r/SouthJersey • u/ResponsibleWhile6991 • Mar 28 '26

Cumberland County ICE Agent Smashes Window as Woman Screams in Bridgeton

Didn’t Sherrill ban face coverings?

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DWaEeickqA_/?igsh=MTM0eWx1ejh5bXlidg==

152 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

64 comments sorted by

45

u/Penguins4Pluto Mar 28 '26

She introduced a bill I don’t think it was signed into law yet.

47

u/Iamnotbernadette Mar 28 '26

It was signed into law.

https://newjerseymonitor.com/2026/03/25/gov-sherrill-signs-bills-immigration-enforcement/

13

u/boatchic Mar 28 '26

Doesn’t fed law override?

37

u/Iamnotbernadette Mar 28 '26

It’s being challenged so we’ll find out. No, federal law does not automatically “override” state law, that’s a misunderstanding of the supremacy clause

1

u/Crafty_Calligrapher1 Mar 29 '26

Yes, under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) of the U.S. Constitution, federal law is the "supreme Law of the Land" and supersedes conflicting state laws. This doctrine, known as federal preemption, dictates that valid federal law overrides any contradictory state or local laws. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Key details on how federal law supersedes state law:

• Express Preemption: Congress explicitly states that a federal statute overrides state law. • Conflict Preemption: When a state law directly conflicts with federal law, making it impossible to comply with both, the federal law takes precedence. • Field Preemption: Federal regulation is so pervasive in a specific area (e.g., immigration, national security) that it implies Congress did not want state laws in that area. • Limitations: Federal laws must be made "in pursuance" of the Constitution to be valid. [2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8]

Examples of Federal Superiority:

• Marijuana: Despite state legalization, marijuana remains illegal under federal law, allowing federal authorities to prosecute, though they often do not, say Edwards Sutarwalla Samani LLP (https://esslawpartners.com/what-happens-when-a-state-law-conflicts-with-federal-law/). • Banking: Federal law restricts state-legal marijuana businesses from using banks, as banking is federally regulated, say Edwards Sutarwalla Samani LLP. • Actions against federal property: A crime committed against a US Post Office is treated under federal law, not just local law, says Gabriel L. Grasso (https://grassodefense.com/understanding-the-difference-between-state-and-federal-law/). [9, 10]

AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause [2] https://www.abetterbalance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Introduction-to-Federal-Preemption.pdf [3] https://www.naag.org/issues/supreme-court/preemption/ [4] https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48525 [5] https://www.bonalaw.com/insights/legal-resources/when-does-federal-law-preempt-state-law [6] https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-vi/clauses/31 [7] https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba-cms-dotorg/products/inv/book/210871015/Chapter%201.pdf [8] https://constitution.findlaw.com/article6/annotation02.html [9] https://grassodefense.com/understanding-the-difference-between-state-and-federal-law/ [10] https://esslawpartners.com/what-happens-when-a-state-law-conflicts-with-federal-law/

2

u/Crafty_Calligrapher1 Mar 29 '26

This is pulled from Gemini

0

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '26

[deleted]

2

u/Crafty_Calligrapher1 Mar 31 '26

At what point did you decide what my political affiliation is. I'm just responding to things I see with no partisan answers. If you don't like them you don't have to respond or you can give what you believe is the correct response (hopefully with something other than opinion to backup it up). I don't post politically biased anything. I only started to respond to this thread because I'm local to the events in it. The information I presented is accurate and you haven't presented anything to disprove it. You've just thrown insults. It doesn't show your intelligence or that you are correct about anything. Why dont you try pushing the factual truth, rather than wasting time and energy on insults. Push good information.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '26

[deleted]

2

u/Crafty_Calligrapher1 Mar 30 '26

I used AI to backup an argument and help pull the relevant law quicker. That doesnt make me useless. I read the attached references to validate prior to saying what i said. Parroting bullshit that you hear does make you useless. Like anyone on here that believes a state law overrides federal. That like believing city law overrides state. Or a municipal office can override a sheriff or state officer..Read the law and interpret it how you may. Just remember if you try and sway it in your favor, the sway will be used when applicable to disprove your argument too. I also like the idea that the law Sherrill passed says that masks are illegal for federal agents. Did anyone stating that including yourself read it? It is pretty strict, but if you read it it says they (any law enforcement) are aloud to wear masks if they are conducting undercover operations or if there is a threat of retaliation (which there definitely is).

