On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 15:16:29 -0500, "Nancy Young"
> wrote:

> sf wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 12:04:22 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> I've had booze and wine delivered in New York. And bakery goods.
> >
> > NYC is a special place where *everything* can be delivered.
>
> Even my state allows liquor delivery, no problem.
>
> No drive through liquor stores, that's for sure.
>
For me, it's not a question of "allowed" - it's a question of finding
someone who is willing to deliver small amounts. NYC is one of those
places where nothing is too small (in terms of dollars) to deliver.
All you do is tip the delivery person. I *know* people will deliver
here if you pay enough. The last car we bought was not only
delivered, we did the paperwork in our home. But I can't think of
anyplace that will deliver a single bottle of wine. Sure, I could ask
them to deliver a case or more of $20 bottles - but if I only wanted
one bottle, it better be a pricey one and I should be a long time
customer.


--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

Peaches wrote:
> "L G" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Andy wrote:
>>> I'll make a tuna/avocado salad on rye sandwich with a couple bottles
>>> of ice
>>> cold Bud Light.
>>>
>>> I'm not hosting. The whole town is iced over, so pizza AND beer
>>> delivery
>>> isn't an option! That and I don't want a bunch of BUMS!!! trapped in my
>>> house, laying around for a couple days crying "How can there be NO MORE
>>> BEER???"
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>> Beer delivery? Really?
>
>
>
> Chicago style pizza here. With lots o' beer. And Bloody Mary's...
>
> Peaches in Rowlett
Whose pizza?

Andy wrote:
> L > wrote:
>
>
>> Beer delivery? Really?
>>
>
> L G,
>
> Yes. In PA beer is only sold at beer distributors that are privately owned
> and operated so they're allowed to offer the service if they want to. It
> costs some extra cash, one premium for cold beer, another for delivery and
> a tip for the driver.
>
> Until about 15 years ago beer wasn't sold on Sundays so we'd have to buy
> kegs on Saturday and keep them on ice overnight. A small bother. Sometimes
> we started the party on Saturday night.
>
> Best,
>
> Andy
>
So you can't buy beer at a gas station or grocery store? That would be
a PITA!

Julie Bove wrote:
> > wrote in message ...
>
>> L > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Beer delivery? Really?
>>>
>>
>> L G,
>>
>> Yes. In PA beer is only sold at beer distributors that are privately owned
>> and operated so they're allowed to offer the service if they want to. It
>> costs some extra cash, one premium for cold beer, another for delivery and
>> a tip for the driver.
>>
>> Until about 15 years ago beer wasn't sold on Sundays so we'd have to buy
>> kegs on Saturday and keep them on ice overnight. A small bother. Sometimes
>> we started the party on Saturday night.
>>
> I like those drive through beer places. Never seen them anywhere else!
>
>
>
I've seen those in FL.

Andy wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>
>> On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 15:16:29 -0500, "Nancy Young"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> sf wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 12:04:22 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I've had booze and wine delivered in New York. And bakery goods.
>>>>>
>>>> NYC is a special place where *everything* can be delivered.
>>>>
>>> Even my state allows liquor delivery, no problem.
>>>
>>> No drive through liquor stores, that's for sure.
>>>
>>>
>> For me, it's not a question of "allowed" - it's a question of finding
>> someone who is willing to deliver small amounts. NYC is one of those
>> places where nothing is too small (in terms of dollars) to deliver.
>> All you do is tip the delivery person. I *know* people will deliver
>> here if you pay enough. The last car we bought was not only
>> delivered, we did the paperwork in our home. But I can't think of
>> anyplace that will deliver a single bottle of wine. Sure, I could ask
>> them to deliver a case or more of $20 bottles - but if I only wanted
>> one bottle, it better be a pricey one and I should be a long time
>> customer.
>>
>
> In PA, the Wine and Spirit shops are run by the state of PA so it's a
> federal agency enterprise (which is why nobody robs Wine and Spirit
> "state stores" here.). It would be similar to the FDIC bank employees
> not delivering your cash withdrawal to your front door.
>
> PA has always been very sin tax hungry. They're not going to give up the
> cash cow it's owned for over a century. Beer is small potatoes in
> statewide scheme of things, so PA made that concession. Beer
> distributors still pay for licenses to sell.
>
> Andy
>
Wouldn't that be a State agency and not Federal?

