Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

692

In a statement earlier this week, the DOJ said it was sending officials to 64 jurisdictions throughout the country - most of which would be in red or purple states.

Included in the list was Broward County, Miami-Dade County, and Palm Beach County.

Brad McVay, General Counsel at the Florida Department of State, responded...

"(T)he Florida Department of State received copies of your letters to Miami-Dade and Broward Counties in which you seem to indicate that the Department of Justice will send monitors inside polling places in these counties," reads a letter to the DOJ from McVay.

"We also understand you sent a similar letter to Palm Beach County."

"But Department of Justice monitors are not permitted inside a polling place under Florida law," McVay continues.

"Section 102.031(3)(a) of the Florida Statutes lists the people who ‘may enter any polling room or polling place.’ Department of Justice personnel are not included on the list. Even if they could qualify as ‘law enforcement’ under section 102.031(3)(a)6. of the Florida Statutes, absent some evidence concerning the need for federal intrusion, or some federal statute that preempts Florida law, the presence of federal law enforcement inside polling places would be counterproductive and could potentially undermine confidence in the election."

In short, pound sand.

In a statement earlier this week, the DOJ said it was sending officials to 64 jurisdictions throughout the country - most of which would be in red or purple states. Included in the list was Broward County, Miami-Dade County, and Palm Beach County. Brad McVay, General Counsel at the Florida Department of State, responded... "(T)he Florida Department of State received copies of your letters to Miami-Dade and Broward Counties in which you seem to indicate that the Department of Justice will send monitors inside polling places in these counties," reads a letter to the DOJ from McVay. "We also understand you sent a similar letter to Palm Beach County." "But Department of Justice monitors are not permitted inside a polling place under Florida law," McVay continues. "Section 102.031(3)(a) of the Florida Statutes lists the people who ‘may enter any polling room or polling place.’ Department of Justice personnel are not included on the list. Even if they could qualify as ‘law enforcement’ under section 102.031(3)(a)6. of the Florida Statutes, absent some evidence concerning the need for federal intrusion, or some federal statute that preempts Florida law, the presence of federal law enforcement inside polling places would be counterproductive and could potentially undermine confidence in the election." In short, pound sand.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (15).
[–] • 0 pt

works backwards in nullification.

Eg, Texas passes right to try laws then Congress follows

Colorado legalizes marijuana

Nope. DEA overrode state marijuana laws and allowances. They are choosing not to do so, anymore, out of the immense kindness of their hearts. Here's a case from 2005 where the DEA overrode a medical marijuana use and seized product:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/1/

Missouri: "the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. The state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement."

Supreme Court JUST overturned a state gun law:

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/07/08/supreme-courts-gun-rights-decision-upends-state-restrictions

In both examples you provided (with no citations, I might add), we have clear cut examples of the supremacy clause overriding the states. Federal Executive functions override the state when push comes to shove. Don't like it, vote for different people or run for office. Then pass legislation that limits executive or judicial power.

[–] • 0 pt

Your linked case is not supremacy clause.

Thats the scotus ruling constitution protects the individual right to bear arms.

The instance of the dea seizing marijuana is from 2005. try that today after co effectively anulled feds.

[–] • 0 pt

Your linked case is not supremacy clause.

It sure is. Federal laws are supreme over state laws. I linked a specific case where the DEA was enforcing the drug schedule - federal law Section 812 of the Controlled Substances Act - despite the state's medical marijuana provision. Do you see how this works?

Thats the scotus ruling constitution protects the individual right to bear arms.

You're not very bright, are you? "The high court’s June 23 decision struck down a New York law that required people to show a specific need to carry a firearm in public. And it means similar laws in five other states, including Hawaii, are now unconstitutional."

This is the last time I respond to you. Your arguments have been resoundingly knocked down.

[–] • 0 pt

Your article literally pointed to Scotus knocking it down