dayman

At the very least you can't really openly say you will not enforce a law unless you have or plan to in the near future have a public policy position against it. So while you can, in practice, not do anything about something and take the position that it's in your discretion to allocate limited resources...it would be tough to publicly guarantee a state you will NEVER enforce a law that you have no official policy position against. **although...if the polls are to be believed and there is in fact GOP support for not doing anything...then in reality you could just tell them you aren't going to do anything...but it would be a little crazy

Well if they go after it, supremacy trumps santa. I doubt they will though...but that is far from clear...hard line legal guys in the DOJ probably say they aught to b/c it really is kind of crazy to not enforce schedule 1 drug prohibition when violation is happening on a large commercial scale in a state that is collecting taxes and sanctioning it. But at the same time, there likely are some voices that understand the way things are going, the mood of the country, and feel "resources could be better spent elsewhere." In all likelihood they probably just hope they can avoid publicly saying they won't do anything, while at the same time not doing anything, and then soon Congress acts so they don't have to deal with it. But we'll see...

hehe, a very Sarah Palinish way to cap off that conversation

Still...if you can avoid it by not telling someone to come meet your for a fight...probably worth it

Hence you have the choice of understanding how important cooperation is and at some times restraint when things don't go well...behaving as a statesman or even just an adult...or you have the choice of being Mississippi

Well Jeb may not see it exactly that way...Bob Dole may have a thing or two to say as well...

Well he made a thread a while back that told everybody who he is and where he lives so ... you don't want some crazy showing up at the door

Well...they are appointed by the one person who the entire nation votes on and while not likely to happen you can impeach them. I wouldn't be initially opposed to giving them terms of say...15 years and with lifetime pay though...but that's a whole different debate. The bottom line though is there is no getting around the fact that everybody can't just interpret the law as they see it...if we are a nation of law there most be one body that ultimately says what it is not many bodies saying what it is...

I would say there is validity to this point and it was well stated. For the most part there is an understanding here, and part of that includes that the intensity/rivalry that inherently develops be considered in context outside of this terrible place..while within the walls it's another story

The most famous line in American judicial history is from that case where he says it is their role to "say what the law is" b/c if you are to apply it to a set of facts, you must be able to The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and they say what it is. Perhaps you do not like the court doing this and would prefer Jefferson's argument? That he should say? Which would of course give Obama the power to say...and the NLRB issues would be long over...

Ya they look like their regular chums

If I recall correctly you are/were recently in law school ... so believe you know well and how SCOTUS came about having that power ... a power they've had for ages

just thought I would point this out in case someone didn't remember/know and feels the need to flip over or avoid the channel...

Na, my opinion is that whatever the wisdom of the decision, it means what it means. The administrations position seems to be, we'll claim it only applies to this case to keep running the board until another decision comes. When that happens, they won't have a position to take other than the decision. 3rd brought it up in comparison to Mississippi just deciding not to adhere to federal law. It be similar if they ignored federal law they didn't like while/before it was being litigated/appealed...but once it reaches SCOTUS or is denied further review to continue ignoring it would be different than that example.

While an interesting post, it's hard to look at the last GOP primary and be convinced. I mean you can say that a theoretical party has always been against X so they haven't moved on that issue, but if they were against X expanding and trying to shrink it a bit before and now they're making X their number 1 issue and trying to completely destroy it...then they moved on X. BTW X here wasn't meant to represent any real issue so don't read into it...

lol that's not going to work out if they get another unfavorable ruling en banc and certainly not a SCOTUS order...and either way as per this moment they're done with authority over the Noel issue

In a few cases SCOTUS disagrees with itself..but this wouldn't be one of them. Mississippi is part of the republic and represented, then can participate as other states do by voting and debating and furthering their point of view and casting their states electoral votes for executive branch candidates etc etc....in the end if they lose the argument/election/debate and something is passed that negatively effects them that they think is not constitutional they can take it to the courts and ultimately as high as SCOTUS where it will be decided one way or the other and then that is the end of it. There is no next step in our Republic where they grant themselves the power to interpret the constitution as they see fit and go rouge picking and choosing federal law they like and dislike.

Well, SCOTUS would disagree.

They don't need a law to state the obvious though. This law does not state the obvious, it declares that they will decide what federal actions are within the constitution themselves and act accordingly. That's the issue...

Any reasoned analysis of what our military actually is, reveals it to in fact be a giant socialist institution well beyond it's surface level purpose (which is of course, necessary and important as I have acknowledged)

What? “If the Mississippi State Legislature votes by simple majority to neutralize any federal statute, mandate or executive order on the grounds of its lack of proper constitutionality, then the state and its citizens shall not recognize or be obligated to live under the statute, mandate or executive order,” the bill reads. I mean maybe there's an intelligent argument that can be made, if so I would like to hear it. How is this within the framework of American law as has been practiced for centuries to have the Mississippi house interpret the federal constitution and then ignore federal statutes on the basis of their interpretation?

the far, extreme, despicable, unbearable right wing war on simon is in full force

And if you read through, you will see that I'm not simply talking about receiving a pay check for a days work ya idiot Something explicitly acknowledged in my strain of posts here. Thanks for reading.

In the sense that I have described it over the course of the last few posts, yes. A bad one. Probably more accurate to just stick to calling it a huge socialist bloc of American society that no socialist hating American ever rags on.