Florida passed a law making it illegal for illegal immigrants to enter the state. A Federal judge in Miami issued an order barring the state from enforcing the law, citing the supremacy clause, making the claim that only the Federal government can enforce immigration laws. When the Florida Attorney General told the court that law enforcement agencies weren’t subject to the order, the judge found him in contempt.
The courts are just as partisan and biased as the rest of the nation, and are becoming illegitimate as a result. The orders you get depend on the political stance of the judge in question, and not on the Constitution. I can prove it. Ask this same judge to put out an order telling the states that due to that same supremacy clause, no state can enforce any gun laws, because there are Federal gun laws. Likewise, drug laws, laws against murder, etc.
We all know what would happen.
14 Comments
SoCoRuss · June 19, 2025 at 11:35 am
BINGO and you have won a prize. Funny how all these judges ruling only favor one side and have created a defacto Judicial supremacy over the other branches now. The executive branch Can Say FUCK YOU and do it anyway but doesn’t have the balls to force congress to actually do their jobs for once and pass a law on it.No problemo on states assuming federal rights for other laws as you described but immigration, nope. Also funny how the War Clause has been ignored as we fight endless war with the world for corporate profits and Zionist supremacy..
Just like the feds taking controls on things they have no “lawful basis” for them to rule over using interstate commerce as a catch all to rule the country with. As a note, I have decided to no longer use the term Constitutional anymore since its been nonexistent and ignored by BOTH sides for decades.
@HomeInSC · June 19, 2025 at 1:22 pm
My common sense interpretation of the supremacy clause…
If a state makes a law that contradicts a federal law that state law is voided.
It follows that a state may not interfere with the enforcement of federal laws.
The logic seems to leave open the idea that a state may write and enforce a law that is in harmony with federal law – meaning it may not carve out new legal territory not covered by the federal law.
The purpose of a state writing a redundant law would be so that it could clearly define enforcement duties for its own personnel and have the state shoulder some of the burden.
Am I wildly off target here?
Oh, here’s a thought on the Interstate Commerce Clause. Its purpose is to foster unity among the states, to nip any trade wars in the bud. It doesn’t give the feds an unlimited license to regulate all forms of commerce in and between states. Unity, not control.
Big Ruckus D · June 19, 2025 at 9:01 pm
You are right on a gnat’s ass. Trump did the same dicking around regarding Newsome and California. He should’ve ordered Newsome to call out the National Guard to restore order, as that is the proper constitutional path to be taken. When that failed (as we all know it would have) he should’ve declared Newsome and the State of California in rebellion, invoked the insurrection act and had Newsome forcibly removed and detained. Then he should’ve appointed a new governor who would call out the NG to restore order, and Newsome and Bass would’ve been subject to trial in a military court.
But, Trump didn’t want to sack up and create a constitutional crisis, oh no. So he did an end run around Newsome, called out the NG himself (which Newsome immediately went to court to challenge), and basically pissed all over the Constitution again, so got nothing substantive done in turn. All of which was just a ruse to afford Newsome and the State of CA the pretense of not being in rebellion. So, Trump fucked up and dropped the ball again, instead of forcing the issue by the proper means available to him. It’s always pussyfooting around with half measures that ensures sweet fuckall gets done. And it happens far too often not be blatantly noticeable.
Divemedic · June 20, 2025 at 5:48 am
I dont see where calling out the NG and the Marines in this case is any different than Eisenhower sending the NG and the 101st Airborne to Little Rock.
Big Ruckus D · June 20, 2025 at 1:35 pm
I’d have to research the history of that incident to know if Eisenhower directly ordered the NG into Little Rock, or if he told the governor of Arkansas to do so, and he followed the order. I suspect it was the former, and if it was, then Eisenhower violated the constitutional path prescribed for sending the NG in then as well. Not that it would be any surprise if he did exactly that, of course. The rot set in a long time ago, and the law has not been followed to the letter with some regularity well back before my lifetime, even. Shortcuts (aka breaking the law) are taken all the time. Like Presidents going to war without a congressional declaration of such. And what do you know, here we are again as Trump mulls over letting Israel drag us into some shit with Iran.
My underlying point remains the same in any case, that in the present instance, Trump had a specific documented procedure he needed to and should have followed. But he didn’t do that because he didn’t want to go all in and cross the point of no return that comes into play by doing so. That would’ve meant invoking the insurrection act and deposing a sitting governor of s state that was in rebellion, which was obviously too big a bite for him to take. In short, he pussed out on forcing what already is a bonafide constitutional crisis (a state and it’s governor, among other personnel, being in rebellion by openly circumventing federal law) that demands to be resolved with clarity and finality. Doing so would require Trump to take actions that will be viewed by many as extreme (and they are extreme, but that doesn’t make them wrong) and would have far reaching repercussion, and so he instead created a circumstance in which this crisis goes on unresolved.
He didn’t do what he needed (and in fact is legally compelled to do), just as he has failed to take other decisive actions that are readily available to him under existing federal law (and would require no additional input or support from the legislative branch) regarding both the crisis of invaders present in this country being harbored by employers giving them jobs, and property owners who are leasing them places to live, as well as price fixing and collision in the healthcare industry. He hasn’t availed himself of enforcing those existing longstanding laws by aggressively prosecuting those who are clearly breaking them (despite being the head of the executive branch charged with doing so) because he fears the knock on consequences. And so the fire rages both literally end figuratively as a result.
