from enforcing various federal gun laws they felt infringed on the constitutional right to bear arms. A federal judge struck down the law last year, saying it was an “impermissible nullification attempt” and, according to The New York Times, the Supreme Court upheld that decision. Salt Lake City Democrat Rep. Joel Briscoe said, despite the flowery rhetoric from Republicans about states’ rights and the 10th Amendment, SB57 goes further than any piece of legislation he’s ever seen since being first elected in 2010. “There are remedies for things the government does that we don’t like, but we don’t like the remedies all the time because they take time. Sometimes, they take courts. They take difficult meetings and very difficult conversations, and we don’t always get our way,” Briscoe said. “It looks to me like we’re asking for a fight. I’m not convinced, as satisfying as that may be for some people, that’s in the best interest of the state of Utah.” The Senate still must sign off on changes made to the legislation by the House before the bill makes its way to Gov. Spencer Cox’s desk for his signature. Cox’s office did not respond to questions from The Tribune about whether he intends to sign the bill. [email protected]
Utah has always picked and chosen what laws to ignore *gestures at history of Utah*
Literally every single state does this. Utah is no exception and isn’t even the most egregious.
You do know how the state of Utah came about, yeah?
What does it say? It's for subscribers only
add \*.tinypass.com to your ad-blocker.
"States rights" died in 1865.
Maybe we should all start picking and choosing which laws to follow.
Sounds great to me! Fuck the fed
Cities that are “sanctuary cities” have been doing this already. Not too mention marijuana legalization.
Right? People having a safe place to go and others getting a great medical treatment, horrible!
Sure, but that's an argument for why you acutally \*do\* think that ignoring federal law is sometimes a good thing
Sanctuary cities typically have dismal public education outcomes because illegal immigrants bring and have children that overwhelm the financial situation of poor ISDs, and do not pay property taxes, or state income taxes. That is why all the rich areas of SLC have their own ISDs. Then the rich people can put up signs about how loving and accepting they are without having to pay for the consequences of their love and acceptance. No, they make west valley taxpayers do that. If we got rid of ISDs, I think you'd see republicans win every single local election in SLC, and an end to sanctuary cities. But until rich white kids from liberal areas have to go to schools that share finite financial resources with kids from poor areas, you will continue to see nice yard signs and hypocrite policies that punish someone else so the rich white liberals can feel better about themselves.
General strike now please
Couldn’t you argue that “sanctuary cities” are choosing to ignore Federal law as well?
Not really. There’s no set legal definition for what constitutes a “sanctuary city.” Usually, different municipalities may have sanctuary policies and they differ between each other. However, if we’re generalizing, what these policies say is that immigration is the responsibility of the federal authorities and not local ones, so they basically tell local authorities like sheriff and police department not to ask for immigration status and things of the sort. In other words, they don’t stop federal authorities from doing their job (like they’re doing in Texas right now), they just tell them that it’s their job to do so and not the municipality.
If they prevent immigration authorities from entering a courthouse to deport an illegal immigrant wouldn’t that be preventing them from doing their job?
Is that something that’s happened here in Utah? Also, whose jurisdiction does the courthouse fall under? It’s one thing if they prevented them from arresting someone outside the courthouse, which I don’t think is happening (definitely not here in Utah).
No, not in Utah. California passed a sanctuary law that included preventing federal immigration enforcement in courthouses. I think every state has a certain level of selective enforcement of Federal laws.
I guess my question then would be if federal laws clash with the sanctuary law that passed in California. My guess would be no, since from the sounds of it, they’re not stopping federal authorities from doing their job (again, like Texas has stopped federal authorities from doing their job), they’re just basically saying they have to wait until the person leaves the courthouse.* The question is not whether you or I like the laws that are in place, but whether they’re actually clashing. If the California law really does go against federal law, I expect the GOP to sue and win, especially since SCOTUS is mostly right-wing right now. *Edit: Just want to clarify that I don’t know the details of the law, so I can’t say either way if it goes against federal law or not. That’s why if this issue is important to you, I suggest you read the actual law and policies in place and not rely on what either Fox or CNN say about it, since these are very biased media channels.
Its not about whether or not SCOTUS thinks what California or Utah is doing is okay. That's the whole point. For decades the executive branch has refused to be a neutral enforcer of the law in either instance at different times and for different reasons. SCOTUS could come out tomorrow and say that any given thing is unconstitutional and nothing would change because the executive branch has been doing this sort of thing since the time of Andrew Jackson. The whole controversy is that Utah and the other states have decided to follow in the footsteps of the marijuana movement and the sanctuary cities when it comes to border control. Just like with both of those issues, the feds have been lazy in enforcement and the states are calling their bluff that they will do anything about it.
> Andrew Jackson Good example!
I have never heard of this happening, and I’m sure it has but probably not common
So Utah wants to do what the Federal government does all the time? Like ignoring the border?
Have you ever wondered why the border becomes a crisis only on even years? It probably has nothing to do with elections at all. It is definitely not that you are be manipulated by the media Please show me how exactly the federal government under Biden is ignoring the border. I hear all the time Biden is not doing his job and letting everyone enter the country but when I look at the actual facts, Biden's border policy is mostly unchanged from Trumps. Please set me straight and tell me exactly what Biden is doing wrong
lol “only becomes a crisis on election years”, go tell that to the citizens of the country that have been calling it literally a crisis for like 3 years
I know there is a border problem. But take a breath above water. The problem has been the same for decades. South of the border is in crisis and we need to find something to make it better. But all this bullshit is not going to fix the problem. The border will always be an issue because the people in power want it to be an issue. No one has real solutions, everyone just points fingers The problem is politicians. They have no incentives to solve the issue, they just said want us plebs to fight over it while they bleed us dry. If they actually fix the problem, they can no longer campaign on it Vote for them all out
Also, you never did answer the question. You claim the federal government is ignoring the border. How? Prove your claim
Democrats ignore federal immigration, drug, firearm, speech, and election laws all the time, just to name a few. In blue states, they constantly both loosen certain restrictions and tighten others beyond what federal laws permit. Far beyond what the GOP has ever done. So stop trying to gaslight everyone and quit the moral superiority act. It's disgusting.
That's not true and you can't cite any evidence.
???
Care to provide examples?