On 2/7/2011 1:24 PM, sf wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 06:57:53 -0500, Jim >
> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > By 'here' you mean*your state* in the US.
> Of course that's what she meant.
>> >
>> > There are a few states with drive-thru liquor stores.
> Quite a few? I thought the number was 2.

There actually are a lot here, but of course they only sell closed
containers, and if you're caught with one open, they will arrest you.
In fact, several around here enforce only drive through sales after a
certain hour, like 9pm. I guess to avoid robberies. They lock the
front door.

On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 20:51:52 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
>I like those drive through beer places. Never seen them anywhere else!

I like the drive through daiquiri stands in New Orleans. White
Russian daiquiris!

Tara

On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 20:11:46 -0500, Tara >
wrote:

> White Russian daiquiris!

Rum, vodka, kahlua, lime juice and cream? Sounds awful!




--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 10:24:55 -0800, sf > arranged
random neurons and said:

>On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 06:57:53 -0500, Jim Elbrecht >
>wrote:
>
>>
>> By 'here' you mean *your state* in the US.
>
>Of course that's what she meant.
>>
>> There are a few states with drive-thru liquor stores.
>
>Quite a few? I thought the number was 2.

IIRC (and Gloria P can correct me if I'm wrong), there was a drive
through window at a liquor store in Cherry Creek (Fillmore? First
Ave?) in Denver. Right next to a really cool old bar...?

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--

To reply, remove "spambot" and replace it with "cox"

On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 19:59:50 -0800, Terry Pulliam Burd
> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 10:24:55 -0800, sf > arranged
> random neurons and said:
>
> >On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 06:57:53 -0500, Jim Elbrecht >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> By 'here' you mean *your state* in the US.
> >
> >Of course that's what she meant.
> >>
> >> There are a few states with drive-thru liquor stores.
> >
> >Quite a few? I thought the number was 2.
>
> IIRC (and Gloria P can correct me if I'm wrong), there was a drive
> through window at a liquor store in Cherry Creek (Fillmore? First
> Ave?) in Denver. Right next to a really cool old bar...?
>
Where were you when Becca and I talked about drive thru bars and the
conclusion was 2 states?

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 19:15:50 -0600, Andy > wrote:

> L G > wrote:
>
> > Andy wrote:
> >>
> >> PA has always been very sin tax hungry. They're not going to give up
> the
> >> cash cow it's owned for over a century. Beer is small potatoes in
> >> statewide scheme of things, so PA made that concession. Beer
> >> distributors still pay for licenses to sell.
> >>
> >> Andy
> >>
> > Wouldn't that be a State agency and not Federal?
>
>
> L G,
>
> I think it has something to do with Federal law overriding state law.
> All I know is it's a Federal crime to rob a State liquor store. I don't
> mean to know the exact wording or meaning of the applicable laws.
>

I am not a lawyer, but I think the one with the strongest
law/regulation prevails... and that's why California rules often trump
Federal.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

sf > wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 19:59:50 -0800, Terry Pulliam Burd
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 10:24:55 -0800, sf > arranged
>> random neurons and said:
>>
>> >On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 06:57:53 -0500, Jim Elbrecht >
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> By 'here' you mean *your state* in the US.
>> >
>> >Of course that's what she meant.
>> >>
>> >> There are a few states with drive-thru liquor stores.
>> >
>> >Quite a few? I thought the number was 2.
>>
>> IIRC (and Gloria P can correct me if I'm wrong), there was a drive
>> through window at a liquor store in Cherry Creek (Fillmore? First
>> Ave?) in Denver. Right next to a really cool old bar...?
>>
>Where were you when Becca and I talked about drive thru bars and the
>conclusion was 2 states?

Bars and liquor stores are different critters. There are more than
2 states with drive-through liquor stores-
AZ, MI, CO - and a plethora of southern states, I believe.

Jim

In article >,
sf > wrote:


> I am not a lawyer, but I think the one with the strongest
> law/regulation prevails... and that's why California rules often trump
> Federal.

I'm not a lawyer either, but to provide an example, the Federal minimum
wage law says that if you are subject to more than one minimum wage law
where you are in the US, you get the highest. Thus, in San Francisco,
you get the SF minimum wage not the federal or state. In California as
a whole, even though federal law lets restaurants pay servers a much
lower minimum wage, California law has no such provision, so servers in
California have the same minimum wage as others.

