Started By
Message

re: Why Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities is unconstitutional

Posted on 1/26/17 at 12:56 pm to
Posted by skrayper
21-0 Asterisk Drive
Member since Nov 2012
31023 posts
Posted on 1/26/17 at 12:56 pm to
quote:

Sanctuary cities are unconstitutional


While I am opposed to them, I would love to know what part of the Constitution you would interpret them to be in violation of.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
424890 posts
Posted on 1/26/17 at 12:57 pm to
they are technically not b/c we have dual sovereignty

see: states like Colrado and Washington and their pot laws
Posted by Hooligan's Ghost
Member since Jul 2013
5206 posts
Posted on 1/26/17 at 12:57 pm to
is it unconstitutional to prosecute these mayors for not following the law?

Posted by skrayper
21-0 Asterisk Drive
Member since Nov 2012
31023 posts
Posted on 1/26/17 at 12:57 pm to
quote:

The liberal rally cry


Also the conservative one.
Posted by AustinTigr
Austin, TX
Member since Dec 2004
2937 posts
Posted on 1/26/17 at 12:57 pm to
quote:

Written by a Libertarian constitutional law scholar


Sucks, but his argument seems reasonable. The Congress might need to withdraw ALL grants, amend the law with the condition on sanctuary cities, and sign it into law.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
424890 posts
Posted on 1/26/17 at 12:58 pm to
quote:

I would love to know what part of the Constitution you would interpret them to be in violation of.

you could make an argument that since immigration is within the federal sphere, they're acting illegally. you could get real creative with some RICO charges in this case. bus unconstitutional? big stretch
Posted by Wtodd
Tampa, FL
Member since Oct 2013
67524 posts
Posted on 1/26/17 at 12:58 pm to
I'm going to bet that Trump already vetted this question by numerous Constitutional lawyers before he ever said he would take their cash away.
Posted by chalmetteowl
Chalmette
Member since Jan 2008
48017 posts
Posted on 1/26/17 at 12:59 pm to
quote:


Wrong. State and city officials are not obligated to enforce federal laws.
Federal laws don't stop at the Orleans Parish line... are they not part of the United States?
Posted by goldennugget
Hating Masks
Member since Jul 2013
24514 posts
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:00 pm to
Does no one remember 2010 and Arizonas attempt at immigration law

We heard over and over again that its a federal issue, USSC even rules that way
Posted by td01241
Savannah
Member since Nov 2012
23064 posts
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:00 pm to
What law does the GOP want to violate?
Posted by BeefDawg
Atlanta
Member since Sep 2012
4747 posts
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:00 pm to
Funny how this "Libertarian" lawyer fails to explain that the federal funds are specifically to fund the state's enforcing of federal laws.

It's unfair to make states pay for federal level work. As a result, the federal government allocates funding for this purpose.

As a result, these states, by ignoring federal law and not applying their federal funding for the purpose it's being given to them, then they don't freaking deserve to get the funding.

In a nutshell, you're being paid to do a job and you're refusing to do the job, so we're going to stop paying you.
Posted by Salmon
On the trails
Member since Feb 2008
83661 posts
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:01 pm to
quote:

Sanctuary cities are unconstitutional


no
Posted by Damone
FoCo
Member since Aug 2016
32966 posts
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:01 pm to
quote:

First, longstanding Supreme Court precedent mandates that the federal government may not impose conditions on grants to states and localities unless the conditions are “unambiguously” stated in the text of the law “so that the States can knowingly decide whether or not to accept those funds.”

How does this comport with the Feds using the threat of withholding infrastructure funding for states with a drinking age below 21?
Posted by MusclesofBrussels
Member since Dec 2015
4554 posts
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:02 pm to
Don't interrupt the echo chamber with any type of logic about the sanctuary city issue. TIA
Posted by Bard
Definitely NOT an admin
Member since Oct 2008
51925 posts
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:02 pm to
quote:

But not by Executive Order, is his point here.


Ahh, gotcha

So it sounds like it will be more likely he'll use what appears to be growing stroke in Congress to withhold various monies via the Spending Clause.
Posted by texag7
College Station
Member since Apr 2014
37614 posts
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:03 pm to
quote:

While I am opposed to them, I would love to know what part of the Constitution you would interpret them to be in violation of.



No idea. But it sounds good
Posted by antibarner
Member since Oct 2009
23792 posts
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:03 pm to
Sheriff Joe got in trouble for trying to enforce Federal Law, and the judge ruled it was the Feds territory. These mayors are doing the same thing by refusing to obey it.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
424890 posts
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:03 pm to
quote:

How does this comport with the Feds using the threat of withholding infrastructure funding for states with a drinking age below 21?

iirc, they argued it was a "highway safety" issue
Posted by Jbird
In Bidenville with EthanL
Member since Oct 2012
73518 posts
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:05 pm to
LINK

quote:

Withholding highway funding may not be the sexiest form of political manipulation. You probably won't see Frank Underwood screaming about pavement subsidies in a House of Cards episode anytime soon. But as a way for Congress to legally circumnavigate the Constitution to get its way, it's as crafty as they come.
Posted by NOFOX
New Orleans
Member since Jan 2014
9963 posts
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:05 pm to
quote:

Wut?



10th Amendment still exists. Feds cannot force states to enforce federal laws. Feds cannot coerce states to act against their will. The SCOTUS ACA opinion explicitly stated this was unconstitutional when Barry tried to force Medicaid expansion down states' throats.

quote:

The Spending Clause grants Congress the power “to pay the Debts and provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. Congress may use this power to establish cooperative state-federal Spending Clause programs. The legitimacy of Spending Clause legislation, however, depends on whether a State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of such programs. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U. S. 1. “[T]he Constitution simply does not give Congress the authority to require the States to regulate.” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144. When Congress threatens to terminate other grants as a means of pressuring the States to accept a Spending Clause program, the legislation runs counter to this Nation’s system of federalism. Cf. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U. S. 203. Pp. 45–51.
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 8Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram