No problem. If the States can overcome the Supremacy Clause and the Constitution, have at it.

So you are ok with the Trump administration being in violation of the law passed by Congress until then?

Are you okay if the administration isn't violating the law passed by Congress?

Until the case reaches a point in court,the 'violation of law' isn't known.

Since multiple sites have differing opinions on whether the law has been broken, who knows.

My opinion? Like every citizen: if the law is broken, then the consequences should happen.

If you agree the law isn't broken until court of law makes that decision, then we are in agreement.

If the law allows appeal and SCOTUS makes a final decision (or doesn't accept the case allowing the lower court decision to stand), then we should agree with that.

While we have no definitive court decision, we just spinning.

I don't believe in 2028 a change in the WH will result in the files being released in full. The Dems will redact and withhold.

The DC Madam files are still sealed. JFK and RFK still have redactions.

Both parties hide.

The pastor doesn't have to press charges for the govt to act.
Is there an established time frame from being told to leave and when you leave? I don't know. A few minutes is enough to charge?

From the FACE Act you provided:

(2)by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or

So, did any or all the protesters, including Lemon, force by physical obstruction? Interfere?, any person exercising right of freedom of religious freedom? At a place of worship?

Do you believe the answer is no? All four seem to me is yes.

When the Democrats take the White House, they can unredact and release everything.

Even if the statute of limitations expire for criminal charges,there's no statute on simply releasing the records.

So, in 2028, everything will be coming out. Won't it?

Walking up to the pulpit to ask the minister a question during church service is interfering.

This may not be known to outsiders, but a church service is normally a structured event. I prepared many of them being a retired church organist.

I would have been interferring with the service if I started playing the recessionial hymn during a boring sermon. Maybe appreciated, but not appropriate.

Did Lemon interfere? After being told to leave, he stayed and interfered. Or, did he not?

YAV, 141, Mistral, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting Systems (1978) established that the First Amendment does not protect the news media from liability for trespass or other torts committed during newsgathering.

What's my point?

That most commentators are standing in on Freedom of the Press, that the media has a right to go anywhere because the story is of great importance, and Don eas acting as a journalist.

CBS lost on Appeal. The 1st Amendment (Press) isn't absolute. Lemon's own video footage has him being told to leave, right?

Face Act: prohibiting the use of force, threat of force, or physical obstruction to injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone obtaining or providing reproductive health services or exercising religious freedom at a place of worship.

Since FotP doesn't protect him, did he violate the Act?