And the idea of "strongest" makes no sense to me, legally. It all
depends on whose ox is being gored. If I owned a business, my idea of
the "strongest" law might be one that had no restrictions on minimum
wages, to give me maximum flexibility.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 2011-02-08, Dan Abel > wrote:

> And the idea of "strongest" makes no sense to me, legally.

Likewise, cuz it seldom means anything.

When I was stationed in TN in the '60s and the Fed min wage law was
about $2.56 hr, wait persons in TN were lucky to get $.78 hr, even
those working in national food chains. Consult a lawyer.

nb

On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 20:21:58 -0800, sf > arranged
random neurons and said:

>Where were you when Becca and I talked about drive thru bars and the
>conclusion was 2 states?

Probably doing a fast shuffle through the ng. If I get too far behind,
such as when I'm traveling and accessing the ng on my laptop with slow
local wifi, I kinda skid through the ng.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--

To reply, remove "spambot" and replace it with "cox"

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 07:58:28 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

> In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
>
> > I am not a lawyer, but I think the one with the strongest
> > law/regulation prevails... and that's why California rules often trump
> > Federal.
>
> I'm not a lawyer either, but to provide an example, the Federal minimum
> wage law says that if you are subject to more than one minimum wage law
> where you are in the US, you get the highest. Thus, in San Francisco,
> you get the SF minimum wage not the federal or state.

Correct. SF has the "strongest" law, so it prevails.

> In California as
> a whole, even though federal law lets restaurants pay servers a much
> lower minimum wage, California law has no such provision, so servers in
> California have the same minimum wage as others.
>
> And the idea of "strongest" makes no sense to me, legally. It all
> depends on whose ox is being gored. If I owned a business, my idea of
> the "strongest" law might be one that had no restrictions on minimum
> wages, to give me maximum flexibility.

You're looking at it from a Republican POV. Your example would be the
weakest, not the strongest law from my POV.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On 8 Feb 2011 16:24:28 GMT, notbob > wrote:

> On 2011-02-08, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > And the idea of "strongest" makes no sense to me, legally.
>
> Likewise, cuz it seldom means anything.
>
> When I was stationed in TN in the '60s and the Fed min wage law was
> about $2.56 hr, wait persons in TN were lucky to get $.78 hr, even
> those working in national food chains. Consult a lawyer.
>
TN = South = slave wages. It figures.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 15:11:51 -0600, Andy wrote:

> sf > wrote:
>
>>>
>> For me, it's not a question of "allowed" - it's a question of finding
>> someone who is willing to deliver small amounts. NYC is one of those
>> places where nothing is too small (in terms of dollars) to deliver.
>> All you do is tip the delivery person. I *know* people will deliver
>> here if you pay enough. The last car we bought was not only
>> delivered, we did the paperwork in our home. But I can't think of
>> anyplace that will deliver a single bottle of wine. Sure, I could ask
>> them to deliver a case or more of $20 bottles - but if I only wanted
>> one bottle, it better be a pricey one and I should be a long time
>> customer.
>
> In PA, the Wine and Spirit shops are run by the state of PA so it's a
> federal agency enterprise (which is why nobody robs Wine and Spirit
> "state stores" here.). It would be similar to the FDIC bank employees
> not delivering your cash withdrawal to your front door.

'In PA, the Wine and Spirit shops are run by the state of PA so it's a
federal agency enterprise...'

jesus, you're an idiot.

blake

On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 19:15:50 -0600, Andy wrote:

