Somehow I am not surprised

[Anonymous]

Federalism is a cancer.

The Conservative Party of Canada and the American Republican generally favour decentralization. The centre left parties want to consolidate more power federally.

[Bricktop]

Federalism is a cancer.

The States are the cancer...especially your idiot. Comrade Andrews.

[Frood]

Federalists are bullies.



Bullies should be kneecapped, gutted, and their cowardly entrails dragged behind a garden tractor through a puppy farm.

[Wazzzup]

Well, it would certainly make a robust legal argument that would forever change American politics.



But it seems that the only way the Feds can establish their jurisdiction is by prosecuting the states.

The Trump administration has talked about withholding federal funds for states that have  sanctuary cities thereby putting pressure on the state to reign in cities that refuse to enforce the law. But, I haven't heard anything  about legal action.

A ridiculous judge issued an injunction blocking it.   I am not sure if and when Trump is appealing that block.



If leftists don't like federal immigration laws, they should call their representatives and ask them to work to change them.  This idea that cities can just ignore federal law is outrageous . And goes to show what utter contempt for democracy the left has when it suits their purposes.

[Frood]

Federalism is a cancer.

The Conservative Party of Canada and the American Republican generally favour decentralization. The centre left parties want to consolidate more power federally.

I value personal freedom and find federalism disgusting.

[Wazzzup]

The American federation must be constructed differently to ours. The Federal Court is the highest of the land. State courts could never involve themselves in Federal issues as they do there. All matters involving Federal Law go direct to the High Court.



All taxation is controlled by the Federal Government, but all GST money MUST go to the States.



The relationship between the US State and Federal governments seems unique to them. Pretty much everywhere else, states are subordinate to Federal legislation unless specified in the Constitution (local traffic laws etc...although even that is moving to a nationalised system).



Many here believe its time for the States to be abolished, anyway. In this modern age of communication and travel, fragmenting a country into differing jurisdictions is unnecessary and unwarranted.

Take Trump's travel ban on six nations. State courts have blocked part of it.

The supreme court removed that block three times but the asshat judge in Hawaii keeps doing it over and over again.  he ought to be impeached.

[Anonymous]

The American federation must be constructed differently to ours. The Federal Court is the highest of the land. State courts could never involve themselves in Federal issues as they do there. All matters involving Federal Law go direct to the High Court.



All taxation is controlled by the Federal Government, but all GST money MUST go to the States.



The relationship between the US State and Federal governments seems unique to them. Pretty much everywhere else, states are subordinate to Federal legislation unless specified in the Constitution (local traffic laws etc...although even that is moving to a nationalised system).



Many here believe its time for the States to be abolished, anyway. In this modern age of communication and travel, fragmenting a country into differing jurisdictions is unnecessary and unwarranted.

Take Trump's travel ban on six nations. State courts have blocked part of it.

The supreme court removed that block three times but the asshat judge in Hawaii keeps doing it over and over again.  he ought to be impeached.

It's just one activist judge blocking it?

[Bricktop]

I still don't understand how a State court can overrule a Federal government lawful enactment????

[Wazzzup]

The American federation must be constructed differently to ours. The Federal Court is the highest of the land. State courts could never involve themselves in Federal issues as they do there. All matters involving Federal Law go direct to the High Court.



All taxation is controlled by the Federal Government, but all GST money MUST go to the States.



The relationship between the US State and Federal governments seems unique to them. Pretty much everywhere else, states are subordinate to Federal legislation unless specified in the Constitution (local traffic laws etc...although even that is moving to a nationalised system).



Many here believe its time for the States to be abolished, anyway. In this modern age of communication and travel, fragmenting a country into differing jurisdictions is unnecessary and unwarranted.

Take Trump's travel ban on six nations. State courts have blocked part of it.

The supreme court removed that block three times but the asshat judge in Hawaii keeps doing it over and over again.  he ought to be impeached.

It's just one activist judge blocking it?

These travel bans expire every 90 days.  The first was blocked by the hawaii judge and another judge.  the supreme court overruled them.  then the hawaii judge blocked the second travel ban, the supreme court overruled him again, and he did it a third time and they stopped him again.

[Wazzzup]

I still don't understand how a State court can overrule a Federal government lawful enactment????

These are federal judges that blocked this stuff, none are state judges.



The flaw in the system is that these lower court federal judges can overrule a president,  It should only be a supreme court verdict can overrule a president.



Naturally, leftist activist judges are abusing this flaw for all they can from it.

[Frood]

Not a flaw, if the actions of POTUS are at odds with his or her authority as the States and the Federal are meant to share equal authority according to compacts made. This distinction has been watered down for numerous decades even centuries though.

[Wazzzup]

Not a flaw, if the actions of POTUS are at odds with his or her authority as the States and the Federal are meant to share equal authority according to compacts made. This distinction has been watered down for numerous decades even centuries though.

I agree that states rights have been watered down.  I am in no way for taking away states rights.  Immigration has nothing to do with states rights.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1876 that immigration regulation is an exclusive Federal responsibility.



It IS a flaw because it upsets the check and balance system.  One lower court judge should not be able to overrule a president.  their objection should be noted, but not become final unless affirmed by the supreme court,  It has nothing to do with states rights as these are federal judges trying to block Trump.  And they are doing so against the written laws of the land.  Judges are supposed to interpret not legislate..

[Wazzzup]

https://onenewsnow.com/legal-courts/2017/12/03/dad-of-boy-killed-by-illegal-steinle-jurists-are-left-wing-nutjobs">https://onenewsnow.com/legal-courts/201 ... ng-nutjobs">https://onenewsnow.com/legal-courts/2017/12/03/dad-of-boy-killed-by-illegal-steinle-jurists-are-left-wing-nutjobs



Hmm, yeah probably



[size=150]After Steinle verdict, rep unveils bill to imprison officials who shelter illegal immigrants

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/04/after-steinle-verdict-rep-unveils-bill-to-imprison-officials-who-shelter-illegal-immigrants.html">http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12 ... rants.html">http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/04/after-steinle-verdict-rep-unveils-bill-to-imprison-officials-who-shelter-illegal-immigrants.html



That's exactly what should happen.  The idea that city officials can pick and choose what laws they abide by is an affront to democracy and rule of law.   They are criminal accessories after the fact.

[Frood]

Not a flaw, if the actions of POTUS are at odds with his or her authority as the States and the Federal are meant to share equal authority according to compacts made. This distinction has been watered down for numerous decades even centuries though.

I agree that states rights have been watered down.  I am in no way for taking away states rights.  Immigration has nothing to do with states rights.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1876 that immigration regulation is an exclusive Federal responsibility.



It IS a flaw because it upsets the check and balance system.  One lower court judge should not be able to overrule a president.  their objection should be noted, but not become final unless affirmed by the supreme court,  It has nothing to do with states rights as these are federal judges trying to block Trump.  And they are doing so against the written laws of the land.  Judges are supposed to interpret not legislate..

I agree on the federal border aspect though it's one legitimate federal power they've been reluctant to administer.



The Federal prefers messing with State responsibilities through regulation and tax revenue carrot and stick tricks. Then there is the gutting of the Reps and Senate that's been happening. A combination of Feds and lobbyist groups as well as the weak elected all too willing to relinquish instead of reclaim.

[Bricktop]

What a remarkable insight into American politics you have, Aaron.