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 (42873)	4/22/2010 6:05:13 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

(Then what are you bothering me for?) Because mentioning preemption is simply not an argument for your point. You have not done anything to show that its relevant. Preemption applies to federal law (in appropriate areas) trumping state law. It does not tell us if this is one of those areas. It does not tell us what federal law may exist that would be the law that would trump state law. It does not explain the real world fact that the states do indeed regulate federal elections. If you are of a mind to try CONTENDING that individual STATES can over-rule federal laws governing FEDERAL ELECTIONS then the burden of proof for that wild claim would be on you. Yes it would be, except I'm making no such claim. For state law to overrule federal law there would have to be a specific federal law, which you did not cite. In the absence of a federal law specifically preempting a particular state requirement, preemption would not result in overruling or prohibiting the state requirement. Certainly there are federal election laws, but there are also state laws that apply to federal elections within the state, that have not been preempted by federal law. If the federal law says "You must have A, and you can't do B", and the state law says C, then even if preemption fully applies in this area, its irrelevant to the state law. You've essentially made two arguments. - One fuzzy undeveloped, argument that preemption determines that the states can not regulate here. OK, show me the federal law that outlaws state regulation. The other is that the constitution directly outlaws state regulation in this area. OK, quote the part of the constitution that does this. You can't do either, because state regulation of federal elections, is allowed. Not unlimited total regulation, but the states do have some power here.