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.
4 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.
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”.