Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: A Comparison of Policies/Constitutionality

  1. #1 Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004

    A Comparison of Policies/Constitutionality

    Policy #1:

    A State wants to enforce immigration because the Feds are not doing so to that States satisfaction. They write State Laws to help prosecute illegals, but the Feds sue and say that the State is not permitted to enforce Federal responsabillity/law on that issue, onlt the Feds can.

    The Feds, however, make no comment regarding so-called "Sanctuary Cities" where the local Govt. specificly broadcasts that they will not enforce any immigration law.

    Policy #2:

    Federal Law makes Pot illegal.

    Could a State, after seeing Policy #1 above, decriminalize Pot within their State, and then refuse to enforce Federal Law within that state as well? Could teh State in question make the argument that, like immigration, Federal Drug Law is the Feds responsabillity, and local law will no longer be allowed to enforce it in any form (i.e. local-based amnesty, total Pot amnesty)

    Could then local Govt. proclaim teir jurisdiction as "Sanctuary Cities" for Pot use, and ban enforcement in a similar vein to immigration sanctuaries, and then argue in count using the Policy #1 above as their basis?


    Not asking here if they WOULD do any of this, btw. Only asking if this is something that COULD happen/be argued in any form?

  2. #2 Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Policy #1:

    A State wants to enforce immigration because the Feds are not doing so to that States satisfaction.

    Im not a constitutional lawyer but I think the problem is that is specifically prohibited. Only federal can set that policy and enforce those laws. People don't become citizens of Arizona they become American citizens.

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2003
    742 Evergreen Terrace
    New York State did exactly what you're talking about in #2 during Prohibition. The Volstead Act was Federal and each state came up with their own enforcement laws in addition to the Feds. After a while, New York said "eff this; production, distribution, and consumption of alcohol is still illegal, but we're not enforcing it anymore. It's on you guys [Feds]."


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Follow Us