🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@LouisIngenthron @thegonzoism

It i called the commerce clause if you want to look it up. If gives the federal government jurisdiction over inter-state commerce.

@LouisIngenthron

By the way this is exactly why most cannabis sellers in legalized states cant use credit cards.. Credit cards cause commerse to go across state lines since the credit card companies operate internationally.. so simply taking credit cards is usually enough for the feds to be able to swoop in... But again as long as they are careful to not operate in any way across state lines they are safe due to the sovereignty of the state.

@thegonzoism

@LouisIngenthron

The reason most federal laws are enforcable is because they are recognized by the state, so the state will enforce them. In the case of cannabis laws the states refuse to nenforce the federal laws and thus most growers and sellers are untouchable.

@thegonzoism

@trinsec Damnit, really sorry! It keeps adding you back even after i removed you.

@LouisIngenthron

You can only take down a grow house if you can show some interstate commerce.. for example if you have a bank that exists out of state, or you ordered supplies from out of state... these are loopholes and yes often they are used to get someone on federal charges.. but most of the time if the organization is careful to operate entierly within the state then they are protected.

@thegonzoism @trinsec

@trinsec sorry

@LouisIngenthron @thegonzoism @trinsec

Its not complicated... if you break federal law but do so within the confines of a state then the federal governemtn cant legally act.. you must be tried by the state, and if hte state laws make what you did legal, then your found innocent regardless of federal law.

We see this constantly with all sorts of laws, namely cannabis. Federally illegal but you can literally safely sell it in the open without the federal government doing anything about it... why.. state sovreignty.

@LouisIngenthron

Yes it described the limits on **their sovreignty**... it explicitly stated they were sovreign and the nature of that sovreignty, namely, where and how it applies.

@thegonzoism @trinsec

@LouisIngenthron

Nope, while the DEA can make laws they cant enforce them due to state sovreignty... for example they cant send federal agents into a state to arrest someone if their actions legally were wholly contained within the state (they can only act in inter-state matters).

@thegonzoism @trinsec

@trinsec yea ill try to delete you rname from it, no problem.

@peterdrake

They are saying largely the same things.. first the members of the state pick the state representatives, then those representatives go on to represent the state.

@LouisIngenthron @thegonzoism @trinsec

@LouisIngenthron

Thats what happens when you look up non-technical definitions and ignore the nuance of types ofg legal sovreignty...

I have shared with you legal links that explicitly state that states int ehUSA are conisdered **legally** to be sovreign... I have also given you examples of this manifesting re: cannabis laws.

@thegonzoism @trinsec

@LouisIngenthron

Yes it very much is a **type** of soverignty.. there are many forms and it isnt as simple as "not accountable to anyone).

We actually can see the sovreignty of states in how the cannabis laws go down.. The federal government has made it illegal, yet states have denied the federal government and choose to make it legal... While technically the federal government should have the legal superiority since their agends cant act within the state (they cant actually send military in to arrest people because the state is sovreign) they get away with it anyway.

@thegonzoism @trinsec

@trinsec Im not sure, I have heard people complain about this before to be honest.... it has worked for me though.

@LouisIngenthron

No you are thinking of a specific type of sovereignty called "Westphalian sovereignty".. not all sovereignty means that there is no other authority or no complex hierarchy... that is the colloqual use of the term, but int he case of unions it is more nuanced.

@thegonzoism @trinsec

@LouisIngenthron

Another quote fromt he legal link I gave earlier that might be more clear:

Under Garcia, states retain their sovereign authority “only to the extent that the Constitution has not divested them of their original powers and transferred those powers to the Federal Government.” 15

@thegonzoism @trinsec

@LouisIngenthron

I posted one earlier, They have complete sovreignty to do anything they want so long as it doesnt violate the rights of the federal government. They have legal sovreign status unlike provinces.

@thegonzoism @trinsec

@LouisIngenthron

Texas cant declare war or send soldiers, but they could ally with russia in the sense of choosing to send weapons or aide to russia.. at least I think so, I'm not complete sure on this point.

Regardless sovreignty is **not** defined by your ability to form allys anyway.

@thegonzoism @trinsec

@LouisIngenthron

Nope state soverignty is explicitly recognized by the supreme court of the united states. It is said to be garunteed by the 10th amendment.

One such quote:

"But the Court found that “there are attributes of sovereignty attaching to every state government which may not be impaired by Congress, not because Congress may lack an affirmative grant of legislative authority to reach the matter, but because the Constitution prohibits it from exercising the authority in that manner.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-10/state-sovereignty-and-the-tenth-amendment

@thegonzoism @trinsec