1. #5781
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    Oh? So you mean that state laws don't trump federal laws within their states with the federal government generally taking the stance of not interfering with state laws that may go against federal laws?
    They do... you are conflating choosing to not enforce, with supersede...
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  2. #5782
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    You started with a whine, that was based off misinformation, lies, and exaggerations. You made claims, and refused to back them up. Now you want to whine that people who disagreed with you, are somehow the culprits.

    So, your claims within, evidence please:



    - - - Updated - - -



    No, they literally do not.

    Just because the feds don't enforce laws within those states, does not mean state laws trump the federal laws.

    Also, relating to the clearance issue, it has zero bearing on it, whatsoever.
    and a ctrl v and p for you.
    "State laws can defacto trump federal ones in specific cases where the federal government decides that it will not interfere with state laws that have been passed in opposition to the federal law."
    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    They do... you are conflating choosing to not respond, with supersede...
    State laws can defacto trump federal ones in their respective states in specific cases where the federal government decides that it will not interfere with state laws that have been passed in opposition to the federal law.

    Forgive me... I assumed the defacto was well.. understood but maybe it wasn't?

    State laws can defacto supersede federal ones when the federal government respects the state law and takes a position of non-intervention. That's just a fact yes? We can all agree on this yes?
    Last edited by Themius; 2021-03-19 at 07:43 PM.

  3. #5783
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    State laws can defacto trump federal ones in their respective states in specific cases where the federal government decides that it will not interfere with state laws that have been passed in opposition to the federal law.
    Because federal government chooses to not enforce... it’s still illegal and federal law supersedes state laws. That’s fundamental...
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  4. #5784
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Methinks you have a great appreciation for schadenfreude; it'd already been going on for multiple pages!

    ...but sorry.
    Doesn't seem to have even slowed their methodical deepening of the trench they're standing in in any case.

    Frankly I just find it amusing that there's room for ridiculous arguments like those now.

  5. #5785
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    and a ctrl v and p for you.


    - - - Updated - - -



    State laws can defacto trump federal ones in their respective states in specific cases where the federal government decides that it will not interfere with state laws that have been passed in opposition to the federal law.

    Forgive me... I assumed the defacto was well.. understood but maybe it wasn't?
    So, you want to move goalposts from what you first said, because you got mocked.

    Meanwhile, this was all built on your bullshit narrative that this somehow had anything to do with security clearaces.

    "But, it's legal in DC!!!!"

  6. #5786
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    So, you want to move goalposts from what you first said, because you got mocked.

    Meanwhile, this was all built on your bullshit narrative that this somehow had anything to do with security clearaces.

    "But, it's legal in DC!!!!"
    Not moving goal posts, I thought it was understood because we all know the laws yes? We also know state laws yes? We also know that the federal government can choose whether or not to intervene but has come out on the side of non-intevention yes?

    All of this should have led you down the correct path to understanding the implicit defacto, but it seems I overestimated the ability to follow the line....

  7. #5787
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    Forgive me... I assumed the defacto was well.. understood but maybe it wasn't?
    They never trump federal laws... not in practice or otherwise... the issue isn’t people not understanding what “de facto” means... I’d say spell it, to your understood bullshit, but I see the answer to that one...
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  8. #5788
    Herald of the Titans
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    ID
    Posts
    2,557
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    Not moving goal posts, I thought it was understood because we all know the laws yes? We also know state laws yes? We also know that the federal government can choose whether or not to intervene but has come out on the side of non-intevention yes?

    All of this should have led you down the correct path to understanding the implicit defacto, but it seems I overestimated the ability to follow the line....
    Why would we follow you there when they're not applying for a job in their state capital?

  9. #5789
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Because federal government chooses to not enforce... it’s still illegal and federal law supersedes state laws. That’s fundamental...
    dejure... but not in effect...

    And this is what is important. while dejure they "could" defacto... state supersedes where the government stance is to not intervene with state laws. That's the point I was making here...

    Now why is this important for the argument i was making?

    Well the government is taking a stance of not intervening in states passing laws against federal laws, which defacto means in those states the state laws are what trump the federal law and the federal government has been amicable to this arrangement...

    To then become antagonistic to the issue and cite federal laws, that the federal government decided are fine to be ignored, and shouldn't be intervened with... is asinine and a touch hypocritical.

  10. #5790
    Old God PhaelixWW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    10,901
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    Oh? So you mean that state laws don't trump federal laws within their states with the federal government generally taking the stance of not interfering with state laws that may go against federal laws?
    Correct, they don't. As someone who has had a job that dealt with exactly the kinds of state/federal disagreements that you're talking about, I can categorically state that your stance here is absolute bullshit.

    The federal government doesn't "generally respect" those state laws. Federal agents can and will arrest you for weed even in states in which it's been legalized at the state level.
    R.I.P. Democracy


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  11. #5791
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    dejure... but not in effect...

    And this is what is important. while dejure they "could" defacto... state supersedes where the government stance is to not intervene with state laws. That's the point I was making here...

    Now why is this important for the argument i was making?

    Well the government is taking a stance of not intervening in states passing laws against federal laws, which defacto means in those states the state laws are what trump the federal law and the federal government has been amicable to this arrangement...

    To then become antagonistic to the issue and cite federal laws, that the federal government decided are fine to be ignored, and shouldn't be intervened with... is asinine and a touch hypocritical.
    So, how does this relate to a situation that doesn't involve any state laws whatsoever?

  12. #5792
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    They never trump federal laws... not in practice or otherwise... the issue isn’t people not understanding what “de facto” means... I’d say spell it, to your understood bullshit, but I see the answer to that one...

    DE FACTO
    adverb
    in fact, actually, in effect, in reality, really

    the issue seems to be people not understanding it. and if you are really going to use something as silly as a space to feign ignorance, keep fucking that chicken, doesn't change a thing.

  13. #5793
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    dejure... but not in effect...
    In effect it’s meaningless to people who don’t do marijuana... so... what’s the problem? Is this an issue of it in effect only impacting some people? Is this in effect prejudice?

    As a pot smoker, in a state where it’s legal... if the feds come to my house, me screaming “de jure” or “de facto” will only make them laugh... or ask me if I need a French translator...
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  14. #5794
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Correct, they don't. As someone who has had a job that dealt with exactly the kinds of state/federal disagreements that you're talking about, I can categorically state that your stance here is absolute bullshit.

    The federal government doesn't "generally respect" those state laws. Federal agents can and will arrest you for weed even in states in which it's been legalized at the state level.
    "can and will" is not the same as "have, and doing to in growing numbers"

    Are we already forgetting the release by Obama's administration specifically taking a stance of non-interference on this?

  15. #5795
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    DE FACTO
    adverb
    in fact, actually, in effect, in reality, really

    the issue seems to be people not understanding it. and if you are really going to use something as silly as a space to feign ignorance, keep fucking that chicken, doesn't change a thing.
    Don’t teach people the meaning of words that you can’t even spell... that’s not the fucking issue here...
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  16. #5796
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    Well the government is taking a stance of not intervening in states passing laws against federal laws, which defacto means in those states the state laws are what trump the federal law and the federal government has been amicable to this arrangement...
    You seem to be saying that the government broadly takes the stance of straight up ignoring violations of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which they literally do not. In any sense. At all. That they have chosen to do so on this one, particular, specific issue is absolutely not representative of business as usual.

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
    Federal law trumps state law. Period. It's right there in the goddamn Constitution, black and fucking white. You. Are. WRONG.

  17. #5797
    Old God PhaelixWW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    10,901
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Because federal government chooses to not enforce... it’s still illegal and federal law supersedes state laws. That’s fundamental...
    And it's not even like they're choosing not to enforce federal law, they just choosing not to enforce the states' enforcement of the law. Federal agents will still enforce federal law, even in those states.
    R.I.P. Democracy


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  18. #5798
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    In effect it’s meaningless to people who don’t do marijuana... so... what’s the problem? Is this an issue of it in effect only impacting some people? Is this in effect prejudice?

    As a pot smoker, in a state where it’s legal... if the feds come to my house, me screaming “de jure” or “de facto” will only make them laugh... or ask me if I need a French translator...
    But if the feds come do your house they have de jure right yes which surpasses the state... but if the feds never come... and the government says "they won't come and we won't interfere"... then de facto........

    Now you're just being argumentative for argumentative sake.

  19. #5799
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    But if the feds come do your house they have de jure right yes which surpasses the state... but if the feds never come... and the government says "they won't come and we won't interfere"... then de facto........

    Now you're just being argumentative for argumentative sake.
    And in this case, the feds "came" because it was always a federal issue, and had zero to do with the states.

  20. #5800
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Don’t teach people the meaning of words that you can’t even spell... that’s not the fucking issue here...
    What a fucking asinine side to take... "you didn't put a space therefore you can't spell it." is foolish... and also is literally a fallacious argument. The ability to spell a word or pronounce a word isn't important to the substance of an argument.

    "Is there a space or not?" doesn't somehow negate everything lmao... why so cranky?

    Also being told that I spelt something wrong for not putting a space and should shut up... that's rich coming from a person who doesn't understand the word about.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    And in this case, the feds "came" because it was always a federal issue, and had zero to do with the states.
    What does this have to do with the fact that in effect state laws surpass the federal ones when the government decides to not interfere? That's just a fact yes?

Posting Permissions

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