State's Rights vs Federal Law?

[herbu]

This is another thing I don't understand. I thought Federal Law trumps State Law. The states can enact a law IF it isn't contrary to a federal law.

But there is a federal law against pot, and some states say it's OK. There is a federal law against illegal immigration, but we have "Sanctuary Cities", and the feds even sued a state for enforcing their own federal law.

I understand the debates over pot and immigration. But I don't understand how cities, states or the federal govt can openly choose which laws they don't want to enforce.

If the majority doesn't like a law, I thought our recourse was to change the law. If there are not enough votes to change the law, it stands. What changed?

 

[Steve81]

This is another thing I don't understand. I thought Federal Law trumps State Law. The states can enact a law IF it isn't contrary to a federal law.

Correct. That would be due to the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

If the majority doesn't like a law, I thought our recourse was to change the law. If there are not enough votes to change the law, it stands. What changed?

Nothing has changed per se; enforcement has always been "complicated". One notorious example of this dates back to Andrew Jackson's famous proclamation regarding the case of Worcester v. Georgia: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

 

[rnatalli]

Federal law often does not trump state law, but they can influence with funding. Don't do what the Feds want, there goes your Medicare funding.

 

[herbu]

It seems to me that it is becoming acceptable for cities, states and the federal govt to openly thumb their nose at an existing law. So I play this out... progress the trend, and wonder where it stops... and what could be the ultimate consequence.

At what point do we decide it has gone far enough, or too far? And once it starts, how do we stop it? Or if we don't stop it, what happens?

 

[markw]

It seems to me that it is becoming acceptable for cities, states and the federal govt to openly thumb their nose at an existing law. So I play this out... progress the trend, and wonder where it stops... and what could be the ultimate consequence.

At what point do we decide it has gone far enough, or too far? And once it starts, how do we stop it? Or if we don't stop it, what happens?

What's going on in Oregon with those bakers is a prime example; stripped of both their freedom to practice religion and free speech in one swell foop.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Federal law often does not trump state law, but they can influence with funding. Don't do what the Feds want, there goes your Medicare funding.

Nope, Federal law trumps state and local laws every time. No exceptions, ever. Where things get fuzzy is when the feds decide not to enforce a law, and the states make something legal in state law that is illegal in federal law. For example, using pot is legal in Washington, but it is still illegal federally. The feds have just decided not to chase after those horrid criminals getting stoned in Washington.

In fact, federal authority in the US is so great that the USG can condemn state and local government property if they so choose. Constitutional authority + armed forces = do it or else.

 

[Irvrobinson]

What's going on in Oregon with those bakers is a prime example; stripped of both their freedom to practice religion and free speech in one swell foop.

The gag order is a twisted story. While it pains me to defend that idiot Brad Avakian, who is Oregon's Labor Commissioner, not a judge, he did not issue a gag order on discussing the case. What Avakian said was [from The Daily Signal]:

Rather than fine the Kleins [the bakers] further, [Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad] Avakian wrote that the couple must ’cease and desist’ stating that Sweet Cakes would continue to turn away gay couples. As individuals, the Kleins may declare that Oregon’s anti-discrimination law should not protect gay couples. But when speaking publicly about the future of their own business, they must not opine that they will maintain a policy of anti-gay discrimination.

So the commissioner said they can't threaten to discriminate. The $135K fine is so stupid and excessive that Avakian should be fired, IMO, but Oregon is the dumbest state in the nation, as measured by the high school graduation rate, so Avakian fits right in.

And, Mark, forcing a baker to cease violating (or advertising intent to violate) anti-discrimination laws is not restricting their ability to practice their religion. If an atheist refused to service anyone who professed a belief in god, like anyone who wore a cross, or a star of David, or a turban, would you think it was okay for the atheist to just claim he or she was practicing their religion?

 

[markw]

Irv, while we're getting into clarifications, the bakers did NOT refuse to bake the gay couple a wedding cake. What theyb objected to was the text the girls demanded they put on the cake. so, had they not pushed the issue about the text, they would have the cake.

And, this article makes me question why these other bakers weren't brought up on charges. Could they be sued?

http://shoebat.com/2014/12/12/christian-man-asks-thirteen-gay-bakeries-bake-pro-traditional-marriage-cake-denied-service-watch-shocking-video/

And, while we're discussing travesty of justice and unequal application of rights, here's a case where a pastor may be charged with a hate crime for doing the same thing, only in reverse.

http://rightwingnews.com/democrats/pastor-who-asked-gay-bakery-for-a-christian-cake-being-charged-with-a-crime/

 

[Irvrobinson]

Irv, while we're getting into clarifications, the bakers did NOT refuse to bake the gay couple a wedding cake. What theyb objected to was the text the girls demanded they put on the cake. so, had they not pushed the issue about the text, they would have the cake.

And, this article makes me question why these other bakers weren't brought up on charges. Could they be sued?

http://shoebat.com/2014/12/12/christian-man-asks-thirteen-gay-bakeries-bake-pro-traditional-marriage-cake-denied-service-watch-shocking-video/

The law is seldom applied equally to all transgressors. I understand that the bakers only refused to work on a cake they found offensive, not any cake, and frankly I side with their decision. I'm not siding with their moral or religious beliefs, but I think that forcing any business person to create something they find offensive is wrong, and I think the Oregon case is stupid and unfair beyond measure. The problem is that once you get legal people involved, they see any restriction, however limited, as a precedent that could be applied more broadly and used to undermine the hard-fought law, so they fight against silly minutia. I understand that. I don't like it, but I understand it.

