Skip to main content

View Diary: What you may not know about gun violence in Chicago (335 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  see Printz v US wrt Sheriffs (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gerrilea, PavePusher

    What I have seen the Sheriffs assert is that they will not be a party to confiscating guns or violating their citizens Constitutional rights.

    The US congress is constitutionally prohibited from directing/compelling state officers (of which a sheriff is one). Partly, the reason for this is that it would upset the balance of powers in at least two ways - the first being the obvious one between the States and the Federal govt.

    The second and one which many do not consider (and I did not until I studied the decision in Printz) is that if Congress made a law that directed the states to perform an action, then they would infringe on Presidential authority as the executive, whose responsibility is to enforce the laws of Congress.

    I suggest being familiar with Printz when commenting on the Sheriffs assertion of their responsibilities.

    •  Yes. It has to be done indirectly. (0+ / 0-)

      That's how it has worked with drinking age, speed limits, etc. Tie federal funds with the requirements, and state legislatures usually come around. Then the sheriffs would be required to enforce state laws.

      I'm not sure if that would work with the current activist Roberts court based on what they did with the Medicaid expansion as part of the ACA.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site