State sovereignty can still legally go against the constitution.
See how they make it so only citizens who have a gun permit in certain states can excersise the 2nd amendment right.
They could legally ban any magazine over 3 rounds, or any gun barrel as those are not legally considered a gun under legal definition. This is how they restrict your rights. They add clauses and rules so only those who can afford the hoop jumping can comply.
Imagine if we recognised how because words and rhetoric can be inflammatory, a state decided that you need a license to excersise your 1st amendment right.
I’m failing to see your point, we’re talking about states using their funds and resources to offset the lapse of SNAP benefits. Is it against the constitution to provide benefits to people?
Why though? Isn’t state sovereignty still a thing?
State sovereignty can still legally go against the constitution.
See how they make it so only citizens who have a gun permit in certain states can excersise the 2nd amendment right.
They could legally ban any magazine over 3 rounds, or any gun barrel as those are not legally considered a gun under legal definition. This is how they restrict your rights. They add clauses and rules so only those who can afford the hoop jumping can comply.
Imagine if we recognised how because words and rhetoric can be inflammatory, a state decided that you need a license to excersise your 1st amendment right.
I’m failing to see your point, we’re talking about states using their funds and resources to offset the lapse of SNAP benefits. Is it against the constitution to provide benefits to people?
I would argue it matters not wat is or isn't allowed. States have 0 room to bargain considering the leverage the FED has against states.
The Democrats are forcing him to override it silly, duh.