"preemption" and McDonald

raimius said:
I really don't see how people think protecting a negative liberty would lead to more government power...:confused:

Equal treatment (don't discriminate) is a right that seems to fall within your meaning of a "negative liberty". To achieve equal treatment in education, the federal courts assumed powers to order student busing, school staffing and funding, and school construction and renovation. Such powers had previously been local and state in nature.

Most local schools are funded by property taxes and local residents either vote on school funding or elect representatives who vote on school funding. However, I have lived in a city whose schools were under federal court supervision and a federal judge simply ordered an increase in local taxes to provide more money for the schools. Thus, protecting the "negative liberty" of anti-discrimination led to the rather unpleasant exercise of government power to impose taxes without representation.
 
A state law regulating in that field would be invalid under the preemption doctrine.

In many cases only to the extent it conflicts with the Federal law.

There are numerous laws that are imposed at both the state and federal level (think drug laws as a very common example).

The status of the person proffering charges can determine under what law tey are prosecuted.

The fact the Obongo (like his predecessors) have refused to uphold the laws is an issue here.

Arizona has not declared anything new, just decided to pass a state law that parallels the federal law that is NOT being enforced.
 
Back
Top