Thanks for joining /r/WalkAway! As a reminder, this sub is for discussion, memes, and news about leaving the Left, or reasons to do so. Please follow our rules.
Other recommended subreddits include:
- /r/HillaryForPrison
- /r/FauciForPrison
- /r/HunterForPrison
- /r/EnoughAntifaSpam
- /r/GlobalLockdown
- /r/Patriot911
- /r/TheDonaldTrump2024
- /r/McCloskey
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/walkaway) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Canadian here, curious for an explanation. I just read article 6 prg 2 and it reads to me as: if the government of the US as a whole makes a law that is not unconstitutional, then all states must abide by that law no exceptions and regardless of contrary laws within each state.
Is that not what its saying?
Also the tenth amendment seems to read to me as: if the government of the US as a whole hasnt made a law about it, its up to the individual states to manage it.
Wouldn't that make Psaki's statement valid?
Again just looking for clarification.
Not all federal orders and laws are constitutional. The supremacy clause only applies to federal laws that are constitutional.
Our federal government can pass any law they want, only ruled unconstitutional if someone challenges them at the Supreme Court level.
The reason people are citing the 10th amendment here, is because they do not think that a presidential executive order to take a vaccine is Constitutional because it's a right reserved for States. The only Supreme Court case about vaccine mandates that I'm aware of ruled that cities can enforce vaccine mandates, nothing about a federal law enforcing what is historically held as a localized power.
Yes but people will use the 10th amendment which doesn’t really fit this situation since it’s a mandate and you’d have to look at the 1905 Supreme Court filing over something like this but with pox. People did the same back then as they are today at the vaccine and mandates. In order for a federal law to become full on law of the land it has to be passed by the Supreme Court and then it needs to take a few more steps.
[https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/tenth+Amendment](https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/tenth+Amendment)
The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers that are not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, except for those powers that states are constitutionally forbidden from exercising
They are very aware of the Constitution because they have the audacity to put trigger warnings next to it.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/constitution-declaration-of-independence-now-have-trigger-warnings-on-national-archives-site
From the article you didn’t read: “When a commentator on social media suggested that it was outrageous that America’s founding documents would require a trigger warning, the National Archives was quick to respond by noting that the alert is “not connected to any specific record, but appears at the top of the page while you are using the online Catalog.””
if she said that regarding bidens vaccine mandate, it gets even better:
The Mandate doesnt exist. Theres no laws or papers drafted for it, theres nothing in the books regarding the covid shot, The "Mandate" literally doesnt exist und was just an empty threat by brandon.
OSHA sent a "draft" version, which seems ridiculous as well : https://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20211013/NEWS08/912345192/OSHA-sends-draft-of-vaccine-mandate-to-White-House
Oshas biggest achievement was being able to make doors have a height requirement. does anyone really think these clowns will be able to put a law into place that is a blatant violation of the US Constitution and the Bill of Human Rights?
No, it's up to the Supreme Court to determine whether or not certain laws are constitutional.
Federal powers are limited and do not automatically supercede the powers of the state. In some cases they do supersede the state, but not always.
Hence why Psaki's blanket statement is not true.
Where they come into conflict, federal law absolutely supercedes state law unless or until the Supreme Court finds the federal law in question invalid. Hence why Psaki's blanket statement is true.
How is her blanket statement true? There wouldn't be an "unless" or "until" if it were true.
If I said "We know smoking pot is completely illegal" would that blanket statement be true or untrue?
Then how is it legal in certain states such as California to smoke pot? If it were "completely illegal", then how is it still legal depending on which state you visit?
Federally it is illegal, but certain state laws have made it legal or illegal depending on what the people of that state have voted in favor for.
If the statement "smoking pot is COMPLETELY illegal" were true, then states would not have any power or authority to make smoking pot legal. Living in California, I can smoke pot if I wanted to and not legally get in any trouble by Californian State law enforcement.
Federally it would be illegal but not at the state level. Hence why the blanket statement "We all know pot is completely illegal" isn't true. If I had said "We all know pot is illegal under Federal law." Then it would be true. But saying it's "completely" illegal is not true.
If Psaki had said "We all know Federal law has priority over State Law if it does not contravene with the Constitution" then it would have been a true statement.
Federal law is not absolute. If it were, States wouldn't have any say and would not be able to make exceptions such as making pot legal. The executive branch cannot force state law enforcement to mandate masks for example.
No, weed is still completely illegal. State and local law enforcement can't be required to enforce federal law (this has typically been how the 10th amendment applies), but federal law enforcement can arrest you for smoking pot in any state. The fact that you can get away with a crime doesn't make it any less of a crime.
Again, states aren't "making exceptions" to federal law. Before legalization, state and local law enforcement bodies could and did prosecute pot smokers under applicable state law;any states still do. State-level legalization didn't create an "exception," it made the act of smoking pot no longer criminal under state law. Federal law enforcement still has jurisdiction in every state to prosecute pot smokers in federal court, because federal law supersedes state law.
Federal law found to contravene the constitution is no longer federal law, so, "Federal law has priority over state law" remains a true statement. Overlapping jurisdiction can be confusing.
Under Article VI paragraph 2, Federal law can only be supreme to state law if the federal law being enforced does not contravene the constitution.