> L G > wrote:
>
>> Andy wrote:
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 15:16:29 -0500, "Nancy Young"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> sf wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 12:04:22 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've had booze and wine delivered in New York. And bakery goods.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> NYC is a special place where *everything* can be delivered.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Even my state allows liquor delivery, no problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> No drive through liquor stores, that's for sure.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> For me, it's not a question of "allowed" - it's a question of
> finding
>>>> someone who is willing to deliver small amounts. NYC is one of
> those
>>>> places where nothing is too small (in terms of dollars) to deliver.
>>>> All you do is tip the delivery person. I *know* people will deliver
>>>> here if you pay enough. The last car we bought was not only
>>>> delivered, we did the paperwork in our home. But I can't think of
>>>> anyplace that will deliver a single bottle of wine. Sure, I could
> ask
>>>> them to deliver a case or more of $20 bottles - but if I only wanted
>>>> one bottle, it better be a pricey one and I should be a long time
>>>> customer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In PA, the Wine and Spirit shops are run by the state of PA so it's a
>>> federal agency enterprise (which is why nobody robs Wine and Spirit
>>> "state stores" here.). It would be similar to the FDIC bank employees
>>> not delivering your cash withdrawal to your front door.
>>>
>>> PA has always been very sin tax hungry. They're not going to give up
> the
>>> cash cow it's owned for over a century. Beer is small potatoes in
>>> statewide scheme of things, so PA made that concession. Beer
>>> distributors still pay for licenses to sell.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>> Wouldn't that be a State agency and not Federal?
>
> L G,
>
> I think it has something to do with Federal law overriding state law.
> All I know is it's a Federal crime to rob a State liquor store. I don't
> mean to know the exact wording or meaning of the applicable laws.
>
> Best,
>
> Andy

you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

blake

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 08:50:54 -0800, Terry Pulliam Burd
> wrote:

> Probably doing a fast shuffle through the ng. If I get too far behind,

I hear you. I delete most of it too when I have more than a day's
worth of posts to read.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 08:55:49 -0800, sf > arranged
random neurons and said:

>On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 07:58:28 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> sf > wrote:
>>
>>
>> > I am not a lawyer, but I think the one with the strongest
>> > law/regulation prevails... and that's why California rules often trump
>> > Federal.
>>
>> I'm not a lawyer either, but to provide an example, the Federal minimum
>> wage law says that if you are subject to more than one minimum wage law
>> where you are in the US, you get the highest. Thus, in San Francisco,
>> you get the SF minimum wage not the federal or state.
>
>Correct. SF has the "strongest" law, so it prevails.

I'm late to the party, as usual.

There's a constitutional imperative called "federal preemption" or the
"supremacy clause," IIRC, embodied in the following which kicks in
when there is a state law in conflict with federal law:

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
U.S. Constitution, Article. VI, p. 2

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding."

I know from professional (litigation paralegal) experience that there
are times when state law actually negates the supremacy clause,
although the case that I worked on was so long ago I can't recall the
specifics. IIRC, a corporate client had been criminally cited
(misdemeanor zoning infractions), but wanted to bring an action in
federal court that was tangential to the criminal case. In this
instance, we had a second party to add to the federal action, and the
addition of a second party stayed the state criminal action. Had a
second party not been brought in, the original corporate client would
not have been allowed to bring its federal case forward until the
state case was decided.

I may be completely full of crap here, as it's been so long since I
was involved in a case involving the preemption doctrine, but I doubt
I'm too far off the mark.

OB: Our contribution to the Super Bowl party was BBQ pork ribs and
beer. Don't know why anyone would want anything more!

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--

To reply, remove "spambot" and replace it with "cox"

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2011-02-08, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > And the idea of "strongest" makes no sense to me, legally.
>
> Likewise, cuz it seldom means anything.
>
> When I was stationed in TN in the '60s and the Fed min wage law was
> about $2.56 hr, wait persons in TN were lucky to get $.78 hr, even
> those working in national food chains. Consult a lawyer.

When somebody specifies a single federal minimum wage in the US, that's
the normal one. There is another one, much lower, for servers who
receive tips. You can hire a whole army of lawyers, but unless they get
the law changed somehow, that's how it is.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html

nb: the US federal minimum wage did not reach as high as US$2.00 until
1973. I don't know where you got "about $2.56".

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

sf wrote:
> Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>> I'm not a lawyer either, but to provide an example, the Federal minimum
>> wage law says that if you are subject to more than one minimum wage law
>> where you are in the US, you get the highest. Thus, in San Francisco,
>> you get the SF minimum wage not the federal or state.
>
> Correct. SF has the "strongest" law, so it prevails.

There are two principles involved. 1) Everything that is not forbidden
is allowed, and 2) The law in the larger juridiction gets applied first.
Federal then state then local.

The end result is the most "restrictive" law is the one that gets
applied. Not quite the same thing as "strongest". Federal law is
(almost) always stronger than state law. Higher minimum wages are more
restrictive so the highest one is the one in effect. Cross the street
to a different city and maybe the state one is in effect.

