Texas legislator fillibusters against abortion bill (Page 5)

the real slim DEEPy: states are not required to enforce federal law, they can only be manipulated into it, or punished, with the ensuing denial of federal funds. the states of the union have a certain level of sovereignty.

OCD_OCD: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/us-abortion-map/

"Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision, allows states to ban abortions after a fetus is viable outside the womb."

the real slim DEEPy: and obama signed an executive order which stated that no federal funds could be used to fund abortions

davesdatahut: States are not required to enforce federal law? Where does it say that in the Constitution or elsewhere? If that's the case, presumably the federal government then steps in to enforce federal law?

the real slim DEEPy: nevermind, im not gonna explain the entire constitution to you. it is available for you to read in your leisure, if you care what it says

davesdatahut: Ok...point me in the right direction...which article or amendment are you referring to?

the real slim DEEPy: is this a homework assignment?

davesdatahut: I'm just asking which article or amendment, so I can go read it. Otherwise, I'll try to find it myself.

the real slim DEEPy: it is based on multiple judicial decisions regarding the 10th ammendment. new york vs united states, south dakota vs dole, and printz vs united states are a few prominent scotus rulings which state such...

davesdatahut: Deep, having done some quick research, I can find varying views among legal scholars on whether a state can ignore a federal law, but nothing in the Constitution which allows that. The Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, so it is probably a question that, if pushed, would end up in the Supreme Court, which would most likely say no to that idea.
Of course, when push comes to shove, there probably are very few state legislators or law enforcement authorities that would simply refuse to enforce federal laws. You can go back in history a bit and see where that got the southern segregationists when they tested the idea.
Here is an interesting article on the question of "nullification" and whether a state can nulllfy a federal law.
http://www.propublica.org/article/nullification-how-states-are-making-it-a-felony-to-enforce-federal-gun-laws

the real slim DEEPy: i stated 3 scotus rulings which say yes

near50ohoh: deep sociopathy is a neurological disorder and antisocial disorder is a personality disorder. they both have genetic and social factors.they both involve crime patterns. where antisocial is reacting sociopathy is acting. in a very real way to an expert, they arent even in the same wheelhouse.

davesdatahut: I'm aware of the Printz case, and considerable disagreement about whether a state can ignore a federal law.

the real slim DEEPy: that is a fine summation; however, we are way beyond that issue

the real slim DEEPy: yeah, the country is hardly in unanimous support of any supreme court ruling, a new case could change the present interpretation, which is based more on writers intent than anything else- looking into the earlier writings of james madison, so see what he meant when he penned the constitution.

the real slim DEEPy: im not talking nullification, im talking an overreach of federal powers. it is of the same light that the feds have to use dea/fda/atf/ice/irs officers to enforce federal laws, local police can only enforce local law, or it would be a police state.

near50ohoh: the constitutions of both our countries were written by a bunch of christian men who would scream or laugh at the world we now live in and take for granted today. thats why we have precedents in case law. (ie roe vs wade). cuzz the times they are a-changing!!

OCD_OCD: Roe v Wade did not legalize all abortions.

near50ohoh: did i say it did?