I want to say when someone decides to attack or insult someone they disagree with its a strong sign that they can't win the argument.

The best case scenario for any of the bills she passed to effect ICE or federal agents is going to be for them to identify themselves when. Making an arreest. That is something that could possibly be enforced... as long as they aren't under cover or having a threat of retaliation.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Crafty_Calligrapher1 Mar 30 '26

All of your responses are nothing more than insults. And that doesnt bother me. If you could prove me wrong... that might bother me. And its not because its you, but because that would mean some things much worse would be possible. And that the founders didn't put everything they could think of into our constitution. The constitution that gives me the right to spread truth and you the right to insult. 🤣

2

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '26

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Crafty_Calligrapher1 Mar 29 '26

Federal Law immediately and definitely overrides states law. There is no misunderstanding.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '26

[deleted]

2

u/Crafty_Calligrapher1 Mar 30 '26

You can keep trying to misinform with your ignorance. Anyone intelligent will read the law themselves and get the real answer.

Overview of Supremacy Clause | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress https://share.google/6H8JZDjh5FQpbOA3q

Introduction-to-Federal-Preemption.pdf https://share.google/FRUT6CtsljmjoL7r4

preemption | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute https://share.google/JHx7FS0UtoOfg8KMH

When does Federal Law preempt State Law https://share.google/aP6nGj4iIhOJhjsY9

Supremacy Clause | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute https://share.google/0uCzL3sHQpAksHk0Z

Federal Preemption and State Authority to Deter the Presence of Unlawfully Present Aliens: An Overview and Issues for the 119th Congress | Congress.gov | Library of Congress https://share.google/Rc8yMFAqUqalFBSPs

Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia https://share.google/GkC2TClQlG4OfHfXO

42 U.S. Code § 4846 - State laws superseded, and null and void | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute https://share.google/SJy3A1lO8Ln2kZtVX

Supremacy Clause: Current Doctrine | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute https://share.google/gRoF8uQwc327FAuuD

If you want to read a reddit discussion about it from 3 years ago that does have current bias in it.... https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnAmerican/s/dJGqvTZ1m9

This isn't AI.... this is what reading does. This is from both left and right leaning sources...

Read the Wikipedia version for the short version publicly edited version. Even that agrees with what I have stated.

I'll restate what I said to your other post..... Have you ever heard of Ad Hominem? If you haven't you should Google it and take your own advice and read.

Alot of people spread ignorance which is why we are were we are today. People need to start reading and spreading actual fact not partial truths to win an argument. They also need to own when they aren't correct.

Law is law and is provable by doing a little research on government websites, not random search results from reddit or google.

All of the links I provided in this post, except Wikipedia, are from government websites, law colleges, legal institutions, or lawyers. Because this a disagreement about a law.

Please read, self educate, and spread real knowledge, not misinformation to attempt to get people to side with you. Anyone posting without full reference or context should be ask to provide links to their information in full and unedited...especially if its video footage.

1

u/boatchic Mar 31 '26

Thanks for answering my question!

2

u/Classic-Hospital9900 Mar 30 '26

Even if it's concluded that Fed law supercedes State law, that doesn't mean you can ignore state law. There's no contradiction, i.e. no federal law that says ICE agents must wear masks.

For example, if NJ passes a law banning Kratom and I buy Kratom, I can't use the defense, "Federal law supercedes State law," because there's no contradiction. I would just be breaking the State law and can be prosecuted for it.