Let's say California allows medical pot but the US Congress does not
repeal the law against pot. At that point someone in California buying
medical pot could still be arrested and tried under federal law. Let's
say the California Governor or Legislation passes a rule that California
state, county and city police will not spend any effort enforcing
federal laws against pot. The FBI can still go in, arrest and try folks
who buy medical pot. The state, county and local police won't
interfere. The federal law is still the strongest and most restrictive
there are just technical details of how it gets enforced.

California law bans eating horse meat. US law does not. I could go to
Vegas and if I could find horse meat I cuold eat it. But I could not
legally take the leftovers across the border into California.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 17:27:34 -0800, sf > wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 20:11:46 -0500, Tara >
>wrote:
>
>> White Russian daiquiris!
>
>Rum, vodka, kahlua, lime juice and cream? Sounds awful!

There's no lime juice in the drive-through White Russian daiquiris. I
guess that makes them no kind of daiquiri. It's just a frozen drink.
Trashy and good!

Tara

On 2011-02-08, Dan Abel > wrote:

> 1973. I don't know where you got "about $2.56".

I don't either. Plus, I don't care! But, it's nice to know someone
cares enough to make me wrong.

nb

On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 22:42:41 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
> wrote:

> The end result is the most "restrictive" law is the one that gets
> applied. Not quite the same thing as "strongest". Federal law is
> (almost) always stronger than state law. Higher minimum wages are more
> restrictive so the highest one is the one in effect. Cross the street
> to a different city and maybe the state one is in effect.

If restrictive is the proper word, then restrictive it is.... until
the next time I forget what to call it.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 18:07:00 -0500, Tara >
wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 17:27:34 -0800, sf > wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 20:11:46 -0500, Tara >
> >wrote:
> >
> >> White Russian daiquiris!
> >
> >Rum, vodka, kahlua, lime juice and cream? Sounds awful!
>
> There's no lime juice in the drive-through White Russian daiquiris. I
> guess that makes them no kind of daiquiri. It's just a frozen drink.
> Trashy and good!
>

Oh, okay Tara... if there's no lime juice, then I'd try one and
probably like it too. Sounds like one of those drinks young people
tend to order when the objective it to get drunk without tasting any
booze. Oh, yeah. BTDT

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

I wrote:

> We just happen to have a nice rack of beef ribs, so I'm going to try
> rubbing them with salt, a little sugar, and Maggi sauce, letting them
> sit for several hours, slathering them with a mixture of onions, fresno
> chiles, dark soy sauce, ginger, dry mustard, and garlic, then wrapping
> them in foil, adding some brandy, and slow-cooking them until they're
> tender. To finish, I plan to remove them from the foil, sprinkle with
> crushed peanuts, and broil until crunchy on the outside.

I didn't use sugar or Maggi sauce in the rub; I used salt, pepper, and
MSG. I put Maggi sauce into the "slather" with the other listed
ingredients instead.

I used to have a Ronco rotisserie. Although the rotisserie is long
gone, it came with a pair of insulated gloves which can handle
carrying a sizzling-hot chicken. After crushing the peanuts (in a
ziploc bag, lightly pounding with the bottom of a saucepan), I
sprinkled them on the ribs and then donned those gloves to kind of
press the peanuts into the meat so they wouldn't fall off. As noted,
the ribs were then broiled until crunchy on the outside. They were
outstanding.


> I'll also make broiled vegetable skewers (red bell pepper, jicama, parboiled
> broccoli stem chunks, parboiled artichoke bottoms, and chunks of red onions)
> with the Green Chili Dipping Sauce from the China Moon cookbook.

I made a stir-fry instead of skewers. Instead of parboiling the
broccoli stems and artichoke, I just added them to the pan earlier
than the other items. The dish was seasoned with salt, white pepper,
and white vinegar. While the artichoke and jicama made it completely
non-Asian, it was very nice indeed. Lin commented that more stir-fries
should use artichokes.

Even though I hadn't made skewers, I made the China Moon sauce anyway;
it went nicely both with the vegetables and the ribs. We rounded off
the meal with a brown rice pilaf. I note that the sauce is a good way
to use cilantro stems! (They get liquefied in the blender.)


> I think beer is clearly the beverage of choice.