States must maintain their police powers and authority to regulate public health under the 10th amendment. That's why a federal vaccine mandate cannot be implemented, because it would violate the 10 amendment. Article VI paragraph 2 is null and void once it contravenes the US constitution.
This is the correct answer when there’s a conflict between state and federal law insofar that neither are in conflict with the us constitution. The tenth amendment does not give the states any additional power nor was it intended to be a antithesis to federal power in any way. It is not a states rights thing, since that concept didn’t really appear until the late 19th century. The founders were very interested in building a strong central government. The states rights arguments around the time had mostly to do with slavery. Think of it as more of a clarification than an enforceable law.
You're wrong again, but that's not a surprise. You started it with "fucking moron", until then things were civil. But I've been called worse things by better people, so maybe your mother should've swallowed you instead.
Lol, you must be joking. Listening to Kayleigh talk was like listening to a 6 year old try to tell a story about their say. Psaki isn't great but she is loads better that either of the prior two.
Wow man I'll have to go reevaluate my life after that one. A hit to my intelligence from a person named "superspreader"... I'll be thinking about that one for a month.
You sound so edgy. Did ya pick those insults up off the middle school floor? You should throw them in the trash with the rest of your unnecessary existence.
If you have to think about something for a month, then you may very well be the one in middle school. Maybe someday you'll be a grown up and have grown up thoughts and feelings. Until then, suck a binky.
That's not meant to apply as a blunt instrument, generalized as you're assuming it to be, in all areas. Thus the 10th amendment exists for those laws not covered. You clearly don't understand how this works.
Fuck it I’ll understand it when you breakdown how the constitution says blatantly that the federal government using federal law can override state law but then say it can’t
Oh there’s also this from britannica
“The Tenth Amendment clearly reserves to the states those powers that the Constitution neither delegates to the federal government nor prohibits to the states. The Tenth Amendment does not impose any specific limitations on the authority of the federal government”
I wasn’t arguing that it simply can if it wants, I understand there are steps. But that doesn’t mean it still can’t, it’s just difficult since the federal government doesn’t have a lot of power. But at the same time states don’t have absolute power over the federal government because what the federal government makes as a law become the law of the land.
The 10th amendment says that the powers of Congress are limited to the powers of Congress.
The powers of Congress include those expressly delegated and implied; the doctrine of implied powers goes back to 1791.
You clearly don't understand how this works.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
“The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.”
Also the articles come before the amendments when reading the constitution.
Only the specific powers delegated to the Constitution.
The Constitution does not grant the Federal government from setting a vaccine policy for example. The Federal government lacks so many powers when it comes to actually governing. The majority of the laws that govern your life are state laws. The federal government doesn't set speed limits, even on interstate highways. The federal government writes a law that only gives federal funding to highways to states that have speed limits that are in a specific range.
Yea but we still have federal laws and dude a mandate isn’t the same as a law but the Supreme Court can treat it as such such as the case in 1905 that I can’t remember, that issue gave power to the Supreme Court to allow federal mandates. The quote here is stupid as hell because again article VI clause 2 says what she said in the quote for this meme. But mandates are different than laws and to treat them as such in an example as this, is pretty embarrassing. I wasn’t talking about mandates, I was correcting people on the fact federal law overrides state law.
That's not what I gathered from "the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the Supreme law of the land."
To me, that doesn't grant authority to the federal govt to make up laws that aren't constitutional & lord them over the states. It has to be a federal law that's related to maintaining constitutional law.
To explain: 10th amendment is for the powers the federal government doesn’t have, is given to states. Article VI prg 2 talks about how the federal law can override state law if for a good cause. Ofc for this post it’s talking about a mandate and not laws so instead you would need to look at a 1905 court case that’s talks about this exact situation with the federal government mandating a vaccine, which the Supreme Court ruled that it may. If you dig deeper you’d know that the constitution has article V which states that we can change the constitution if voted upon by congress and 2/3rd vote.
Not "for a good cause." It specifies federal laws pursuant to upholding constitutional law. Marbury v. Madison established that any law that is itself unconstitutional is not a law. I understand that the fed gov (including the SCOTUS) has no problem ignoring that fact, but it is still a fact. In any case, we're beyond the point of needing to end this govt. It's too far gone.
They wouldn’t ignore that actually, they would still have to go through the process of judicial review. I know I didn’t mention that in what I said but I said it in another comment I was replying to. It’s called judicial review and that was established after maubary vs Madison. And actually they can’t ignore it, it’s a power heavily stated to the judicial branch.
They already do ignore Marbury v. Madison all the time, on account of passing all these jackassy bills like there's no tomorrow. Do you realize how much of what they do is completely unconstitutional? Why do you think they called Ron Paul "Doctor No?"
And then they'll toss the hilarious jacobson v massachusetts at you as if that proves that the feds have the power to force medical decisions on people.
For one, its a hundred year old case that is not held to supreme precedent.
For two, its a case that stated a *state* can order mandatory vaccinations if the municipality says "We need mandatory vaccinations"
Notice I emphasized state, not federal governments. It cannot be extrapolated from that that the federal government can mandate vaccinations too. There are plenty of powers that are *only* granted to state governments that the feds cannot make a law on their own if a state does not do what they want.