0

u/Crafty_Calligrapher1 Mar 30 '26

No. You are correct. A state can have more restrictive laws, but they can not over ride federal law. An example is gun law. States like NJ have much stricter gun las than the Federal laws, so they are enforced and enforceable. They are also laws that are for residents of NJ. Not federal agents. NJ can not effect the federal government, but the federal government can partially effect the states.. Think about the Marijuana laws. Federally its still illegal. Thats why you can ship across state lines unless they are connected, and even that is frowned upon. If the feds wanted to they could technically arrest everyone buying from and operating a dispensary on federal charges. They just don't. The states are severely overstepping their authority when it comes to immigration.

States can not write laws to control federal agents or agencies, period. But federal government can write laws that control states, agencies, and agents to some extent.

Please read this explanation.....

the federal government can create laws that affect, control, or restrict states under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Cl. 2), which makes federal law the supreme law of the land. States cannot nullify federal laws but can resist by refusing to enforce them. States cannot legally restrict the federal government’s constitutional operations, though they can refuse to aid in enforcing federal policies.

Federal Control Over States Supremacy Clause: When a conflict exists, federal law prevails over state law. Preemption: Congress can pass laws that expressly or implicitly displace state regulations in a given area. Conditions on Funding: While Congress cannot directly compel states to enact specific laws, it can use financial incentives (e.g., conditioning highway funding on raising the drinking age to 21). Interstate Commerce & General Welfare: The federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce allows it to impose regulations that indirectly control state policies.

State Actions Regarding Federal Law No Right to Nullify: States cannot legally invalidate federal laws; the Supreme Court has consistently ruled against this, dating back to the 1800s. Anti-Commandeering Doctrine: Based on the Tenth Amendment, the federal government cannot force state or local officials to implement or enforce federal regulatory programs. "Sanctuary" Policies: States can choose not to dedicate state law enforcement resources to enforce federal laws (e.g., immigration or cannabis prohibition). Legality of Federal Action: States cannot obstruct or block federal agents, agencies, or operations that are operating within their constitutional authority.

Key Conflicts Marijuana: While federal law bans marijuana, states have legalized it, resulting in a conflict where the federal government doesn't have the resources to fully enforce its laws, even though they technically take precedence. Federalized Guard: The President can federalize the National Guard to enforce federal court orders, overruling state resistance.

4

u/Nunov_DAbov Mar 28 '26

It was Wednesday.

12

u/Much-Economics3481 BOOTLICKER Mar 28 '26

Even if it's made a law, can't be enforced on federal agents

13

u/acslaterjeans Mar 28 '26

Who is going to enforce it anyway? The police?

17

u/Iamnotbernadette Mar 28 '26

Not ruled on yet.

But even so, we’ll find out who they all are anyway. Masks haven’t stopped anyone yet :)

Like domestic terrorists Jesus Ochoa and Customs and Border Protection officer Raymundo Gutierrez who executed American patriot Alex Pretti. Or fascist traitor Jonathan Ross who shot Renee Nicole Good.

-28

u/Much-Economics3481 BOOTLICKER Mar 28 '26

Doxxing federal agents is not smart

20

u/Iamnotbernadette Mar 28 '26

Any and all public employees who engage in any violation of the constitution will be identified

1

u/Crafty_Calligrapher1 Mar 30 '26

If the courts allow it, they will be.

17

u/pushingbrown Taylor Ham Truther Mar 28 '26

This is gonna be semantic as fuck, but is it still considered doxxing if he put the information that's on that article in the hypertext linking to that article?

2

u/Crafty_Calligrapher1 Mar 30 '26

Spreading of their information in any way is considered doxxing.

18 U.S.C. § 119

8

u/beren12 Mar 28 '26

Public employees aren’t a secret list

3

u/Lazy_Resolve_9747 Mar 28 '26

lol…imagine simping for secret police in America…

You would have fought for the British side.

11

u/maryjanekronik Mar 28 '26

Tell me you don't know what doxxing is without saying you don't know what doxxing is.

6

u/g_ppetto Mar 28 '26

I understand the data / information has already been made public.

14

u/Iamnotbernadette Mar 28 '26

Widely reported on. Also the identities of public employees are public information, period.

