2314
Pretty sure (media.patriots.win)
posted ago by sebster ago by sebster +2317 / -3
Comments (88)
sorted by:
85
d_bokk 85 points ago +89 / -4

Only the US Constitution is supreme over state laws, which means if the 'law' isn't an amendment, it's just a suggestion.

Nullification, on the other hand, is the constitutional remedy for monarchists like Psaki.

16
Sc0paf 16 points ago +22 / -6

Are you sure about that?

I was doing a little research, and the fed law superseding state law is covered under the supremacy clause.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land

So unless a federal law is in direct defiance of the constitution, the federal law overruling state law seems to stand?

This is just me looking at it and interpreting it. If I am wrong for whatever reason, by all means...

54
fuckthealphabetsoup 54 points ago +55 / -1

unless a federal law is in direct defiance of the constitution, the federal law overruling state law seems to stand?

So, can we talk about the fact most fed laws are in direct defiance of the constitution?

4
DinosOnNoahsArk 4 points ago +4 / -0

So, can we talk about the fact most fed laws are in direct defiance of the constitution?

Unfortunately, when interpreted through the only the that matters, Judges, they have been deemed constitutional

18
d_bokk 18 points ago +18 / -0

Yes, I'm sure. Some asshole judge can create his own amendments out of thin air, see Roe v Wade, but the fact remains the power resides in the states, not DC. And why Nullification is important, if these communists subvert the judicial system.

10
jerrycan111 10 points ago +10 / -0

Lol 'if'

13
TheRealJaredHolt 13 points ago +13 / -0

..."and the laws of the united STATES". as in state laws. It does not say "the federal government of the united states"

6
SidneyHopchas 6 points ago +6 / -0

United States singular, not plural. The Supremacy Clause was established in the days of our Founding Fathers and the people who wrote the Constitution and it says that Federal Law supersedes State Law.

7
TheRealJaredHolt 7 points ago +7 / -0

United States is, by definition and in practice, plural.

4
decafllort 4 points ago +4 / -0

The Constitution says "The Several States" when referring to the plural.

1
SidneyHopchas 1 point ago +2 / -1

If you are talking about a United States, then it refers to the States that makes up the US.

If you say the United States, you are talking about the US as a political entity, specifically in this case the Federal Government.

The US hasn't been called a United States since the Civil War.

-1
TheRealJaredHolt -1 points ago +1 / -2

English nigga, can you fucking read?

4
SidneyHopchas 4 points ago +4 / -0

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any."

Article 6 Section 2 US Constitution

9
Inquisitor_Corvus 9 points ago +10 / -1

Can’t nullify State’s Rights. Otherwise, no State could make marijuana legal.

5
then 5 points ago +5 / -0

Ding! <bell>

You win the whole thread.

You used a correct analogy even a simpleton smooth brain can now understand.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
5
vegaspatriot1776 5 points ago +5 / -0

how well has that worked out for state/city gun and marijuana laws?

13
JohnDurham4 13 points ago +19 / -6

No.The constitution lays out enumerated powers in the first 3 articles. The supremacy clause applies to any law made in those broad categories. Since the definition of “interstate commerce” is extremely broad per Supreme Court precedent, this means the feds have huge powers.

Stop claiming to stand for the constitution when you haven’t even read it.

13
d_bokk 13 points ago +14 / -1

Explain state marijuana legalization, then.

10
JohnDurham4 10 points ago +14 / -4

The states don’t have to ENFORCE federal laws (with their cops / state troopers). The DEA could still bust anyone in any state anytime they want, because federal law is Supreme to state law in the area of drugs (via the interstate commerce clause).

Same reason the states get away with “sanctuary states.” They aren’t required to ENFORCE immigration laws for feds they just can’t undermine it (e.g. arrest ice agents for doing deportations.)

13
d_bokk 13 points ago +15 / -2

In other words, the federal laws are just suggestions like I said?

7
JohnDurham4 7 points ago +11 / -4

Uh, no. Because the feds can send in their goons to your state anytime they want if the state doesn’t enforce the law voluntarily.

5
d_bokk 5 points ago +8 / -3

Except they can't, most of the time they require local law enforcement to do the heavy lifting while some skinny jean wearing fed overseas it. Guess whose laws the local LEOs swore an oath to follow?

6
JohnDurham4 6 points ago +8 / -2

Yeah we can definitely trust Biden to not spend an absurd amount of money enforcing his tyrannical laws!