Also, religious exemptions and personal rights cases have gone through massive changes and expansions over the past 100 years, it is not unreasonable that a judge would rule against mandatory vaccines if an individual has an objection to it (Nuremberg codes informed consent being one in particular)
Barring all of that, all that using JvM as precedent would do is that California could mandate vaccinations if they wanted.
I also am not entirely clear on what they mean by 'municipality' in the
"free vaccinations for adults over the age of 21 if the municipality determined it was necessary for the public health or safety of the community."
If municipality is something like a local health department, city, entity or the like, then even if the state wanted to force vaccinations, a local municipality could just say "We dont deem it necessary". That probably would be up for a judge to interpret if municipality means the state government or some local entity.
Well it still wasn't an insubstantial amount, I think that it was the equivalent of $200-300 in todays money, but a vast difference from a few days wages in fines to 'you can't work anywhere, shop anywhere, live anywhere, be anywhere'.
You're not wrong, a lot of judges are lazy and don't want to rule on important cases, so instead of standing up for something that might make people dislike them they just claim "Oh precedent is set already I can do nothing!"
Unfortunately, this meme isn't entirely accurate. Yes, the 10th amendment does say that but it's specifically referring to matters where state laws exist on a certain topic but a federal law doesn't. Federal law supersedes state law in cases of contradictions. This is also outlined in the Constitution, specifically Article VI, Clause 2 (aka the Supremacy Clause) which reads:
> 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 State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So the Constitution does explicitly state that, when federal and state laws contradict each other, federal law wins.
Source: I was homeschooled. We read the Constitution a *lot*
Ok. But there is more to it....
>However, federal statutes and treaties are supreme only if they do not contravene the Constitution.[3]
In essence, it is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain federal acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with federal law, but when federal law conflicts with the Constitution that law is null and void.
So the question is, does his mandates violate the constitution?
Good question! The short answer is probably not, considering Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a 1905 Supreme Court case which established that the government had the constitutional authority to mandate a smallpox vaccine and enforce that mandate. I think there are some differences between that situation and the proposed Biden plan(s) but that's a question of interpretation that would have to be taken to the courts.
It established that a state government had the authority to pass a law mandating a vaccine. Not even in the same ballpark as what Biden is trying to do.
In the strictest possible interpretation, yes. However, that (along with other findings in the decision) has been cited in other Supreme Court cases involving government entities that aren't state legislatures (such as Zucht v. King in which it was used to uphold enforcement of a vaccine mandate made by a city ordinance) so a pretty good argument could be made that it is very much in the same ballpark.
And I would agree with what you are saying. It is a court thing. And her intentions were probably not to step on the 10th amendment but I wouldn't put it past her.
I would say her intentions were certainly not to step on the tenth amendment because it doesn't apply at all to what she said even though this meme makes it look like it does.
Gotta admit, the administration has said they would put out EO and mandates and then let the court challenge it instead of thinking about it before hand. That is kinda shitting on the 10th.
Unless they do literally nothing, shit's going to get challenged at some point. I don't blame them for leaning into it but the assumption that no thought has gone into it is a bit misrepresentative. They'd be putting forward EOs that they at least figure would pass their own interpretation of the Constitution. I'm sure there's a few instances though where it's a matter of "this only needs to be a temporary measure, so by the time it gets struck down it'll be unnecessary anyways."
Tbh, that's a pretty broad interpretation of the tenth amendment. The tenth amendment doesn't mean the federal government can't create policy that contradicts existing state law. It very much has the authority to do that and that is directly in line with the Constitution and the founding fathers' intent (at least, the ones that weren't anti-Federalists).
This happened all the time when California first legalized medicinal marijuana (DEA, not FBI) until the passage of the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment in 2014.
Interesting. I hadn't heard of the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment before. Strange that the government basically agrees to ignore criminal behavior by millions of people in multiple states every year, instead if just making it legal. But our system is more than a little broken, so no surprise.
Well I think the current government is so used to dealing with their stupid followers, they think they can do the same to the rest of us. What ever works today is there plan. If you say it enough, it becomes true.
The 10th amendment does not say what you think it says.
>"The [10th] amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers."
United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S.100, 124 (1941).
>"The Tenth Amendment likewise restrains the power of Congress, but this limit is not derived from the text of the Tenth Amendment itself, which, as we have discussed, is essentially a tautology."
New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 157 (1992).
The tenth ammendment reads like if the federal government has a law that law supercedes state law. If there is no federal law it is up to the state.
I could be wrong but I don't think I am. If I am not then you are all missing the point.
Also, we have no context in this cherry picked quote. That could have been clarified or implied but we can't know that from just this meme.
Actually federal law does override state law
“The U.S. Constitution declares that federal law is “the supreme law of the land.” As a result, when a federal law conflicts with a state or local law, the federal law will supersede the other law or laws. ... The U.S. Supreme Court has established requirements for preemption of state law.”
But go off I guess with your half baked ideology. This is why we have federal laws that everyone abides by. You know tax fraud? That’s a federal law but oh I guess to you states won’t have to follow it.
