Reply #28: Further Comments on the State-Federal Issue:

[happyslug]

Now the Federal Agents can NOT ignore all State laws. For example when a Letter Carrier delvers drugs and is caught by local police, the local police must follow him as he finish his route then only formally arrest him once he clocks off. When the Federal Sharpshooter killed someone in Montana a few years ago, the local DA arrested him on the state charge of Manslaughter. His trial was in Federal Court (For he was a Federal Agent) but the charge was state (he was acquitted but that is a separate issue).

Now the Federal Government can require its agents to follow state law, for example the Federal Government in the 1990s said it will obey all state laws in regards to smoking, i.e. ban it from the work place if the state does so for itself and private employers. The Federal Government has to follow state laws when it is common to do so (For example drive on the Right side of the Road). The problem occurs when a Federal Employee violates a State Law THAT has not been agreed to be obeyed by the Federal Government. These fall into two categories, the first is a general statute that makes it a crime for even State agents to do certain things (i.e. Murder and other similar criminal behavior). These are rarely contested for the crime is generally clear that even the Federal Government has made them illegal on Federal controlled land. The other is when the power of the State is in question, like this situation. The State restricts itself from doing something, but the federal Government still does that same act. Unless the Federal Government agreed to be covered by that state law, its agents are exempt. That seems to be the case here, the state forbids itself from arresting anyone on the Floor of the State Legislature, but the Feds have NOT so agreed. Thus it is legal for the Federal Government to violate this State Law.