07-30-2010, 03:45 PM
quote:The ruling said that local authorities can not be subjected to federal demand for enforcement of federal regulatory programs when no state authority exist. Example, federal regulations require pilots to have so much rest time in between flight time. If the federal government demanded that Hawaii County Police inspect the log books of pilots at the airport for compliance to this federal only regulation, that would violate the constitution under the Printz ruling.
Originally posted by Irongstone
This all gets more relevant when we look beyond police power, which includes posse comitatus, to police duty, which includes protecting people from illegal acts. In 1997, the supreme court ruled that local authorities, within their own jurisdiction, supercede federal authority. In this ruling, judge Scalia quoted president James Madison, “father” of the Constitution: “[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The Federalist, No. 39 at 245.
There is nothing in it about local/state authorities having supreme rights over federal law. If it's a federal regulatory program administered and regulated under federal law, and no state/local laws exist to mirror the federal regulatory program, it's the job of the federal authorities to enforce. State/local authorities cant be forced to assume the role of those federal regulators.