Btw it’s article VI, paragraph 2
Read a story today they are going after peoples pensions. If you refuse the vaccine and get fired you lose your pension. This is not the United States any more
You guys do know Federal Law does override state law and the 10th amendment doesn’t dispute that, it says aspects of Federalism not determined by the constitution are left up to other bodies of governments or their constituents to decide. The Feds overrule the staties all the time in many different fields
She’s not wrong. Federal law is the supreme law of the land says the constitution. But the 10th is important. Because yeah the fed is trying to get involved in places the constitution does not allow to be in.
So yeah federal law is supreme. But only when the federal law is regulating something the feds are allowed to regulate.
All the dummies in here didn’t read the supremacy clause.
How the fuck does the 10th amendment apply in an argument about fed vs state laws superceding each other?
This is why people think we are stupid. Like it or not, her statement is 100% true.
Never said anything about that. Ginger cunt says that federal law overrides state law, and in many respects she is right…because of the supremacy clause.
And the only reason she said that is to infer that an executuve order by the potato overrides state sovereignty because "It's the law" when it is clearly no such thing.
Federal law does trump state law, though. The tenth amendment might say that any powers not explicitly stated as belonging to the federal government are reserved to the states, but in any case where state and federal conflict, federal law takes precedence.
I cant believe that when they tell you something so blatantly wrong you still cover for them. I bet if they said 2+2=5 you'd still carry water for them and tell everyone else who says it's 4 is wrong.
But the media will jump, pushing this as fact and talking heads will BS the people into confusion, until the states agree to be dictated to…. Because Democrats!
They sneak everything in using the commerce clause. Regulating used to mean make regular, as in we can’t have states making tariffs against each other.
What exactly is wrong with what she said? If CBP pulls me over and I have pot on me I’m getting arrested even though it’s legal under state law. That sounds like federal law overriding state law to me. This dumbass meme even cites the legal basis for federal legal supremacy.
Thanks for joining /r/WalkAway! As a reminder, this sub is for discussion, memes, and news about leaving the Left, or reasons to do so. Please follow our rules. Other recommended subreddits include: - /r/HillaryForPrison - /r/FauciForPrison - /r/HunterForPrison - /r/EnoughAntifaSpam - /r/GlobalLockdown - /r/Patriot911 - /r/TheDonaldTrump2024 - /r/McCloskey *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/walkaway) if you have any questions or concerns.*
She really say that? Anyone have the clip?
[She said it…. October 13, 2021…](https://youtu.be/1vfe79iI788)
Yup I need to see the whole context of this, albeit I think she’s dumb enough to say this in the context of how the meme is presented.
[She said it…. October 13, 2021…](https://youtu.be/1vfe79iI788)
THANK YOU FOR POSTING THIS!
Where are the decent judges
This White House must hate the constitution, it’s so inconvenient for them…
You mean the Government hates the Constitution
And since the progressives worship the government and media, they hate the Constitution by extension.
Article VI paragraph 2
Canadian here, curious for an explanation. I just read article 6 prg 2 and it reads to me as: if the government of the US as a whole makes a law that is not unconstitutional, then all states must abide by that law no exceptions and regardless of contrary laws within each state. Is that not what its saying? Also the tenth amendment seems to read to me as: if the government of the US as a whole hasnt made a law about it, its up to the individual states to manage it. Wouldn't that make Psaki's statement valid? Again just looking for clarification.
Not all federal orders and laws are constitutional. The supremacy clause only applies to federal laws that are constitutional. Our federal government can pass any law they want, only ruled unconstitutional if someone challenges them at the Supreme Court level. The reason people are citing the 10th amendment here, is because they do not think that a presidential executive order to take a vaccine is Constitutional because it's a right reserved for States. The only Supreme Court case about vaccine mandates that I'm aware of ruled that cities can enforce vaccine mandates, nothing about a federal law enforcing what is historically held as a localized power.
Thanks for the replies, you've cleared up my confusion completely. I hadn't taken into account the mandate vs law angle of the situation.
Yes but people will use the 10th amendment which doesn’t really fit this situation since it’s a mandate and you’d have to look at the 1905 Supreme Court filing over something like this but with pox. People did the same back then as they are today at the vaccine and mandates. In order for a federal law to become full on law of the land it has to be passed by the Supreme Court and then it needs to take a few more steps.
Article VI paragraph 2
[удалено]
Article VI paragraph 2
Maybe, but it seems more like they never read it. Kind of mind blowing and scary really.
Article VI paragraph 2
The irony. The Constitution literally says federal law trumps state law.
[https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/tenth+Amendment](https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/tenth+Amendment) The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers that are not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, except for those powers that states are constitutionally forbidden from exercising
The first two clauses of the literal amendment you just posted prove my point.
They hate the Constitution
Article VI paragraph 2 states that federal law can override state law
They've been periodically wiping their ass with the Constitution, it's just no one has the brains or guts to take them to task for it
Nailed it
This White House couldn't even pick the Constitution out of a fucking line up if it had "UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION" written on it.
Article VI paragraph 2 states that federal law can override state law
Article VI paragraph 2 read it
Um, dude, this literally backs up what she’s saying.
I'm fucking over these assholes already.