 

[markw]

Well, this interpretation of the constitution seems to give a very loose interpretation of the 14th amendment the right to stomp on the first amendment rights of others.

 

[Chu Gai]

Well, those darned Christians! I'll bet you could get a gaily decorated wedding cake at a Muslim bakery and if you didn't, the press would be in an uproar.

http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/

 

[highfigh]

It seems to me that it is becoming acceptable for cities, states and the federal govt to openly thumb their nose at an existing law. So I play this out... progress the trend, and wonder where it stops... and what could be the ultimate consequence.

At what point do we decide it has gone far enough, or too far? And once it starts, how do we stop it? Or if we don't stop it, what happens?

What makes you think it will stop?

 

[highfigh]

The gag order is a twisted story. While it pains me to defend that idiot Brad Avakian, who is Oregon's Labor Commissioner, not a judge, he did not issue a gag order on discussing the case. What Avakian said was [from The Daily Signal]:

Rather than fine the Kleins [the bakers] further, [Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad] Avakian wrote that the couple must ’cease and desist’ stating that Sweet Cakes would continue to turn away gay couples. As individuals, the Kleins may declare that Oregon’s anti-discrimination law should not protect gay couples. But when speaking publicly about the future of their own business, they must not opine that they will maintain a policy of anti-gay discrimination.

So the commissioner said they can't threaten to discriminate. The $135K fine is so stupid and excessive that Avakian should be fired, IMO, but Oregon is the dumbest state in the nation, as measured by the high school graduation rate, so Avakian fits right in.

And, Mark, forcing a baker to cease violating (or advertising intent to violate) anti-discrimination laws is not restricting their ability to practice their religion. If an atheist refused to service anyone who professed a belief in god, like anyone who wore a cross, or a star of David, or a turban, would you think it was okay for the atheist to just claim he or she was practicing their religion?

By being atheist, are they actually practicing a religion? I would say No, they aren't. Religious observance requires faith and belief in something and maybe some kind of ceremony, which they don't have and don't do. If they said they worship a rock, they have then declared that they believe in something about that rock but is it actually a religion?

If an atheist says they won't serve people who are religious in any way, they should pick another profession- atheists are a small enough minority that it would be seen as a bad business decision. Other than standing on their principles, why would someone want to avoid doing business with so many people? Atheists make up 2-3% of the wold's population, with another ~15% being non-religious, they're telling the other 80% they won't do any business with them.

 

[highfigh]

What about Operation Jade Helm 15?

 

[Irvrobinson]

By being atheist, are they actually practicing a religion? I would say No, they aren't. Religious observance requires faith and belief in something and maybe some kind of ceremony, which they don't have and don't do. If they said they worship a rock, they have then declared that they believe in something about that rock but is it actually a religion?

If an atheist says they won't serve people who are religious in any way, they should pick another profession- atheists are a small enough minority that it would be seen as a bad business decision. Other than standing on their principles, why would someone want to avoid doing business with so many people? Atheists make up 2-3% of the wold's population, with another ~15% being non-religious, they're telling the other 80% they won't do any business with them.

I was just using that as an example. Lighten up. You're right, atheism is not a religion, but it a choice that depends on freedom of religion, so their beliefs are protected. Atheists just want freedom from religion.

 

[Irvrobinson]

What about Operation Jade Helm 15?

Dumbest response ever by a state governor. Well, maybe not, there's always George Wallace to scrape the bottom.

 

[markw]

I was just using that as an example. Lighten up. You're right, atheism is not a religion, but it a choice that depends on freedom of religion, so their beliefs are protected. Atheists just want freedom from religion.

And they have it. But, that's not freedom from being offended by those who don't share their non-belief.

 

[Irvrobinson]

And they have it. But, that's not freedom from being offended by those who don't share their non-belief.

I agree with that, which is why I used that as an example of what you wouldn't want to happen.

 

[Adam]

I think that atheists are religious in that they believe that there is no higher power and have faith in that belief. I don't see it as any different than believing in some type of higher power and calling it faith to have that belief. After all, none of us actually knows if there is one or not - so either belief is taken on faith.

As for it being a practicing religion, I'd say it is if they share their beliefs and act upon them. I'm not one that thinks someone has to go to a specific building and listen to someone else talk for an hour to be considered a religious person, though. If someone is to be considered religious if they start talking to me about their beliefs, then I'd say that applies to any set of beliefs. Granted, I've never had any atheist missionaries show up at my door to hand out pamphlets to try and convince me that their is no higher power...

 

[highfigh]

I was just using that as an example. Lighten up. You're right, atheism is not a religion, but it a choice that depends on freedom of religion, so their beliefs are protected. Atheists just want freedom from religion.

Why the "lighten up"? I wasn't yelling at the screen as I typed that and it wasn't all caps. I was just responding to your post.

Atheists should have the same protections enjoyed by the other religions but if someone who's a real zealot gets into power and wants to force their ideals on others, that could change.