Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (42871)	4/22/2010 5:40:29 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Try reading a few of the links and you will get the jist of it. I already get, and have long got, the jist of federal preemption. Linking to it, describing it, etc. does nothing here. It states that federal law, in areas where the feds have constitutional responsibility, trumps state law. It does not show that this is an area of federal responsibility. And even assuming it is, there would have to be an actual federal law to trump the state law. In the absence of a federal statue prohibiting or otherwise prempting action from the states, preemption is irrelevant. Preemption isn't the only possible block to states. Any explicit statement in the constitution about how the states can not act in this area, would also do the trick, but that would not be a preemption issue, and also you provide no such statement. I believe that's because there is no such statement in the constitution. Not only because I've looked at the constitution quite a few times and have never seen it, but also because the states set elections conditions all the time. The Constitution assigns responsibility for federal elections to the national government. Again, please quote the statement in the constitution where it does this.