The Show me State! - Page 2

TreeDoc · January 9th, 2018, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roastpork

It was a company hired by our association, the tree was about 8 feet tall and the roots were encased in a large round burlap ball. It's a nice looking tree now, just crooked, I'd have sworn they were all drunk.

It now has character!

It may have even rolled as the failed to compact the soil as the placed it in the ground. Sounds like a lack of supervision and or training, that's how about 90% of the industry is.

discollector · January 9th, 2018, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73

State police officers in every state take an oath to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. so in other words they took and OATH to insure the laws of the UNITED STATES as well as the STATE are enforced.

Bank Robbery is a federal offense... they respond to bank robberies.

In the case of Printz v. U.S. The Supreme Court addressed this. According to Wikipedia:

"The Court expressed a worry that Members of Congress might take credit for “solving” a problem with policies that impose all the financial and administrative burden, as well as the blame, on local officials.[10] The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments “a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same that each will be controlled by itself.”[11] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained

We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself." ....

"The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Governments argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act’s mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States

I would hope that you read that and then reevaluate how much government should immerse itself in having state and local LEOs enforcing federal statutory laws. Granted, if someone commits a felony in front of you, even I would make a citizen's arrest. But, how far are we going to go in bringing about a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT with no defined jurisdictions and no separation of powers?

TreeDoc · January 9th, 2018, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by discollector

In the case of Printz v. U.S. The Supreme Court addressed this. According to Wikipedia:

"The Court expressed a worry that Members of Congress might take credit for “solving” a problem with policies that impose all the financial and administrative burden, as well as the blame, on local officials.[10] The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments “a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same that each will be controlled by itself.”[11] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained

We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself." ....

"The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Governments argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act’s mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States

I would hope that you read that and then reevaluate how much government should immerse itself in having state and local LEOs enforcing federal statutory laws. Granted, if someone commits a felony in front of you, even I would make a citizen's arrest. But, how far are we going to go in bringing about a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT with no defined jurisdictions and no separation of powers?

Printz has nothing to do with local LEO enforcement asking a persons legal status, per the requested information from the feds. Per Reno V Condon.

Quote:

Feldman and others point to New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court concluded that the federal government cannot conscript state or local officials to carry out federal law. The federal government must enforce its own laws, using federal personnel. So when state or local police arrest immigrants who are present in the country illegally, they are under no obligation to deport them, as deportation is the responsibility of the federal government alone.

This "anti-commandeering" doctrine, however, doesn't protect sanctuary cities or public universities — because it doesn't apply when Congress merely requests information. For example, in Reno v. Condon (2000), the Court unanimously rejected an anti-commandeering challenge to the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which required states under certain circumstances to disclose some personal details about license holders. The court concluded that, because the DPPA requested information and "did not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes," it was consistent with the New York and Printz cases.

Can Trump cut off funds for sanctuary cities? The Constitution says yes. - LA Times

goober · January 9th, 2018, 05:13 PM

No Illegals in Missouri,
The check's in the mail,
I won't come in your mouth....

discollector · January 9th, 2018, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

No Illegals in Missouri,
The check's in the mail,
I won't come in your mouth....

What were we to extrapolate from that?

roastpork · January 10th, 2018, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

No Illegals in Missouri,
The check's in the mail,
I won't come in your mouth....

Goob, you obviously don't understand hyperbole, I'm sure the author meant very few.

Twisted Sister · January 10th, 2018, 12:44 PM

Nothing is more stubborn than a Missouri Mule!

edit: except a Kentucky mule

Hollywood · January 10th, 2018, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roastpork

Goob, you obviously don't understand hyperbole, I'm sure the author meant very few.

What? Saying "very few" was just too hard to spell?

Twisted Sister · January 10th, 2018, 01:32 PM

Very few is lame. Smattering means very few and has a ring.

goober · January 10th, 2018, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roastpork

Goob, you obviously don't understand hyperbole, I'm sure the author meant very few.

So by very few, you mean less than Texas.
I'll bet I could find quite a few in St Louis or Kansas City, or during the harvest, or at. The packing plants.

January 10th, 2018, 12:44 PM	#17
Twisted Sister Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Brown Township, Ohio Posts: 11,593	Nothing is more stubborn than a Missouri Mule! edit: except a Kentucky mule Last edited by Twisted Sister; January 10th, 2018 at 12:57 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Swing State Polls Show Close Race Between Clinton, Trump	excalibur	Current Events	17	June 21st, 2016 09:16 AM
Showdown in the "Show Me" State	LongWinded	Current Events	0	September 14th, 2015 03:11 PM
FACT SHEET: The Economic Case for Increasing the Minimum Wage: State by State Impact	The White House	The White House	0	March 20th, 2014 09:10 AM
Plan To Repeal Doma State By State	Ray Kaye	Gay and Lesbian Rights	2	April 7th, 2011 01:36 AM
Boehner a no-show at White House state dinner	msnbc.com	Current Events	3	January 22nd, 2011 10:58 PM

January 9th, 2018, 05:13 PM	#14
goober Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: massachusetts Posts: 10,704	No Illegals in Missouri, The check's in the mail, I won't come in your mouth....

January 10th, 2018, 01:32 PM	#19
Twisted Sister Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Brown Township, Ohio Posts: 11,593	Very few is lame. Smattering means very few and has a ring.