Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
Would be cool if this is how things actually worked.
That's rather ambiguous. I think they will not have any say over what Federal Law Enforcement Officers can wear, on their face, feet, arms....
IF the state had that kind of clout, the next thing they'd try is, the feds cannot carry guns.
Are the feds a well regulated militia?
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
Free shipping: VITALMX
In this case, hell yes.
We've got to get our, out of control democrat led cities back under some kind of control.
We are getting away from being a civil society. We're seeing that pretty much every day in our headlines.
Illegal alien crime against legal American citizens.
Gang crime against law abiding American citizens.
And the continuing revolving door courts that are returning subhuman savages back out onto the streets.
If mayor bass, and dozens of others can't get a handle on it, we now have a president who will.
And fuck everyone who doesn't like it.
So state's rights on abortion and other things the fed's want to punt is fine with people, but fuck you to the state's when the president wants to distract from the obvious by using federal troops and officers to handle a state issue?
Checks out.
What? You're comparing getting an abortion to what a federal law enforcement officer wears in the course of his/her duty? Next you're going to tell me that the state can tell the federal government that IRS agents cannot carry a gun.
C'mon man
With the shooting of CK, fighting crime and violence will kick into high gear.
No, I was questioning why federal LEO's are even dealing with a state issue when it's been established that the government routinely kicks state issues back down.
Customs & Immigration Enforcement a state issue?
Personally I’d rather have a confederation of states that in good faith act in accordance with, and for each others mutual benefit. Government and bureaucracy is the downfall of man and federal governments take the cake on this. Everything they touch they fuck up. First they let illegals pour in and give them food, water, housing, transportation ( all on my dime!), then they build up a federal police force and are running around collecting these fuckers back up to send em home (once again all on my dime!)
And don’t give that bullshit about it being the last administration either. I don’t give a fuck. It’s the fact that there’s a system in place which allows for administrators to do this bullshit in the first place. That’s what pisses me off. And btw when the democrats do get back in, they’ll kick the gates wide open and welcome all these fuckers back in lol. Courtesy of American taxpayers
States rights should always take precedence over federal, and individual rights over both. The only role a federal government should take is none at all.
It’s almost like it’s a game for them!
I’d be curious to know why so many people downvoted me? The founding fathers designed things in a way where rights of states were paramount. They intended the federal government to play a very limited role fearing a centralized authority would be a threat to liberty. Much like the monarchy of Britain that we had just started a revolution and fought and died to be free of.
If your state doesn’t do things the way you like then you have the freedom to move. But if a very strong and centralized federal government starts making nationwide laws, then you have limited options.
Signed by Newsom last Sat
Assembly Bill 49 - prohibits schools from allowing immigration enforcement officers on campus without a warrant.
Senate Bill 627 - widely prohibits federal and local law enforcement officers from wearing face masks while conducting their duties.
Senate Bill 805 - requires that law enforcement officers identify themselves while conducting their duties, with some exceptions.
Senate Bill 81 - prohibits immigration enforcement from entering restricted areas of a health facility without a judicial warrant or court order.
Senate Bill 98 - requires schools and higher education institutions to send community notifications when immigration enforcement is on campus, and prohibits immigration enforcement from entering certain areas without a judicial warrant or court order.
This will be interesting in the event of another large scale wildfire. Police can not wear mask to protect from dust and smoke.
The 10th amendment grants the states all powers not reserved by the federal government. However, Article 1 Section 8 allows congress to regulate immigration and to make all laws necessary and proper to achieve that end. Article 6 grants the federal government legal supremacy, meaning federal law trumps state law.
As a procedural matter, congress will enact legislation to be carried out by the executive branch. The legislature will create the basic framework for the law and then grant the executive branch the power to promulgate rules to achieve the end sought by the legislation. Think of any federal agency like the EPA, DEA, FDA, etc. Those function as executive departments even though their creation arose out of a legislative act.
The California law is likely unenforceable against ICE. The legislature reserve the right to regulate naturalization. Congress created ICE with the Homeland Security Act of 2002. That act allowed for the department of homeland security to promulgate rules for the agency to enforce the act. These rules cover field operations. When the duly enacted laws of the legislature conflict with those of the state, those of the federal government must be followed.