Specifically, it was a new beer from Sierra Nevada:

http://www.sierranevada.com/beers/glissade.html


Pictures will be posted on Lin's Facebook page because Sheldon can eat
a bag of shit.


Bob

On 2/7/2011 11:29 PM, sf wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 19:15:50 -0600, > wrote:
>

>>
>> I think it has something to do with Federal law overriding state law.
>> All I know is it's a Federal crime to rob a State liquor store. I don't
>> mean to know the exact wording or meaning of the applicable laws.
>>
>
> I am not a lawyer, but I think the one with the strongest
> law/regulation prevails... and that's why California rules often trump
> Federal.
>

Having just recently taken a US History college course, I think you're
correct and this is why state gov was initiated.

In article >,
says...
>
> sf wrote:
> > Dan Abel > wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not a lawyer either, but to provide an example, the Federal minimum
> >> wage law says that if you are subject to more than one minimum wage law
> >> where you are in the US, you get the highest. Thus, in San Francisco,
> >> you get the SF minimum wage not the federal or state.
> >
> > Correct. SF has the "strongest" law, so it prevails.
>
> There are two principles involved. 1) Everything that is not forbidden
> is allowed, and 2) The law in the larger juridiction gets applied first.
> Federal then state then local.

If the Federal government is allowed any jurisdiction at all in the
particular matter.

> The end result is the most "restrictive" law is the one that gets
> applied. Not quite the same thing as "strongest". Federal law is
> (almost) always stronger than state law. Higher minimum wages are more
> restrictive so the highest one is the one in effect. Cross the street
> to a different city and maybe the state one is in effect.
>
> Let's say California allows medical pot but the US Congress does not
> repeal the law against pot. At that point someone in California buying
> medical pot could still be arrested and tried under federal law. Let's
> say the California Governor or Legislation passes a rule that California
> state, county and city police will not spend any effort enforcing
> federal laws against pot. The FBI can still go in, arrest and try folks
> who buy medical pot. The state, county and local police won't
> interfere. The federal law is still the strongest and most restrictive
> there are just technical details of how it gets enforced.

For pot that's true--the Federal drug laws, like much other Federal
legislation that affects the actions of individuals, is based in the
Commerce Clause, with the theory being that drugs are traded in
interstate commerce and thus those who trade them are subject to Federal
jurisdiction.

However if you kill your wife in California, even though there is a
Federal law that says that you can't kill your wife, there is nothing
the Federal government can do about it unless you did it on a Federal
reservation or the like, as there is no power enumerated to Congress
that gives them jurisdiction in such a matter.


> California law bans eating horse meat. US law does not. I could go to
> Vegas and if I could find horse meat I cuold eat it. But I could not
> legally take the leftovers across the border into California.

In article >,
"Peaches" > wrote:

> "L G" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Andy wrote:
> >> I'll make a tuna/avocado salad on rye sandwich with a couple bottles of
> >> ice
> >> cold Bud Light.
> >>
> >> I'm not hosting. The whole town is iced over, so pizza AND beer delivery
> >> isn't an option! That and I don't want a bunch of BUMS!!! trapped in my
> >> house, laying around for a couple days crying "How can there be NO MORE
> >> BEER???"
> >>
> >> Andy
> >>
> > Beer delivery? Really?
>
>
>
> Chicago style pizza here. With lots o' beer. And Bloody Mary's...
>
> Peaches in Rowlett

We had chili, Cuban peanut chicken wings, assorted salads, corn bread,
chips, salsa, guacamole, mini-bar cookies, and drinkables (alcoholic and
non). A fine time was had by all. Our new kitten, Neli, provided ample
entertainment during slow points in the game.

Cindy

--
C.J. Fuller

Delete the obvious to email me

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 21:38:56 -0500, Cheryl >
wrote:

> On 2/7/2011 11:29 PM, sf wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 19:15:50 -0600, > wrote:
> >
>
> >>
> >> I think it has something to do with Federal law overriding state law.
> >> All I know is it's a Federal crime to rob a State liquor store. I don't
> >> mean to know the exact wording or meaning of the applicable laws.
> >>
> >
> > I am not a lawyer, but I think the one with the strongest
> > law/regulation prevails... and that's why California rules often trump
> > Federal.
> >
>
> Having just recently taken a US History college course, I think you're
> correct and this is why state gov was initiated.

Then you also know the United States is a democracy within a republic.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.