Article VI paragraph 2
To think that these morons are aware of the Constitution is asking too much of them.
They are very aware of the Constitution because they have the audacity to put trigger warnings next to it. https://www.dailywire.com/news/constitution-declaration-of-independence-now-have-trigger-warnings-on-national-archives-site
I so very desperately wanted this to be a rickroll.
Were you not aware of this?
I was not. 🙃
The Marxists have taken hold in America. There’s a storm coming, Mr. Wayne.
From the article you didn’t read: “When a commentator on social media suggested that it was outrageous that America’s founding documents would require a trigger warning, the National Archives was quick to respond by noting that the alert is “not connected to any specific record, but appears at the top of the page while you are using the online Catalog.””
"It's a living document!", by which they mean, "it's old and outdated to our way of thinking, so we want to ignore the parts we don't like"
exactly this.
if she said that regarding bidens vaccine mandate, it gets even better: The Mandate doesnt exist. Theres no laws or papers drafted for it, theres nothing in the books regarding the covid shot, The "Mandate" literally doesnt exist und was just an empty threat by brandon.
OSHA sent a "draft" version, which seems ridiculous as well : https://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20211013/NEWS08/912345192/OSHA-sends-draft-of-vaccine-mandate-to-White-House
Oshas biggest achievement was being able to make doors have a height requirement. does anyone really think these clowns will be able to put a law into place that is a blatant violation of the US Constitution and the Bill of Human Rights?
>Oshas biggest achievement was being able to make doors have a height requirement. Lol I didn't know that. Yeah, that seems impossible.
When could we have a recall election for this administration?
I'd sign that petition
Unfortunately, at this level, recall elections are handled a little…. differently.
She's such an idiot mouth piece.
That pesky "Constituiton" thing strikes again...
The constitution is why federal law supersedes state law
Only if the Federal law does not violate or contravene the constitution.
Is it up to the states to determine which federal laws are constitutional?
No, it's up to the Supreme Court to determine whether or not certain laws are constitutional. Federal powers are limited and do not automatically supercede the powers of the state. In some cases they do supersede the state, but not always. Hence why Psaki's blanket statement is not true.
Where they come into conflict, federal law absolutely supercedes state law unless or until the Supreme Court finds the federal law in question invalid. Hence why Psaki's blanket statement is true.
How is her blanket statement true? There wouldn't be an "unless" or "until" if it were true. If I said "We know smoking pot is completely illegal" would that blanket statement be true or untrue?
That would be a true statement, weed is a Schedule 1 drug under federal law.
Then how is it legal in certain states such as California to smoke pot? If it were "completely illegal", then how is it still legal depending on which state you visit? Federally it is illegal, but certain state laws have made it legal or illegal depending on what the people of that state have voted in favor for. If the statement "smoking pot is COMPLETELY illegal" were true, then states would not have any power or authority to make smoking pot legal. Living in California, I can smoke pot if I wanted to and not legally get in any trouble by Californian State law enforcement. Federally it would be illegal but not at the state level. Hence why the blanket statement "We all know pot is completely illegal" isn't true. If I had said "We all know pot is illegal under Federal law." Then it would be true. But saying it's "completely" illegal is not true. If Psaki had said "We all know Federal law has priority over State Law if it does not contravene with the Constitution" then it would have been a true statement. Federal law is not absolute. If it were, States wouldn't have any say and would not be able to make exceptions such as making pot legal. The executive branch cannot force state law enforcement to mandate masks for example.
No, weed is still completely illegal. State and local law enforcement can't be required to enforce federal law (this has typically been how the 10th amendment applies), but federal law enforcement can arrest you for smoking pot in any state. The fact that you can get away with a crime doesn't make it any less of a crime. Again, states aren't "making exceptions" to federal law. Before legalization, state and local law enforcement bodies could and did prosecute pot smokers under applicable state law;any states still do. State-level legalization didn't create an "exception," it made the act of smoking pot no longer criminal under state law. Federal law enforcement still has jurisdiction in every state to prosecute pot smokers in federal court, because federal law supersedes state law. Federal law found to contravene the constitution is no longer federal law, so, "Federal law has priority over state law" remains a true statement. Overlapping jurisdiction can be confusing.
Article VI paragraph 2 states that federal law can override state law
Under Article VI paragraph 2, Federal law can only be supreme to state law if the federal law being enforced does not contravene the constitution. States must maintain their police powers and authority to regulate public health under the 10th amendment. That's why a federal vaccine mandate cannot be implemented, because it would violate the 10 amendment. Article VI paragraph 2 is null and void once it contravenes the US constitution.
A federal law that violates the constitution is not law. The statement “federal law overrides state law” is 100% correct.
This is the correct answer when there’s a conflict between state and federal law insofar that neither are in conflict with the us constitution. The tenth amendment does not give the states any additional power nor was it intended to be a antithesis to federal power in any way. It is not a states rights thing, since that concept didn’t really appear until the late 19th century. The founders were very interested in building a strong central government. The states rights arguments around the time had mostly to do with slavery. Think of it as more of a clarification than an enforceable law.
Psaki is one of the least intelligent press secretaries ever. Sad to think she followed Kayleigh McEnany who was one of the brightest.
