Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (27) |
Author: albaby1 SILVER
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84361 
Subject: Re: HCR Gives a History Lesson
Date: 02/02/26 9:24 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 16
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for people in states that were defying federal authority.

It's also worth remembering that modern states are not defying federal authority. They are being sticklers for the limits of federal authority, it's true. And one can debate whether that's a good choice.

But the federal government does not have the authority to require states to enforce federal law. States have to comply with federal law, but they cannot be required to assist the federal government in enforcing federal law against other people. And they certainly can't be required to assist the federal government in the absence of any federal statute requiring it.

So, for example, if a local police department decides they don't want to honor ICE's detainer request, they are not defying federal authority. ICE itself has chosen only to make these voluntary and not try to force compliance, there isn't a federal law that obligates local governments to comply even if ICE tried to claim they were mandatory, and even if there were a federal law it would almost certainly violate Anti-Commandeering precedent.

That means this situation is not at all analogous to the Civil War use of the Suspension Clause and other measures. It also means these folks are not "insurrectionists," because it is certainly not insurrection to insist that the federal government stay within the lines of its authority.

ice.gov - Immigration detainers
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (27) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community