221
submitted 8 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ME5SENGER_24@lemmy.world 92 points 8 months ago

Does this fucker not get it? State laws don’t supersede federal laws.

A link for Ronnie Meatball’s education

[-] grue@lemmy.world 49 points 8 months ago

He gets it all too well. He's trying to provoke a nullification crisis and start Civil War 2: fascist boogaloo.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 36 points 8 months ago

Of course he gets it. DeSantis is an intelligent man and lawyer. Here's the thing; He cannot lose with this stance. It's a no-brainer.

He gets to appeal to GOP voters up front and hits 'em again when he's shot down. "Damned woke mind virus Democrat communist haters and legislating-from-the-bench liberal judges! Keep voting for me and we'll eventually win!"

[-] doc@kbin.social 9 points 8 months ago

He's term limited as governor. Question is what he does next.

[-] DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world 22 points 8 months ago

Hopefully fucking croak somehow.

[-] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago

There's plenty of swap in Florida

[-] firebyte@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

Yes, but only for one term. He is eligible again after sitting out for one term, unless of course they manage to change their Constitution.

https://ballotpedia.org/Governor_of_Florida

[-] teamevil@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Eats babies whist dressed in full drag.

I mean… if the USSC ends up ruling in June that a sitting president can, as an official act, order the assassination of a political rival… maybe he gets a visit from an officially-ordered spec ops team to “nullify his opposition”?

Who fucking knows at this point. I feel like we’re rapidly approaching the point where nobody’s even pretending that the rules even exist anymore.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

when he's shot down

That's optimistic. The leaders of the fascist GOP seem to have been given pretty much free rein by the extremely overcautious Garland DOJ.

[-] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 27 points 8 months ago

His MO is to pass illegal/unconstitutional bills and use it to fundraise while the state has to pay to defend (and lose) their case defending it.

[-] Neato@ttrpg.network 8 points 8 months ago

How is a governor signing a blatantly unconstitutional law or refusing to comply with a federal law not a crime? The latter at least should end up with the FBI arresting desantis.

[-] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 8 points 8 months ago

Is there a legal mechanism to go after him for any of this?

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 6 points 8 months ago
[-] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago

Sure, but how do they go about enforcing the judgement?

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago

States are sued all the time. They usually win but lose a lot too. The court that decides in the plaintiff's favor issues the judgement and it's enforced like any other judgment.

The federal government can just start locking up the people that get in their way, judgement or no. How do you think schools in the South were desegregated? The national guard was taken over by the president and the national guard made it happen.

This isn't going to happen though, because Meatball Ron is a coward.

[-] Pacmanlives@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Eh? They will just call his bluff and say they are pulling highway and other federal funding. Just like the feds did to bump the drinking age from 18 to 21 in years past

[-] Shrank7242@lemmy.zip 4 points 8 months ago

I don't think it's as black / white when it comes to implementation as you suggest. Let me know if you know more, but it seems from my uninformed opinion that if the state laws don't follow the federal law, state agencies don't need to enforce.

Turn state / federal law around for something a bit better to think about. Looking at cannabis legalization, many states have legalized it, though it's still illegal federally. As you state and listed in the Wikipedia article, the states choose not to have their police agencies enforce the federal law. But federal law enforcement could come in and enforce it (they just have chosen not to).

I think it's a safe assumption that will work in the same way here? Maybe the federal government will choose to enforce their law over the states here? Not sure, but just my take. Not trying to defend this, I just wanted to call out and question how state law differences from federal don't seem in practice to make much of a difference.

[-] ME5SENGER_24@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

I’m also not an expert but my state legalized cannabis and my brothers and I were going to open a dispensary so I’ve got a bit of knowledge on that particular area.

When it comes to cannabis retail businesses, they must remain in jurisdictions where cannabis is legal. The cannabis that a business sells must be grown, sold, used, and taxed within state lines — without using any federal land or means of commerce. This prevents cannabis businesses from using banks (which are federally regulated), deducting business expenses on their federal income taxes (which other businesses are allowed to do), and preventing farmers from using water from federally managed resources. I’m sure there’s plenty more the federal government can do to tighten its grip around the cannabis industry, but there’s a lot of activity on the federal level surrounding cannabis legalization.

Now when it comes to a situation like we’re discussing in this thread, Florida may choose to act their own way but federal funding and other things the state enjoys could be at risk. Additionally let’s say things get violent because of DickSantis well then I will look to this US law:

Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and its rider thr Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act

this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2024
221 points (98.7% liked)

politics

19246 readers
2800 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS