Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Biden reverses Trump orders that cracked down on vandalism of monuments
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Arcangl86" data-source="post: 75958382" data-attributes="member: 344714"><p>The FBI isn't going to waste resources investigating a crime that they probably don't have jurisdiction over.</p><p></p><p></p><p>No need. I spent a week on Printz in law school. It's one of the first things you learn in Con Law. I also studied New York V. US, which was an earlier case that did the same thing as Printz, but for the legislature. Together they form what is known as the "anti-commandeering doctrine", which in a nutshell says that the feds can't force the states to do anything. Personally I think that New York V. US and Printz are both wrong from a legal-historical view, a textualist view, and a policy view, but I don't make the law and ideology often gets in way of what the most obvious ruling should be. </p><p></p><p>But neither case have anything to do with your claim that the FBI only has jurisdiction if granted it by the local sheriff. The so-called "Constitutional Sheriff" movement is only about 70 years old and has no legal or constitutional backing. Sheriff"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Arcangl86, post: 75958382, member: 344714"] The FBI isn't going to waste resources investigating a crime that they probably don't have jurisdiction over. No need. I spent a week on Printz in law school. It's one of the first things you learn in Con Law. I also studied New York V. US, which was an earlier case that did the same thing as Printz, but for the legislature. Together they form what is known as the "anti-commandeering doctrine", which in a nutshell says that the feds can't force the states to do anything. Personally I think that New York V. US and Printz are both wrong from a legal-historical view, a textualist view, and a policy view, but I don't make the law and ideology often gets in way of what the most obvious ruling should be. But neither case have anything to do with your claim that the FBI only has jurisdiction if granted it by the local sheriff. The so-called "Constitutional Sheriff" movement is only about 70 years old and has no legal or constitutional backing. Sheriff" [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Biden reverses Trump orders that cracked down on vandalism of monuments
Top
Bottom