Breaking: Court Hands Trump Win in Sanctuary City Grants

It's time to strike a grand bargain on immigration before it's too late.

 

T tried that and neither party will end chain mig
They’re everywhere?? I don’t mean to sound like a jerk !! Many are very nice but ...This nation will be like Mexico City soon

 

I don't think so. It would open states to federal government blackmail. The Feds could pass all sorts of legislation (gun legislation, for example) and demand states enforce it to a standard set by the federal government or risk losing federal revenue transfers.

Complying with the law is not spending funds to enforce it.

If state power in a federal means anything, we would hope the courts wouldn't let federal government steamroll states as Trump proposes to do over sanctuary cities.

 

One appellate court has said they can while others have ruled they cannot. SCOTUS will have the final word.

 

Like I said ... go for the grand bargain.

 

The federal govt can withhold funds...even in areas the feds have no power over...like drinking...look at South Dakota v Dole.

this case was a no brainer

 

South Dakota v Dole.

 

No, Fatso would be limited to bullying the state into ordering the police to arrest people for a new state laws they demand the state pass. That way, the state will incur the entire cost of arresting, prosecuting, and jailing people for using or distributing marijuana.

Guess you won't be surprised if liberals use the same power to get a state to impose gun control laws. Or stop fracking. Or perform abortions.

 

From Wiki...

The Supreme Court held 7–2 that the statute represented a valid use of Congressional authority under the Spending Clause and that the statute did not infringe upon the rights of the states. The Court established a five-point rule for considering the constitutionality of expenditure cuts of this type:

1. The spending must promote "the general welfare."
2. The condition must be unambiguous.
3. The condition should relate "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs."
4. The condition imposed on the states must not, in itself, be unconstitutional.
5. The condition must not be coercive.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted that the National Minimum Drinking Age Act clearly met the first three restrictions, leaving only the latter two restrictions worthy of consideration. Rehnquist wrote that the Congress did not violate the Tenth Amendment because it merely exercised its right to control its spending. Rehnquist wrote that the Congress did not coerce the states because it cut only a small percentage of federal funding. It thus applied pressure but not irresistible pressure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole​

It's by no means a slam dunk for Trump's power grab.

 

Seven states — New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Rhode Island — and New York City have had their federal funding cut for their sanctuary policies.
https://www.courthousenews.com/seco...ithhold-funding-to-sanctuary-states-and-city/


Winning!

 

1. Imposing abortion would be murder
2. Stopping fracking would increase the use of coal and increase greenhouse gasses
3. I have more right to guns than drug users have to drugs thanks to God and acknowledged by the constitution.

 

SCOTUS allows the feds to ban certain types of firearms. Good luck.

 

The declaration acknowledges that the people have the right not to give their consent to be governed by bad people who try to take their guns.
Only bad people try to take gun rights.

 

Trump Considers Making Illegal Aliens Pay for Their Deportation Appeals
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...gal-aliens-pay-for-their-deportation-appeals/

 

Sounds fair to me

 

Make a lot of noise about your room of M4 carbines and see how long before someone comes to deal with you.

 

Only bad people would, or approve of such actions. That is to say people who hate the constitution and hate America.

 

It is amazing how liberals want to have things both ways. When states like Texas and Arizona attempted to enforce Federal Immigration laws during the Obama Administration, they claimed that they Constitution states that Immigration is a responsibility of the Executive Branch, Therefore, only the Federal Government has the authority to enforce Immigration laws. Now that we have a President that is willing to enforce those laws, the liberals claim that states have the right to refuse to comply with Federal Immigration laws. It would seem that liberal version of state rights is that they have the right to agree with them, or they have no rights at all.

​

I take it that you did not bother reading the link. The states were not enforcing the Federally mandated speed limit. As a result, the Federal Government threatened to withhold Federal Highway Funds. The same was true for the raising of the drinking age to 21. In both cases, the local and state law enforcement spends money to enforce these Federal laws. So, your arguement fails.

I can not see the SCOTUS, especially with the current makeup, willing to rule that states can opt out of enforcing or complying with federal laws.

If you support illegal immigration sanctuary cities, would you also support 2nd Amendment sanctuaries? If liberals could go forward with outlawing certain kinds of firearms, these cities/states would not enforce law. Is that something that you would agree with?

 

Oh, geez--another culture wars screed.

They claim they're not obliged to enforce federal laws. Comply? Yes. Enforce? No.

My "argument" is that states are doing nothing illegal by not enforcing federal law.

You seem determined to confuse compliance snd enforcement. I don't know of anyone who argues states don't have to comply.

Yes.

 

As the MOPAR man used to say, "Nice dodge!"

So, the State Patrols and LEO's don't write tickets for speeding on Interstate Highways? They do not make arrests for federal drug trafficking's? The fact is that the cities and states enforce federal laws all the time. So, the only confusion is on your part.

Nice to see that you are not too far gone yet. Personally, I do not believe in Sanctuaries from Federal, State or Local laws. It is up to all of us to get bad laws repealed, and it is up to the majority to decide which laws are bad.

 

Oh, geez. States pick and choose which federal laws they enforce, and how and how hard they go at it.

Can we expect states will train police and regulators to enforce federal laws?

We have a federal system I believe will be greatly diminished if SCOTUS allows the feds to blackmail states. I dislike the idea of sanctuary cities, but not enough to undermine our system of government.

 

You can't have an M4. It's the law.

 

The law is unconstitutional..

Besides I'd prefer an m 14. Crappy little .223 it too small.. and no i will not call it a 5.62.

 

Sanctuary cities do undermine our system of government.

 

Not so far and it's been around for a couple of decades.

An M4 wouldn't be my choice for home defense.