Breaking: Court Hands Trump Win in Sanctuary City Grants

Yes that's great, just don't miss.

 

My thought is that the democrats never expected that they could lose in the courts after all of their efforts to stack them with their synchophantic ideologues...

 

Sure. You don't want end up in trouble for shooting at someone with an illegal weapon.

IMO, you should have a plan for defending your family in your home. Don't want guns around? You still need a plan. It would be good to have a plan for reconnecting with your family if something happens--earthquake, hurricane, fires, health issue--and keep it up-to-date as people and circumstances change.

BTW, I think people should have more than just a shotgun.

 

All true.. and the best weapons are the ones you are most comfortable and effective with.

 

Think about what you're saying. Who is going to tell states how to go about enforcing the law?

I think the opportunity to blackmail states may be more limited than you assume.

States cannot interfere with feds enforcing the law. No one I've heard suggests states don't have to comply.

States are saying they don't have to spend state funds enforcing federal laws.

The states argue any effort, even picking up the phone, spends state funds.

Not if SCOTUS says the feds can't bully state governments.

Compliance isn't in question.

But is the law constitutional? We shall see.

Some states have legalized acts that are prohibited by federal law. For example, several states have legalized recreational marijuana use under state law. An act's legality under state law does not affect its legality under federal law. An act may be legal under state law and, at the same time, illegal under federal law. The states that have legalized marijuana use have not attempted to declare that federal marijuana laws are invalid or unenforceable. Rather, federal marijuana laws still are valid and enforceable even in states that have made marijuana legal under state law. Thus, these states have not attempted to nullify federal law. [Dinan, "Contemporary Assertions of State Sovereignty and the Safeguards of American Federalism", 74 Albany Law Review at 1637-38, 1665 ("these recent state measures regarding... medicinal marijuana fall short of invoking the clearly discredited doctrine of nullification embodied in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, the resolutions of several New England states in response to the Embargo of 1807, the South Carolina Nullification Ordinance of 1832, Wisconsin's nullification of the Fugitive Slave Law in 1859, and interposition acts adopted by eight southern states in 1956 and 1957 in response to the Supreme Court's school desegregation rulings. ... [T]hey partake of something short of, and other than, nullification.")]

However, for practical purposes, the federal government lacks the resources to enforce its marijuana laws on a large scale and so the legalization of marijuana under state law significantly reduces the ability of the federal government to enforce the marijuana laws. Both that and the US Attorney General's statement that the federal government will not intervene if following certain guidelines laid down by the attorney general make marijuana de facto and de jure legal at the state level and de facto legal but de jure illegal on the federal level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)

 

If I had a lot of family in the house, I'd probably pick up shotgun. Just me? A handgun.

 

If it were me, I'd have a hand gun on me with a family plan of retreat to where other guns are stored, and from where the police would be called and if needed offensive operations would begin, including a semi auto rifle with a 30 rd magazine.. while the rest of the family stayed put and me between them and the attackers.

 

A safe room/area is a good idea.

 

Well, let's see. How about The Federal Government? The Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program is just one of many Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) programs available to states. Additionally, there are the Community Oriented Policing grants, and many more. Every state get's millions from the Federal Government to hire, train and fund local law enforcement. As I have pointed out, and you keep ignoring, is that the cutting off of federal money to force them to comply with Federal laws. Another alternative is to sue the states in the Federal Courts System.

The assumption is on your part. I have precedence on my side. There is not a SCOTUS ruling to back your claim that states can refuse to comply with Federal Law. Until there is you are making the assumption. I have already demonstrated that the Federal Government has used withholding grants to force the states to comply.

The current Federal Immigration and Naturalization act requires states/city/local law enforcement to give ICE 72 hours notice before releasing an illegal criminal from Jail. This allows ICE or CBP agents to pick them up from jail. Since states/cities/local governments have issued laws stating that it is illegal for law enforcement to comply with the Immigration Law. Such a law is a clear usurping of Federal Powers given to the Federal Government by the US Constitution.

Fine. They can refuse to spend any of that millions annually that they get from the Federal Government to hold an criminal as required by law. So, it should be equally fine for the Federal Government to cut off those millions until the states do comply.

Again, they are paid handsomely by federal grants

See, your basing judicial expectations on touchy-feely ideology. Luckily, the current makeup of the SCOTUS will base ruling on the Constitution, Federal Statutes and the published works of the Founding Fathers.

Okay. I get it. This is all a joke! You said, "No one I've heard suggests states don't have to comply." Now you claim that compliance isn't the question. The states are required to comply with the Federal Immigration Laws. By not notifying ICE of the pending release of an Illegal criminal that has an ICE Warrant on them. If they are not doing this, then compliance is the issue.

I noticed that you missed the opening paragraph of this article:

Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional with respect to the United States Constitution (as opposed to the state's own constitution). The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts.

But you did include a statement that proves my point, "Both that and the US Attorney General's statement that the federal government will not intervene..." Obviously, the USAG would not make such a statement unless he had the ability and/or the authority to intervene. As I stated before, and supported by this statement, just because the FED chooses not to force compliance does not make it legal to refuse to comply. Thank you for making my point for me!!!

 

The federal government's authority to withhold funds from states and localities was ruled legal and constitutional decades ago. How does anyone think the feds convinced/coerced states to change speed limits years back, e.g?

 

That's alright I have nine more to go.

 

They're going to dictate to states on how they go about enforcing the law? So, if we don't like their restrictive abortion law, we can hold back highway money?

There you go with "comply" again. States are simply not enforcing federal law.

This is not my understanding of the law. Could you back up your claim with a statute and/or link.

And you think all this is okay? Democrats will have a field day when they get power. State abortion restrictions? No gas tax. Restroom rules? Have to do it the fed way. Not enough spending on schools? Open carry? Oh, I could go on and on.

I think a right leaning SCOTUS would be more likely to protect states rights.

States are complying with federal law, just not enforcing it.

You're stuck on "comply." See above in blue: "Thus, these states have not attempted to nullify federal law."

Gun-toting Trumpers driving F350s who support screwing over sanctuary states are very likely to get the blowback they deserve.