Should state/local governments have the ability to not enforce Federal Law?

[S.A. Boggs]

What is your opinion on this and why.
Sam

[RED]

Yes... BUT... a big but. It depends on the law and how it is written. For example it is against Federal law to not file an income tax return. Why should a state have to spend money and resources to go after people who are evading Federal taxes? In other words if the States were forced to enforce all Federal laws, why does it need a FBI, Federal Marshals, Federal Prisons etc.? They would just let the States handle it.

The problem today is not that the States are refusing to enforce Federal laws, the problem is some people in some States are blocking the Feds from upholding the law. It is almost as bad as if a illegal alien who murders a Federal Judge in Arizona were flee to CA, Jerry Brown would just shrug his shoulders and hand him a bus ticket to San Francisco.

[togor]

"It depends" is the only possible answer. Sometimes there are jurisdictional issues such that the feds don't want the help, or a misalignment of state/federal interests (Colorado is unlikely to support Session's crackdown on recreational pot for example). But if an armed federal fugitive is on the loose, then of course it's "all hands on deck".

[Allen]

States should have certain rights but not when it affects anyone from another state.

When states try to have too many rights and laws that opposed federal regulations/laws they will end up like California which ultimately affects the whole country.

If we had anyone other than Trump for president California, New York and Washington would really become an issue to the point of no return.

A chain is no stronger than it's weakest link. If any of our states become self-governing and corrupt enough it will bring down the whole nation to that state's standards.

All the democrats see is: A country full of illegals from s**thole nations plus corruption plus dissolving our constitution = democrat voters and a future of democrat control forever.

[Vern Humphrey]

The classic example is the Nullification Crisis in South Carolina during Jackson's presidency. Jackson's response was, "I'll hang the first man I catch from the nearest tree."

[leftyo]

be careful folks, if you think a state should be able to ignore federal laws, you are stating that they can pick and choose laws they want to enforce or ignore, such as the lets say any of the first 10 amendments to the constitution that most hold dearly. now imo, should they have to put forth effort on items such as immigration, not really, but they should not be allowed to not lock up an illegal immigrant if they happen across them in the course of other business (traffic stop, crimes, etc). it is definately a fine line to tap dance around.

[S.A. Boggs]

be careful folks, if you think a state should be able to ignore federal laws, you are stating that they can pick and choose laws they want to enforce or ignore, such as the lets say any of the first 10 amendments to the constitution that most hold dearly. now imo, should they have to put forth effort on items such as immigration, not really, but they should not be allowed to not lock up an illegal immigrant if they happen across them in the course of other business (traffic stop, crimes, etc). it is definately a fine line to tap dance around.

You saw what I was driving at, if a state can thumb their nose at any Federal Law why not all? California doesn't like the immigration stance of the Fed, what happens if a local judge doesn't like one of the Amendments what then? Say the 2nd isn't relevant in today's California Society and can be ignored and their state supreme court agrees. Does the President send in U.S. Marshals to arrest and enforce or what? California and other areas are going this way, do we go from a Republic to a Confederation then? Unless this is checked, the later is certainly an obvious area of new government "enlightment" a good possibility. How about a United States Balkan style life?
Sam

[togor]

At the other extreme, if states are forced to unquestionably enforce with their own resources every national government edict, then this is contrary to idea of state sovereignty in a federal system. Right now you're focused on the one extreme because of Trump. When the president is a liberal, you'll focus on the opposite. Thus the answer, "it depends". Incredibly enough, Red is on the correct side of the argument.

[S.A. Boggs]

At the other extreme, if states are forced to unquestionably enforce with their own resources every national government edict, then this is contrary to idea of state sovereignty in a federal system. Right now you're focused on the one extreme because of Trump. When the president is a liberal, you'll focus on the opposite. Thus the answer, "it depends". Incredibly enough, Red is on the correct side of the argument.

My simple thought is that we all should be pulling together in the same direction for the good of all, not just an ideology of either side.
Sam

[togor]

My simple thought is that we all should be pulling together in the same direction for the good of all, not just an ideology of either side.
Sam

It's an admirable sentiment, but I think tension is built into our federal system, from the beginning. States v. fed., and states v. each other. Certainly people in the smaller states value their sovereignty within this system.

[S.A. Boggs]

It's an admirable sentiment, but I think tension is built into our federal system, from the beginning. States v. fed., and states v. each other. Certainly people in the smaller states value their sovereignty within this system.

WE need to remember that the US is our home, good or bad. If WE go down WE all go down together.
Sam

[AZshooter]

It's perfectly fine for states to ignore Fed laws. Just as long as the Fed can, in turn, ignore the offending states' requests for Fed funds.

[Roadkingtrax]

This has been pointed out before, many of the same states are at the top of the Federal Aide list.

FY 2014, but I doubt much has changed.

[milboltnut]

if the feds wanna oppress us, sometimes the state has rights to eradicate.... and vice versa.