0

u/Crafty_Calligrapher1 Mar 30 '26

Federal agents identifies and locations are almost always redacted or withheld entirely. This is something that was set through the Privacy Act in 1974. If it was publicly available an agent would only be useful 1 time or possibly not at all. Imagine the federal agents who were investigating the 'mafia' in the 70s - present day. If that information was available, they would have all been killed.

6

u/thedonnerparty13 Mar 28 '26

Not like they’d follow it anyway

4

u/ComprehensiveLemon27 Mar 28 '26

Its not even enforceable its just political theater

3

u/Iamnotbernadette Mar 28 '26

video unavailable

14

u/mutjo Mar 28 '26

He apparently caused serious bodily harm to someone while drunk driving. He was charged with "2C:12-1C(1) ASSAULT BY AUTO/VESSEL-RECKLESS SERIOUS BODILY INJURY." in Nov 2025.

10

u/Iamnotbernadette Mar 28 '26

In America, everyone gets their due process.

-10

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '26 edited Mar 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

24

u/Iamnotbernadette Mar 28 '26

ICE agents doing domestic terrorism is not part of due process and nothing you say will normalize their illegal actions.

The man going to court and also using all legal avenues available to him IS due process. He is in the process of getting documents which is not the same as “illegal.”

0

u/Crafty_Calligrapher1 Mar 31 '26

If he hasn't obtained the documents and has overstayed his visa he is illegal....even if he is waiting for documents or hearing dates. He could apply for an extension to his visa if he is with the grace period otherwise he needs to self deport and wait from his originating country.

Due process is constitutional guarantee (found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) that the government cannot deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property arbitrarily, requiring instead that fair legal procedures and established legal rules are followed. It acts as a safeguard against unfair or mistaken government actions in both criminal and civil matters.

This applies to "persons," not just citizens, covering all people.

Includes the right to legal counsel, a chance to defend oneself, and the prohibition against vague laws.

Due process traces its origins to Chapter 39 of the Magna Carta (1215), which promised that no freeman would be imprisoned or stripped of rights except by the "law of the land".

The key is they have to obey the 'law of the land'. If they overstayed their visa, they have already broken the law of the land.....

-28

u/boatchic Mar 28 '26

Illegal immigrants get no due process. Only US citizens.

19

u/sundancer2788 Mar 28 '26

The law says anyone in US soil. But we are headed to where the law no longer applies to certain people. 

10

u/New-Secretary-9204 Mar 28 '26

Looks like no due process is about to be had upon everyone and anyone

12

u/Iamnotbernadette Mar 28 '26

They’re losing hard and will lose in November then the fun will really start. Impeachment, ICE agents dragged maskless in front of unsympathetic judges, etc it’s going to be awesome

7

u/ProfessorMorifarty Mar 28 '26

You're very optimistic. I have a feeling this administration is going to pull out all the stops in November and go full fascist "show us your papers" at the polls.

2

u/Iamnotbernadette Mar 28 '26

They can certainly try.

2

u/beren12 Mar 28 '26 edited Mar 28 '26

There will be a lot of answers like “it says right here, ‘Mr. Winchester’”

1

u/ProfessorMorifarty Mar 28 '26

Ok, but dogs can look up.

2

u/beren12 Mar 28 '26

Lies. If that were true than no other laws could bind them either.

1

u/learning--always Senior Citizen 60+ NNJ Apr 25 '26

Illegal immigrants absolutely do get due process.

It is in the U.S. Constitution.

1

u/jerzeett Mar 28 '26

Completely and utterly wrong.

4

u/DCar060 Mar 29 '26

ICE is a federal agency. So state government can’t tell them what to do. When you see this, it’s political grand standing

1

u/Denan004 Mar 29 '26

"Kavanaugh" should become the new verb for these things. "She was Kavanaugh-ed". ICE is in Bridgeton Kavanaugh-ing people.... and so on.

Since Kav was OK with this action, he should be proud to have it named after him.

1

u/Zealousideal_Cloud87 Apr 01 '26

They must have forgot or might they better understand the supremacy clause better than Mickie?