Arizona basically lost confidence in the US Government enforcing its own laws, so Arizona decided to enforce it for them. For some reason, the US Government has a problem with that...
You see, if the law is the law, it should be enforced. If you don't like the laws, change them. If they're not changed, they must be enforced.
State law tried to overrule Federal law, and the DEA and Dept of Justice cried foul. (Again, for some reason, the US government has a problem with state laws...)
So, in a nutshell, states cannot enforce federal laws if the federal government doesn't want to, and states cannot pass laws that overrule government law.
...but what about States passing laws that overrule federal laws that the government doesn't want to enforce?
AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO IS COMPLETELY FUCKING CONFUSED BY ALL OF THIS?
On a personal level, I am pro gay marriage, pro marijuana (safer than alcohol), and mixed about immigration. On a logical level, I am completely baffled why the government (state or federal) can't make up their mind one way or another on these laws.
And now that the Supreme Court has ok'd the Affordable Care Act (aka 'Obamacare'), it will be interesting to see how the battle of 'Federal vs State' plays out in the next few years. (Speaking of Obamacare, I love all the idiots saying 'if it gets enacted, I'm moving to Canada/Costa Rica/etc.' Most of their examples already have laws like this in place!)
Both sides of the political fence are crying '10th Amendment' for these various laws in one way or another. While there have been clauses and exceptions made on behalf of the 10th Amendment, the line between who is really in charge gets blurrier and blurrier.
Can someone explain to me how we let things like this get so out of hand? I really don't care if you're for or against any of these laws, I just want to make sense of the muck.
Should these types of laws be handled on a federal level or by the states individually? And why? I would love to hear your opinions on this.