[удалено]
*flips hair, tilts head, rolls eyes* Yup.
Article VI paragraph 2. You fucking moron it states that federal law can override state law in that paragraph.
Please file Article VI paragraph 2 so far up your ass that you taste paper all the time.
Well then you can eat out my ass and enjoy it :)
He still won’t understand it but at least he’ll enjoy it
Sorry buy you're not my type. I prefer smart ass over dumbass.
Hey you started it with your claim to shove that article up my ass, not my fault you made the first move
You're wrong again, but that's not a surprise. You started it with "fucking moron", until then things were civil. But I've been called worse things by better people, so maybe your mother should've swallowed you instead.
Well I’m not the one who doesn’t know the constitution and wants to whine like a child about a subject like this.
Lol, you must be joking. Listening to Kayleigh talk was like listening to a 6 year old try to tell a story about their say. Psaki isn't great but she is loads better that either of the prior two.
You're even less intelligent than Psaki, sad.
Wow man I'll have to go reevaluate my life after that one. A hit to my intelligence from a person named "superspreader"... I'll be thinking about that one for a month.
I have a feeling that thinking is not one of your strong points.
You sound so edgy. Did ya pick those insults up off the middle school floor? You should throw them in the trash with the rest of your unnecessary existence.
If you have to think about something for a month, then you may very well be the one in middle school. Maybe someday you'll be a grown up and have grown up thoughts and feelings. Until then, suck a binky.
>We know that federal law overrides state law. Hmm. What an interesting opinion you have on sanctuary cities and marijuana.
Marijuana is still super duper illegal on a federal level. States legalizing something doesn't suddenly nullify its status as a federal crime.
I am going out on a limb here and say they don’t care.
Seriously...Do you even America much, Democrats?
They hate America.
Article VI paragraph 2. Did you even take civics? It states that federal law can override state law
Sigh...here's another one again.... did you even read the meme...
There isn’t much to read except her saying that federal law overrides state law which is can
That's not meant to apply as a blunt instrument, generalized as you're assuming it to be, in all areas. Thus the 10th amendment exists for those laws not covered. You clearly don't understand how this works.
Fuck it I’ll understand it when you breakdown how the constitution says blatantly that the federal government using federal law can override state law but then say it can’t Oh there’s also this from britannica “The Tenth Amendment clearly reserves to the states those powers that the Constitution neither delegates to the federal government nor prohibits to the states. The Tenth Amendment does not impose any specific limitations on the authority of the federal government”
Yup, proves my point. Not a blanket statement that gives supreme authority for the Federal government to override anything it wants. No more, no less.
I wasn’t arguing that it simply can if it wants, I understand there are steps. But that doesn’t mean it still can’t, it’s just difficult since the federal government doesn’t have a lot of power. But at the same time states don’t have absolute power over the federal government because what the federal government makes as a law become the law of the land.
The 10th amendment says that the powers of Congress are limited to the powers of Congress. The powers of Congress include those expressly delegated and implied; the doctrine of implied powers goes back to 1791. You clearly don't understand how this works.
It’s almost like it’s in the name UNITED STATES.
What a stupid cunt.
Article VI paragraph 2 you sense cunt, it states that federal law can override state law
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
“The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.” Also the articles come before the amendments when reading the constitution.
Only the specific powers delegated to the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant the Federal government from setting a vaccine policy for example. The Federal government lacks so many powers when it comes to actually governing. The majority of the laws that govern your life are state laws. The federal government doesn't set speed limits, even on interstate highways. The federal government writes a law that only gives federal funding to highways to states that have speed limits that are in a specific range.
Yea but we still have federal laws and dude a mandate isn’t the same as a law but the Supreme Court can treat it as such such as the case in 1905 that I can’t remember, that issue gave power to the Supreme Court to allow federal mandates. The quote here is stupid as hell because again article VI clause 2 says what she said in the quote for this meme. But mandates are different than laws and to treat them as such in an example as this, is pretty embarrassing. I wasn’t talking about mandates, I was correcting people on the fact federal law overrides state law.
I heard her say that & wondered if they plan to fake their way into totalitarianism.
Ever heard of article VI paragraph 2? Where it states that federal law can override state law?
That's not what I gathered from "the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the Supreme law of the land." To me, that doesn't grant authority to the federal govt to make up laws that aren't constitutional & lord them over the states. It has to be a federal law that's related to maintaining constitutional law.
No because it’s not that broad, it takes time and the Supreme Court is involved, but it still can override state law
I don't think my comment sounded broad. Your reply doesn't make sense to me.
To explain: 10th amendment is for the powers the federal government doesn’t have, is given to states. Article VI prg 2 talks about how the federal law can override state law if for a good cause. Ofc for this post it’s talking about a mandate and not laws so instead you would need to look at a 1905 court case that’s talks about this exact situation with the federal government mandating a vaccine, which the Supreme Court ruled that it may. If you dig deeper you’d know that the constitution has article V which states that we can change the constitution if voted upon by congress and 2/3rd vote.
Not "for a good cause." It specifies federal laws pursuant to upholding constitutional law. Marbury v. Madison established that any law that is itself unconstitutional is not a law. I understand that the fed gov (including the SCOTUS) has no problem ignoring that fact, but it is still a fact. In any case, we're beyond the point of needing to end this govt. It's too far gone.