Given his history of wading the tentatively along the bank of the Rubicon, but never finding the guts to cross it, I expect the rest of his term (however long that lasts) to be marred by the same kind of indecisive halfassery. And now that he is on the precipice of potentially entangling us in another international clusterfuck, domestic crises will quite likely be thrown on the back burner and allowed to smolder until one or more of them erupts explosively at the most inopportune of times. As I see it, he is purposefully avoiding a partially controlled demolition of the status quo, thereby guaranteeing a fully uncontrolled one later. That’s human nature, generally. But it sucks, because these problems have procedurally outlined solutions, and in foregoing those now, the pain we will get later is certain to be far worse.
Divemedic · June 20, 2025 at 3:28 pm
I would disagree. The Insurrection Act of 1807 empowers the president to deploy the U.S. military and to federalize the National Guard units of the individual states to be used in the suppression of civil disorder and insurrection against the federal government of the U.S.
In passing that law, Congress delegated that Constitutional power to the President.
Big Ruckus D · June 20, 2025 at 4:39 pm
I’m no legal scholar (needless to say) but as I understand it, the procedure for the president to federalize the National Guard is to order the governor of whichever state(s) to deploy their respective state(s) NG to operate at the president’s behest. If they fail (or refuse) to do so then their are additional procedures to declare a state and/or it’s governor in rebellion so as to allow the process of deposing and replacing said governor(s) to assure the NG is following orders given by the president.
Of course, the reams of federal laws appended to the constitution make researching and being confident that one is reading the actual law(s) currently in effect on a given issue difficult. This is obfuscation by design. And none of this changes the fact that states like CA, NY and IL (among many others) are openly in rebellion by refusing to follow federal immigration laws by granting invaders a sanctuary, and both employers and property owners are violating long standing federal laws that make them criminally liable for harboring and aiding illegal invaders in this country. He is straight up shirking his constitutional responsibility as the head of the executive branch by failing to pursue these matters in the strongest manner permitted by law.
Irrespective of all the other noise, the essence of my bitch here is that Trump has demonstrated a pattern of being non-committal whether because he fears looking like an asshole, being popped by the CIA, or is (for whatever reason) intentionally creating untenable situations by never resolving shit like putting down astroturfed riots – which should be an obvious slam dunk – should be actually choose to do so. He utterly failed to do so in 2020, and while his response this time has been stronger, it was still short of a decisive statement that “this aggression will not stand, man!” backed up deadly force to drive home the point that he’s not bluffing.
Yes, it means he will have to give shoot to kill orders – quite possibly on actual American citizens – and will probably have to take the assuredly unpopular measure of invoking martial law to quell an actual no shit insurrection. I have reservations about that myself, as should any logical person. But if such measures are necessary (and there are laws on the books governing the application of such measures) yet those who have to make the call blink in this game of chicken, then they are a failure who has consigned us to dispense fully with any pretense of law, and to instead resort to violence in the form of civil war to settle issues that are otherwise unresolved.
JaimeInTexas · June 21, 2025 at 8:54 am
Similar law in Texas, same result at Federal judge.
Not that it matters any more but Federal laws are only supreme, or valid, with respect to the delegated powers “which shall be made in Pursuance thereof” to the Federated government.
As to insurrection.
When a State in the union cannot suppress unlawful actions (domestic violence) within the State’s boundaries, the State’s legislature, or the State’s executive if the State’s legislature cannot convene, can request (executive branch? Congress?) for assistance. If request is to executive branch, then a call to convene the Congress is made with the request and approval/denial.
That was A. Lincoln’s evil genius – he redefined insurrection to in include a State secession – a legal/political action.
Invasion is different than insurrection.
Article 1 Section 8
Article 2, Section 2
Article 4, Section 4
Gryphon · June 19, 2025 at 4:16 pm
Unless the Florida Attorney General tells that ‘Judge’ to FOAD, loudly and publicly, then Charges the ‘Judge’ with Interference with Florida Law Enforcement, nothing changes.
IMO, we NEED a “Constitutional Crisis” where SOMEONE, some Elected Official, Federal, State or Local, REFUSES to Obey these ‘Judges’, and Dares one of them to ‘arrest’ them. Or Better, send ‘Law Enforcement’ to Arrest one of them.
But that will Never Happen; Trump had the Golden Opportunity to tell SC(r)OTUS to FOAD over the Deportation of that MS-13 cockroach out of Maryland. Instead, TACO. And I mean, Trump Always Cucks Out.
Noway2 · June 19, 2025 at 6:16 pm
It would be a pleasure to show that “judge” just how much contempt I have for him and the “courts”.
Dan · June 19, 2025 at 8:55 pm
Why do judges act this way? Simple. Because they can. And until that fact changes they have no reason to stop acting like petty tyrants.
SiG · June 20, 2025 at 7:19 am
As you say, this might well be the biggest problem we have in these End Days of the Republic.
Our “Rule of Law” has turned into “Rule by Lawyers” No matter what the issue is, if you go to a court that’s friendly to your views, you get the ruling you like. It created this situation we live in where big cases are filed in courts known to be favorable to the side filing the suit.
It turns into insane arguments over the syntax used in the law, and arcane ideas about how to word things.
SoCoRuss · June 20, 2025 at 9:52 am
All these great comments, interpretations of lawfulness clauses and ideas and we clearly aren’t the only ones thinking the same way….. yet nothing will change.
Because the powers that be don’t give a crap about whats right or us and never will since the general populaces are a bunch of spineless morons.
@HomeInSC · June 20, 2025 at 10:52 am
These judges seem to be a shitty mix of lefty ideology and self-importance, looking for their 15 minutes of fame and virtue signalling a future commie administration that they deserve a promotion.
Comments are closed.