I''ll let him know.Originally Posted by Warped Mindless
I''ll let him know.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
If you do, tell him he's got a beer or drink of his choice on me anytime. (Of course that goes for you as well, T.)I''ll let him know.
There's nothing civil about this war.
So, does the AGs statement apply to sanctuary cities when it pertains to, oh, I dont know, ICE detainers? Or is it only unlawful to defy what he's in favor of? Can we expect him to go after the entities that refuse to assist federal agencies with lawfully issued detainers, or is he going to continue to support aiding abetting actual criminals?
It's rhetorical. I know the answers.
Last edited by CWM11B; 12-07-2019 at 04:33 PM.
So I don’t live in VA and if I did I would be very unhappy about this law. But States can’t be compelled to enforce federal law. Counties and municipalities can certainly be forced to enforce state law. It’s kind of fundamental to how our system of laws and hierarchy of authority works. So a city or state refusing to assist in federal law enforcement is just our Constitution in action not a travesty of justice. Maybe it’s the wrong decision, maybe being a satanist is the wrong decision but both are protected by the US Constitution.
Make that two votes! Forwarded to friends. Thanks for posting that.
The Following Is My OPINION Take It Or Leave It As You See Fit
I am absolutely convinced that the Deep State is a real thing. I believe that their intention is to disarm us so that they can impose not Socialism, but Globalism.
I also believe that the Bundy Ranch Standoff scared the hell out of them. Because I don't think they actually believed that that many WELL ARMED people would show up ready to fight the Federal Government.
Shortly after that was resolved is when they really started the push for Assault Weapons Bans that essentially Outlaw all semi-automatic weapons and magazine capacity limits and get these weapons of war off the streets (Even though they're involved in less than 1% firearms-related homicides in America every year).
That's also when they started introducing bills that didn't grandfather existing weapons which means that sooner or later they're going to have to confiscate them.
Last edited by Cypher; 12-07-2019 at 08:12 PM.
I'm familiar with how our system works. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.
More good news...gun sales to Virginia residents are at unprecedented high levels!
Are you loyal to the constitution or the “institution”?
Samuel Francis wrote what became a book called Leviathan and it's Enemies in which he describes the transition of power from the 'bourgeios' (groups with values of individualism, traditionalism) to the 'managerial elite' (those with the skills to operate the organizations of mass economy, mass government, and mass media whose values are anti-individualist and liberal). This concept, which can only be crudely summarized here, accurately encapsulates some of your feelings. Because the managerial elite seek to expand the organizations of mass economy, government, and media (it is in their interest), they bring about conditions to homogenize populations, their needs, and their desires. The values that instill in us the conviction to be armed, and the knowledge of why it is important, are in direct opposition to the values of the people who manage the primary mass structures of our society. It's a very lucid way of understanding the state of society and in my opinion, makes a lot of sense. It speaks directly to your thought that the goal is to implement globalism, because the goal of the managerial elite is essentially that- erase those aspects (nationalism, traditionalism, weapons ownership, etc.) that act as barriers to the integration of the masses of people to the enormous orgnaizational influences of the mass economy, government, and media.
Unless a federal law violates the federal constitution states can absolutely be compelled to enforce it. See the supremacy clause of the U.S. constitution (Article VI, Clause 2).
Unless United States supreme court finds the issuance of immigration detainer’s unconstitutional The supremacy clause applies and the federal government can force states and counties and municipalities to honor them. Furthermore the state and local entities cannot argue that it is an unfunded mandate since reimbursement for the detention of illegal aliens is provided through the SCAP reimbursement process. https://www.bja.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?Program_ID=86
What we have seen so far is a few left leaning activist judges have the process unconstitutional. Whether Those decisions or the recent state of California sanctuary law would survive a constitutional challenge at the U.S. supreme court is another matter.
Reply With Quote