Latest Breaking News

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

28. You're greatly exaggerating state authority.

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 01:08 AM

Dec 2013

It can't thwart the operation of the federal government , nor unduly burden women exercising constitutional rights, by cutting off electricity via their monopolist status, as is usually the case with public utilities.

The states have ZERO authority to regulate or impede federal activities. None. Zilch.

That has been a non- issue since 1819 in McCulloch vs Maryland. The issue has been resolved.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

New Legislation Would Ban NSA From Arizona [View all] Indi Guy Dec 2013 OP

Remind me please how exactly can a state ban any federal agency without violating the constitution? cstanleytech Dec 2013 #1

It may put the NSA into a position pipoman Dec 2013 #4

.They can't "ban" them, but what they can do is Ranchemp. Dec 2013 #6

They can't do that either--nullification doesn't work for either side. nt geek tragedy Dec 2013 #7

Yeah they can. Ranchemp. Dec 2013 #9

Refusing to deploy resources is different from banning the NSA from operating in the state nt geek tragedy Dec 2013 #16

And I said in my earlier post that they can't ban them, but they can make it Ranchemp. Dec 2013 #18

Withholding water and electricity is nullification, not refusing cooperation. nt geek tragedy Dec 2013 #19

If we are talking about things under the control of the State, yes the State can ban them happyslug Dec 2013 #10

The feds however do have control over federal funds and how much the states get cstanleytech Dec 2013 #17

The feds also have supreme jurisdiction over the electric grid and the water supply. geek tragedy Dec 2013 #21

Why do that, all the Federal Government has to do is refused to transmit electricity to Arizona happyslug Dec 2013 #25

Read up on McCulloch vs Maryland. geek tragedy Dec 2013 #29

But can the Federal Government ORDER a state to do something? happyslug Dec 2013 #30

Yes, per the supremacy clause. nt geek tragedy Dec 2013 #31

The Supremacy clause only comes into play when they is a direct conflict happyslug Dec 2013 #33

None of that takes away from the fact that a state cannot interfere with geek tragedy Dec 2013 #35

So was the refusal of the Plaintiff Sheriffs to follow Federal law. happyslug Dec 2013 #36

The federal government cannot commandeer state resources to enforce federal statutes. geek tragedy Dec 2013 #37

What is state resources??? happyslug Dec 2013 #38

public utilities are n.ot resources of the state government geek tragedy Dec 2013 #39

Sorry, but the idea that states can cut off water and electricity to the enforcement of laws they geek tragedy Dec 2013 #20

My point was restricted to actual ownership of such services happyslug Dec 2013 #24

So, in your view, a state could cut off electricity geek tragedy Dec 2013 #26

If you could get around the concept that a public utility must serve all people in their area. happyslug Dec 2013 #27

You're greatly exaggerating state authority. geek tragedy Dec 2013 #28

I am following the Supreme Court happyslug Dec 2013 #34

NSA has managed to piss off both the left and the right. dixiegrrrrl Dec 2013 #2

So then all their defense would EC Dec 2013 #3

The NSA is hardly "all their defense".. pipoman Dec 2013 #5

Won't be upheld. The way to attack NSA is through Congress. Shrike47 Dec 2013 #8

More idiotic political grandstanding Coyotl Dec 2013 #11

Which wouldn't be possible if so many Dems weren't defending it. JoeyT Dec 2013 #12

Exactly. Indi Guy Dec 2013 #14

Because, you see, Internet traffic is bounded by the borders of AZ. LOL n/t jtuck004 Dec 2013 #13

That's rich, a GOPer worried about the constitution groundloop Dec 2013 #15

The person is a Tenther. nt geek tragedy Dec 2013 #22

A good start. blkmusclmachine Dec 2013 #23

FWIW, Ward is also the genius who proposed Blue_Tires Dec 2013 #32