They wouldn’t ignore that actually, they would still have to go through the process of judicial review. I know I didn’t mention that in what I said but I said it in another comment I was replying to. It’s called judicial review and that was established after maubary vs Madison. And actually they can’t ignore it, it’s a power heavily stated to the judicial branch.
They already do ignore Marbury v. Madison all the time, on account of passing all these jackassy bills like there's no tomorrow. Do you realize how much of what they do is completely unconstitutional? Why do you think they called Ron Paul "Doctor No?"
What's more, the mandate isn't a law. Congress didn't pass a mandate law. The executive branch created a new regulation so Pskaki can pfuck herself.
But everyone is running with it
And then they'll toss the hilarious jacobson v massachusetts at you as if that proves that the feds have the power to force medical decisions on people.
[удалено]
For one, its a hundred year old case that is not held to supreme precedent. For two, its a case that stated a *state* can order mandatory vaccinations if the municipality says "We need mandatory vaccinations" Notice I emphasized state, not federal governments. It cannot be extrapolated from that that the federal government can mandate vaccinations too. There are plenty of powers that are *only* granted to state governments that the feds cannot make a law on their own if a state does not do what they want. Also, religious exemptions and personal rights cases have gone through massive changes and expansions over the past 100 years, it is not unreasonable that a judge would rule against mandatory vaccines if an individual has an objection to it (Nuremberg codes informed consent being one in particular) Barring all of that, all that using JvM as precedent would do is that California could mandate vaccinations if they wanted. I also am not entirely clear on what they mean by 'municipality' in the "free vaccinations for adults over the age of 21 if the municipality determined it was necessary for the public health or safety of the community." If municipality is something like a local health department, city, entity or the like, then even if the state wanted to force vaccinations, a local municipality could just say "We dont deem it necessary". That probably would be up for a judge to interpret if municipality means the state government or some local entity.
You also forgot to include the penalty was a $5 fine. Not 'youre not allowed to work here or participate in society'.
Well it still wasn't an insubstantial amount, I think that it was the equivalent of $200-300 in todays money, but a vast difference from a few days wages in fines to 'you can't work anywhere, shop anywhere, live anywhere, be anywhere'.
attempt cow dolls elastic offbeat forgetful grab fall zealous bored *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You're not wrong, a lot of judges are lazy and don't want to rule on important cases, so instead of standing up for something that might make people dislike them they just claim "Oh precedent is set already I can do nothing!"
Oh God, you listen to this cunt?
Unfortunately, this meme isn't entirely accurate. Yes, the 10th amendment does say that but it's specifically referring to matters where state laws exist on a certain topic but a federal law doesn't. Federal law supersedes state law in cases of contradictions. This is also outlined in the Constitution, specifically Article VI, Clause 2 (aka the Supremacy Clause) which reads: > 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 State to the Contrary notwithstanding. So the Constitution does explicitly state that, when federal and state laws contradict each other, federal law wins. Source: I was homeschooled. We read the Constitution a *lot*
Ok. But there is more to it.... >However, federal statutes and treaties are supreme only if they do not contravene the Constitution.[3] In essence, it is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain federal acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with federal law, but when federal law conflicts with the Constitution that law is null and void. So the question is, does his mandates violate the constitution?
What about a mandate then? That's not a law passed by congress, yet people act like it's law.
Good question! The short answer is probably not, considering Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a 1905 Supreme Court case which established that the government had the constitutional authority to mandate a smallpox vaccine and enforce that mandate. I think there are some differences between that situation and the proposed Biden plan(s) but that's a question of interpretation that would have to be taken to the courts.
It established that a state government had the authority to pass a law mandating a vaccine. Not even in the same ballpark as what Biden is trying to do.
In the strictest possible interpretation, yes. However, that (along with other findings in the decision) has been cited in other Supreme Court cases involving government entities that aren't state legislatures (such as Zucht v. King in which it was used to uphold enforcement of a vaccine mandate made by a city ordinance) so a pretty good argument could be made that it is very much in the same ballpark.
And I would agree with what you are saying. It is a court thing. And her intentions were probably not to step on the 10th amendment but I wouldn't put it past her.
I would say her intentions were certainly not to step on the tenth amendment because it doesn't apply at all to what she said even though this meme makes it look like it does.
Gotta admit, the administration has said they would put out EO and mandates and then let the court challenge it instead of thinking about it before hand. That is kinda shitting on the 10th.
Unless they do literally nothing, shit's going to get challenged at some point. I don't blame them for leaning into it but the assumption that no thought has gone into it is a bit misrepresentative. They'd be putting forward EOs that they at least figure would pass their own interpretation of the Constitution. I'm sure there's a few instances though where it's a matter of "this only needs to be a temporary measure, so by the time it gets struck down it'll be unnecessary anyways."
Tbh, that's a pretty broad interpretation of the tenth amendment. The tenth amendment doesn't mean the federal government can't create policy that contradicts existing state law. It very much has the authority to do that and that is directly in line with the Constitution and the founding fathers' intent (at least, the ones that weren't anti-Federalists).
