Mayor: City would ignore legislation if it were to pass

[LRThunder]

richbansha:

You are mistaken. Constitution 10th Amendment:

There is no provision in the Constitution that forbids a state from passing any law that conforms to an international treaty. I believe you are basing your contention on Article I Sec 10:

This article forbids a state from formally entering into a treaty by itself. But it does not forbid a state from making a law that is derived from a treaty that it is not party to. For instance, the US has repudiated the Kyoto Accords but that did not prevent California from making tough regulations on automobile emissions. By the same token, a state can make and enforce human rights laws that the federal government can choose to ignore. In fact, many states already have. Hate crimes laws fall into this catagory. So does capital punishment. Even though the national government does not choose to abide by international law prohibiting capital punishment, many states still refuse to impose it and Congress cannot mandate that they do.

Well, you’re right that states can choose to adopt tougher environmental regulations if they choose to.

But returning to the OP, a mayor cannot simply choose to defy federal law if he or the city feels like it. If they feel like the law is wrong, they can: A) work to change it through Congress B) challenge its Constitutionality if they feel if they have a strong enough case.

But if neither A or B happens, a city or local government cannot institute a law that contradicts federal law or the Constitution; neither can it simply refuse to obey federal law.

 

[richbansha]

LRThunder:

Well, you’re right that states can choose to adopt tougher environmental regulations if they choose to.

But returning to the OP, a mayor cannot simply choose to defy federal law if he or the city feels like it. If they feel like the law is wrong, they can: A) work to change it through Congress B) challenge its Constitutionality if they feel if they have a strong enough case.

But if neither A or B happens, a city or local government cannot institute a law that contradicts federal law or the Constitution; neither can it simply refuse to obey federal law.

That’s what I say too. No city or state can defy a federal law. But there is no federal law that says that a state must violate human rights or must refuse to intervene when someone else violates them. Not yet anyway, but who knows what Gonzalez will think of next?