1
DaleGribbleWasRight 1 point ago +2 / -1

You guys are arguing about different things

1
KrellKrypto 1 point ago +1 / -0

So you mean the red states could just not enforce joe Biden’s mandates?

Color me shocked it’s almost like they are all on the same team

1
Niqlndym 1 point ago +1 / -0

Marijuana can be legal within a state, but the feds control interstate commerce, which includes banking. Which is why pot is a cash industry.

1
M8kMdlErthGr8Again 1 point ago +1 / -0

State marijuana legalization is not legal. The federal government chooses not to enforce it because it is inconvenient.

1
Fractional 1 point ago +1 / -0

The point is that its not federally legal, the states just say its no longer illegal.

18
3
DaleGribbleWasRight 3 points ago +3 / -0

A parchment barrier

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
3
LesboPregnancyScare 3 points ago +5 / -2

as if Keanu and Spongebob isnt some gay Reddit-tier shit. lol

1
CisSiberianOrchestra 1 point ago +3 / -2

Yes, this is the way. The purity police of this site don't deserve explanations. They deserve mockery.

1
LesboPregnancyScare 1 point ago +1 / -0

where are all these people coming from?!

4
Chosimbaone 4 points ago +4 / -0

Well, When two libs love each other very much the mommy lib pulls out her strap on...

17
KuzoKevin 17 points ago +17 / -0

We are "United States", and the federal government's job is to leave us the fuck alone.

We just want to be left alone.

16
EpsteinDidntKillHS 16 points ago +16 / -0

That sentence alone is treason. Our ancestors would have strung her up for that.

11
Barthaneous 11 points ago +11 / -0

Absolutely she is worthy of death

5
GuerillaYourDreams 5 points ago +5 / -0

They all are.

2
Forty5 2 points ago +2 / -0

"50 years ago, we'd have you hanging upside down with a fucking fork up your ass!"

11
Rickshawrick 11 points ago +11 / -0

Heraldo agrees with Psaki. I'm convinced his brain was in Al Capones vault and that's why he tried to find it all those years ago.

2
anon09 2 points ago +2 / -0

they were all praising jeff bezos on fox tonight for his trip to space with the star trek guy.

1
BlueDrache 1 point ago +2 / -1

One jew sucking the other's circumcised dick. And the rocket totally was a penis.

11
President_Elect_Pepe 11 points ago +11 / -0

Uh.

You got caught playing their game.

You accepted their BS premise. There’s no law here at all. It’s a set of forthcoming regulations.

5
akira2501 5 points ago +5 / -0

They're presidential orders. He does not have the power to regulate anything. The 10th amendment doesn't even enter into it.

9
Sildaran 9 points ago +9 / -0

What federal law are they talking about? Executive orders are not laws they are guidelines for federal employees/organizations only. General guidelines from presidential speeches are not laws they are generally just hot-air. So what is the federal law she is talking about. What is the exact bill name or number that says vaccines are mandatory. Hell for that matter what is the exact law again not executive mandate actual legislation that requires masks.

Did the majority of this country take stupid shit pills and don't know what a law is? /S. Yes I know they didn't take a pill they took a fuck you in the ass with no lube slow death jab, normies keep dumbly calling a vaccine.

1
heightnoise 1 point ago +1 / -0

Federal regulations affect two things: The agencies they direct, which to those fed employees has the function of law, and businesses who engage in subject matter an agency regulates. When a regulation is put forward under our Administrative Procedure Act, it is an "interpretation or proposed method" per se, of law enforcement in a way. If the regulation is "internal", then notice in FR is not required ie it can be secret if it only affects an agency's internal affairs. Guess where most of this "power" is being made? Also, these policies CAN be challenged by an administrative law judge a/k/a ALJ, if they're noticed and affect someone with standing, but I think we know how that'd go anyway.

Point is, this is mental gymnastics but it is a valid argument that they consider administrative regulations to be "law" because of how it functions over the persons the regulation applies to. However, ALL regulations MUST be attached to the enforcement of some legislatively-created, ACTUAL law. It's valid somewhat in their eyes, but weak if you know that to be a law it doesn't just have to FEEL like it's a law.

And to answer your question

Did the majority of this country take stupid shit pills and don't know what a law is? /S.

