several eases have held bankruptcy only exemptions constitutional. In re Joyner, 2012 WL 3610118 (Bankr.S.D.Ga. Aug. 7, 2012)(J. Davis)(upholding the constitutionality of Georgia’s bankruptcy statute); Kulp v. Zeman (In re Kulp), 949 F.2d 1106, 1109 n. 3 (10th Cir.1991) ("[S]tates may pass laws which do not conflict with the federal scheme. In this case we have no conflict [with Colorado’s bankruptcy only exemption] because 11 U.S.C. § 522 expressly delegates to states the power to create bankruptcy exemptions.”); In re Morrell, 394 B.R. 405 (Bankr.N.D.W.Va.2008)(West Virginia “admirably fulfilled its federal mandate in opting out of the federal exemptions” and creating its bankruptcy specific exemption statute); In re Brown, 2007 WL 2120380, *15 (Bankr.N.D.N.Y. July 23, 2007) (<HOLDING>); In re Shumaker, 124 B.R. 820, 826
holding that congress specifically allowed states to use their own exemptions instead of the federal exemptions listed in  522d and new yorks bankruptcy only exemption scheme is not so inconsistent with the exemptions listed in  522d as to render it invalid under the supremacy clause holding that free exercise clause did not require government to grant religious exemption from generally applicable religionneutral statutory requirement that welfare recipients furnish their social security numbers where no individualized exemptions were allowed holding the provisions of a new york welfare program that conflicted with federal regulations under the social security act invalid under the supremacy clause recognizing that the supremacy clause is not a source of any federal rights holding states may make nondiscriminatory religious practice exemptions but that such exemptions are not constitutionally required