@maxdancona,
maxdoncona wrote:I have stated my opinion on the inability for Federal government to force local police to enforce laws that American Citizens living in these areas don't want enforced.
Yes, you have, and you said, this is based upon the provisions of the 10th Amendment. And, of course, I countered with numerous example, such as that the Feds can force local authorities to enforce federal anti-lynching laws, whether they want to or not.
You have also suggested that, in the area of immigration law, federal laws such as section 1373, would somehow be "unconstitutional." Of course that claim was soundly and specifically rejected by the court in the New York case, so that aint gunna fly. That case said the provision was constitutional and squarely within the authority of Congress to enact and enforce.
You have also made an appeal to the "anti-commandeering" doctrine, which has also been rejected, as I have previously noted. Here's a excerpt from the case in question.
the Supreme Court wrote: The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA or Act), 18 U.S.C. § 2721—2725 (1994 ed. and Supp. III), regulates the disclosure of personal information contained in the records of state motor vehicle departments (DMVs).
South Carolina contends that the DPPA violates the Tenth Amendment because it “thrusts upon the States all of the day-to-day responsibility for administering its complex provisions,” and thereby makes “state officials the unwilling implementors of federal policy.”
We agree with South Carolina’s assertion that the DPPA’s provisions will require time and effort on the part of state employees, but reject the State’s argument that the DPPA violates the principles laid down in either New York or Printz.
The DPPA does not require the States in their sovereign capacity to regulate their own citizens. The DPPA regulates the States as the owners of databases. We accordingly conclude that the DPPA is consistent with constitutional principles [and does not commandeer state resources].
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1464.ZO.html
Contrary to your flimsy-ass assertion, the posts I am making here do not come from "conservative websites." I am quoting the Supreme Court. You have yet to produce a single case, to substantiate your bogus claims. The actual cases I cite CONTRADICT your unfounded claims, that's all. You got a Court that supersedes the U.S. Supreme Court? The Supreme Court of Maxdoncona, maybe?
1373, among other things, makes it illegal for a state to prohibit any entity from "maintaining" information pertaining to the immigration status of
8 USC 1373 wrote:...no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual:
(2) Maintaining such information.
Among other serious defects, the california statute prohibits it's officers from even inquiring about the immigration status of any individual, i.e., it prohibits them from "maintaining such information." It won't help to argue that we can't "maintain" it because we refuse to allow anyone to acquire it. The effect is to prohibit the maintenance of this crucial information, contrary to the legitimate requirements of section 1373.
Nice try, Max.
