No both. The supremacy clause puts the feds above the state and local government. Yes this means that state judges can't make rulings counter to the constitution, but also the state legislature can't make laws against federal law, AND they can't make laws that the feds control entirely like immigration.
Imagine lgbt trans roman empire led by black atheist pagans......they would survivie to our days and conqered Universe,right?
...No, there is a well-defined process that retains significant limits to this day. You may not like that process or where those limits are because you either don't understand what a notional state is or refuse to recognize its legitimacy, but as we're seeing with the current administration many safeguards against abuse are still present and usable.
Explain how it’s a tyranny?
United States are, well, United. States.
Your third paragraph is something interesting we could debate later when I’m not on a phone.
That's not what they are doing. They aren't mandating taking active actions to hamper the Feds, they forbid taking action to help the Feds. That second thing is legal, the first is not.
The ALSO stuff is against the law.
exactly. and that is the point.
From a strict constitutional originalist perspective?
Article: >> Let me ask you, is everyone on US soil, citizen and non citizen entitled to due process.
> Yes of course. but let me tell you it looks immigration standing the laws are very specific.
> If you are in this country unlawfully you have no right to be here and must be removed
> somehow over the last 20 years we have completely lost this notion that someone or completely adopted this idea:
> that yes we have all kind of immigration laws. but once you come into our country illegally it triggers all kinds of rights that can keep you indefinitely.
> that is why we are being flooded at the border. and we have ended that. and that is why you see a historic number of people not just trying to cross our border but trying to cross the border into panama all the way down in the darian gap.
> so it has been a huge help for those countries as well
> on the headlines that is a misleading headline ok.
> 3 us citizens ages 2, 4, and 7 were not deported.
> their mothers who were here illegally were deported
> their children went with ther mothers
> if those children are us citizens they can come back into the united states if there is someone here, their father who wants to assume them.
> but ultimately who was deported was their mothers, because it was their mothers who were here illegally
> the children just went with their mothers.
> but it wasn't like, you guys make it sound like ice kicked down the door and grabbed the 2 year old and put him on an airplane. that is misleading, that is just not true.
>> just to be clear because I do want to get to the overhaul at the state department
>> is it the us policy to deport children, even us citizens, with their families
>> and I hear what you are saying, without due process, just to be very clear there.
> well. no no no. again
> if someone is in this country, unlawfully, illegally, that person gets deported.
> if that person is with a 2 year old child or has a 2 year old child and says
> I want to take my child with you, with me. you have 2 choices.
> you can say, yes of course you can take your child whether they are a citizen or not, because it is your child.
> or you can say, yes you can go, but your child must stay behind, and then your headlines would read
> "us holding hostage 2 year old, 4 year, 7 year old while mother deported".
> so, the mother, the parents make that choice. I imagine those 3 usa citizens have fathers here in the united states.
> they can stay with their fathers. that is up to the family to decide where the children go. children go with their parents, parents decide where their children go.
> the us deported their mothers who were illegally in america.
They would have loved to write such headlines about US taking children hostage and breaking up families.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
www.tampafp.com
traditionalwest.wordpress.com
Which precipitated because the Kings' other efforts at consolidating power hit the breakpoint where managing their estates required the very same communication as the centralization. The informal power dynamics you call for caved in with far less pressure for far less time than modern Republican devolution of government. For such things to endure, they have to be formalized into law so that a wide range of people are justified to give any defector the boot.
???