What you’re seeing here is an invalid law (and Newsom is aware of that) being created with the expectation that the feds won’t comply so that California can cry foul and call ICE a bunch of criminals. This law is intellectually dishonest and design to fail for political objectives.
You are so brainwashed
This is gonna get interesting….
When Federal Law Enforcement is ENFORCING FEDERAL LAW….the federal gov’t has all sorts of interesting and affective ways to ENFORCE SAID LAWS when a state attempts to get in the way.
But, I digress….because, there’s an obvious point…a fact…that far too many of us seem to intentionally IGNORE…
DEFENDING THE BORDERS & ENFORCING NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW FALLS ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Pit Row
How’d this workout 160 years ago?
Unfortunately not good. Federalists used slavery (never let a good crisis go to waste) as a pretext (slavery was already on its way out and could have been done away with by other means) to exponentially expand and increase the powers of the federal government.
I find it odd you prefer a centralized authority rather then a local community and regionally based system of governance. It conflicts with your usual rhetoric.
The rhetoric of the day fluctuates with what the POTUS has said lately.
A bit like the wind.
That expansion of federal power (notably the 14th amendment) is the reason that freedom of speech is protected anywhere in this country.
I find it odd that you’re attempting to assign my beliefs for me.
The articles stated by others, here-in, make the point.
Could it be that the state is abdicating their responsibility regarding those "state issues"? It could be argued that the federal officers are there to assist in upholding the constitutional rights of the people.
DHS tells little Gavin,
To be clear: We will NOT comply with Gavin Newsom’s unconstitutional mask ban. At a time that ICE law enforcement faces a 1,000% increase in assaults and their family members are being doxxed and targeted, the sitting Governor of California signed unconstitutional legislation Show more
Newsom is such an idiot....Ice wouldn't even be in his state doing this if he enforced the law! I dont know how anybody can support that guy.
By the looks of your post earlier in this thread you seem to be pretty knowledgeable on this subject. Can I ask you what kept individual states from doing in their own what the 14th amendment did? And by the same token why were states not following, or maybe better put, not allowing what the first amendment guaranteed?
I am no constitutional scholar or history major so I think I may better prove my point by asking you questions rather than me trying to explain. Also, I realize your comment just provided facts and you didn’t insinuate anything.
Because liberals have collectively lost their mind and are evil AF.
Seriously watch yoru back around these people, they secretly applaud the assasination of a person for nothing more than speaking an opinion and the boldest of them say it on social media for all to read. Literally celebrating an ASSASSINATION. Just go through the Charlie Kirk threads and look at the downvotes. These monsters walk among us now, if you're smart you will watch you back. They are mentally and morally broke. This is WAY WAY bigger than simple 'R' and 'D' stuff now, this is evil versus good.
Keep your head on a swivel, your powder dry and your Bible read folks, this shits gonna get way way worse before it gets better.
I was a little short with that comment so it make have come off as a defense of a centralized authority. And to be perfectly honest, I thought this was the Kimmel thread so the 1A comment was kind of irrelevant.
But to answer your question, nothing stopped the states from doing what the 14th amendment did. They could have done it independently, but they likely wouldn’t have.
As for states not following the 1st amendment (or any of the bill of rights), the states weren’t constitutionally required to. The bill of rights was not originally interpreted to apply to the states—it only protected those rights from federal government action. The due process clause of the 14th amendment was interpreted to apply certain rights as protected against action from the states.
Here’s a link that can better explain it than I can typing out paragraphs on a cell phone: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine
Having said all that, I have a lot of issues with the reconstruction amendments too. But I don’t think they carry as much blame as other areas of law when it comes to an invasive federal government.
They have an advantage in that they control the media. This let's them control words and the narrative. They try and tell us they are tolerant because they accept and even promote despicable behavior. However, we have really been the party of tolerance, We did not burn cities when they used government resources to shut us up. We tolerated their deviant behavior. But as they have become more tolerated, their methods have become more vile to get attention, all the way to mass murder and political assassination. They are pure evil and don't even know it. Some know it, but those are the manipulators. The ones doing the evil are mostly the ones manipulated by their message.
Post a reply to: Why would a state think they can control a federal law enforcement employee?