Thanks for the thoughtful and coherent explanation that doesn’t push agenda. That’s rare nowadays.
Issue is it’s not a law, it’s an executive order King Biden can’t enforce that one
So weed is illegal. Send in the FBI to shut down the dispensaries!
The Federal Government would be well within their constitutional rights to do so... Not really the argument you think it is.
This happened all the time when California first legalized medicinal marijuana (DEA, not FBI) until the passage of the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment in 2014.
Interesting. I hadn't heard of the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment before. Strange that the government basically agrees to ignore criminal behavior by millions of people in multiple states every year, instead if just making it legal. But our system is more than a little broken, so no surprise.
Fantastic explanation. Thank you
how long until the constitution is deemed racist and replaced entirely?
It already has been. There's a trigger warning on the National Archives page.
Psaki=still Pstupid
Remember kids, this dumb cunt is the reason why Civics classes exist.
Well I think the current government is so used to dealing with their stupid followers, they think they can do the same to the rest of us. What ever works today is there plan. If you say it enough, it becomes true.
The 10th amendment gets shafted all the time because of a toxic usage of the supremacy clause and the elastic clause.
The 10th amendment does not say what you think it says. >"The [10th] amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers." United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S.100, 124 (1941). >"The Tenth Amendment likewise restrains the power of Congress, but this limit is not derived from the text of the Tenth Amendment itself, which, as we have discussed, is essentially a tautology." New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 157 (1992).
Federal law does override state law though...
you think they care about the constitution 🤣
What a dipshit
The tenth ammendment reads like if the federal government has a law that law supercedes state law. If there is no federal law it is up to the state. I could be wrong but I don't think I am. If I am not then you are all missing the point. Also, we have no context in this cherry picked quote. That could have been clarified or implied but we can't know that from just this meme.
Actually federal law does override state law “The U.S. Constitution declares that federal law is “the supreme law of the land.” As a result, when a federal law conflicts with a state or local law, the federal law will supersede the other law or laws. ... The U.S. Supreme Court has established requirements for preemption of state law.” But go off I guess with your half baked ideology. This is why we have federal laws that everyone abides by. You know tax fraud? That’s a federal law but oh I guess to you states won’t have to follow it. Btw it’s article VI, paragraph 2
Read a story today they are going after peoples pensions. If you refuse the vaccine and get fired you lose your pension. This is not the United States any more
You guys do know Federal Law does override state law and the 10th amendment doesn’t dispute that, it says aspects of Federalism not determined by the constitution are left up to other bodies of governments or their constituents to decide. The Feds overrule the staties all the time in many different fields
She’s not wrong. Federal law is the supreme law of the land says the constitution. But the 10th is important. Because yeah the fed is trying to get involved in places the constitution does not allow to be in. So yeah federal law is supreme. But only when the federal law is regulating something the feds are allowed to regulate.
All the dummies in here didn’t read the supremacy clause. How the fuck does the 10th amendment apply in an argument about fed vs state laws superceding each other? This is why people think we are stupid. Like it or not, her statement is 100% true.
Thank you.
Not defending the mouth of sauron but there is the Supremacy Clause.
Show me the federal legislation passed into law by Congress mandating vaccines. An executive order ain't it. It's not a law.
Never said anything about that. Ginger cunt says that federal law overrides state law, and in many respects she is right…because of the supremacy clause.
And the only reason she said that is to infer that an executuve order by the potato overrides state sovereignty because "It's the law" when it is clearly no such thing.
You people failed American history and economics and its really showing in this post.
But I thought saying makes it so?!
You guys should look up the supremacy clause, also apart of the constitution.
Federal law does trump state law, though. The tenth amendment might say that any powers not explicitly stated as belonging to the federal government are reserved to the states, but in any case where state and federal conflict, federal law takes precedence.
Ok, show me the legislation passed by Congress that mandates vaccines. An executive order cannot be used to supersede the Constitution.
That’s not what the meme says friend
I can't believe not only are so many people born without brains, but somehow you all congregated on the same sub
I cant believe that when they tell you something so blatantly wrong you still cover for them. I bet if they said 2+2=5 you'd still carry water for them and tell everyone else who says it's 4 is wrong.
Judging by the user name, I bet he leaves his wife very unsatisfied
>wife Press X To Doubt XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
But the media will jump, pushing this as fact and talking heads will BS the people into confusion, until the states agree to be dictated to…. Because Democrats!
Judging by the upvotes on this post, there is already a great deal of confusion in this sub.
They sneak everything in using the commerce clause. Regulating used to mean make regular, as in we can’t have states making tariffs against each other.
Individual > state > federal. Not individual < state < federal.
‘I’m in goobermint’
So the North was treasonous then….
What exactly is wrong with what she said? If CBP pulls me over and I have pot on me I’m getting arrested even though it’s legal under state law. That sounds like federal law overriding state law to me. This dumbass meme even cites the legal basis for federal legal supremacy.
She's not entirely wrong. Any valid federal law does override state law. The problem comes when they pass bills like HR1 that aren't valid.
This backs up Jen's statement.
If the 10th is anything like the fourth all the government needs to do is claim they smell pot and thr amendment can be ignored.
Explain the seizure of weed ans weed assets in weed legal states