Sarcasm aside, yes that's correct. The governmental literacy of our citizens has been purposely made abysmal by our "public education system". That's how you control a citizen from an early age: Take away their ability to be informed enough to notice a problem, then make them believe how the law that controls them is made is "something for the lawyers to worry about, not me".

1
Sildaran 1 point ago +1 / -0

More detailed and concise explanation of what I said. Leads to same conclusion though.

Need to force people to watch this I quess.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otbml6WIQPo

7
PonySoldier66 7 points ago +7 / -0

If you're the press secretary and you have to state that - You're a fucking tyrant.

6
__I_dindu__nufin_ 6 points ago +6 / -0

They just say whatever they want now because nobody can argue anywhere and nobody will interfere with their agenda

5
Krakenskulls 5 points ago +5 / -0

She meant to say fascism not federal.

5
MoonLevelStop 5 points ago +6 / -1

Unfortunately Tim Pool made a good point about this: this is not a matter of state supremacy vs federal supremacy. Biden isn't dictating policy to the states, and neither is Texas dictating policy to the Federal government. Both are targeting the businesses, which are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Biden will squash any business over 100 employees that doesn't do mandates, and Abbot will squash any company that mandates. End result: All business in Texas will be small (or small-ish) business.

12
anon09 12 points ago +12 / -0

they're forcing this on them under the guise of a fake health emergency. its not constitutional.

edit: and there was no choice for "business owners to just do what they want" last year

3
Niqlndym 3 points ago +3 / -0

Biden can’t squash anything, until OSHA gives their ruling. Because that’s the law they’re relying on (OSHA’s power to enact national edicts to confront crisis situations). And if OSHA ever does issue guidance, it’ll immediately be brought to court…

5
ChelseaHubbell 5 points ago +5 / -0

Normal people: Fuck federal laws.

Antifa: yass kween Psaki, slay. We will follow the federal laws! Resist!

4
Smashley 4 points ago +4 / -0

The federal government has 3 primary functions that have been distorted into what we see today. Maintaining interstate commerce so states don’t go to war with each other. Defense of the states from foreign enemies. The common good of the people which was basically maintaining the rights of the people granted to them by their creator. So if a state starts treating people in a way that removes their liberty the federal government can and should step in to regain the people’s constitutional standards. So, I’m some cases the federal government trumps the states and most of the time it does not. Otherwise the states would not be needed.

3
MAGA_MEXICAN_CHILI 3 points ago +3 / -0

The 10th amendment is only brought up on the left when it comes to a Republican administration wanting to enforce immigration and reducing abortions.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
2
Sc0paf 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't think the Marijuana laws are necessarily indicative of which laws supercede which. I'm fairly sure the fact of the matter is, states can't be forced to enforce federal laws, so they don't have to. That doesn't necessarily mean that their laws take precedence though, as the feds can send in the storm troopers.

2
hazelknut 2 points ago +2 / -0

This could certainly be a textbook case of brain-washing but that would require the people listening to her have a working brain.

2
Star_Commander 2 points ago +2 / -0

So about those MJ laws...

2
unaor 2 points ago +2 / -0

10th amendment ceased to exist on April 9, 1865

2
philnmdg 2 points ago +2 / -0

She's wrong, but if it went to the Supreme Court, I'm sure they would see it her way.

2
PGM92 2 points ago +2 / -0

There was no baby. It was full of cans

1
GodFirstBro 1 point ago +1 / -0

Real talk..why is Keanu's face in a tumbleweed?

1
PeaceThroughPower 1 point ago +1 / -0

The proper response to this claim is "Then what about sanctuary states? What about states that legalized pot?" It's a lose-lose for them.

1
SaltyDoodle 1 point ago +1 / -0

If that were true marijuana would not be legal anywhere in the US.

1
InternetPersona 1 point ago +1 / -0

The 10th amendment only clarifies the federal government can't leverage any powers not prescribed to it in the constitution. It does not address conflicting state and federal law...

1
Republigay 1 point ago +2 / -1

They own the Supreme court.

1
Fractional 1 point ago +1 / -0

I always find this amusing. When democrats are in control of the federal government its "Federal law is supreme!!!!!!!", when they don't hold federal power its "muh state rights!!!!"

Remember all the things that trump wanted to do that the democrats said he was a dictator for? That he was trying to iron hand the states against the constitution? Exactly...

1
vongregormench 1 point ago +1 / -0

It has supremacy in places where it has any authority at all, which is very few places.