- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities is unconstitutional
Posted on 1/26/17 at 12:56 pm to texag7
Posted on 1/26/17 at 12:56 pm to texag7
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 on 1/26/17 at 12:57 pm to NC_Tigah
they are technically not b/c we have dual sovereignty
see: states like Colrado and Washington and their pot laws
see: states like Colrado and Washington and their pot laws
Posted on 1/26/17 at 12:57 pm to CommoDawg
is it unconstitutional to prosecute these mayors for not following the law?
Posted on 1/26/17 at 12:57 pm to td01241
quote:
The liberal rally cry
Also the conservative one.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 12:57 pm to CommoDawg
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 on 1/26/17 at 12:58 pm to skrayper
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 on 1/26/17 at 12:58 pm to CommoDawg
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 on 1/26/17 at 12:59 pm to CommoDawg
quote:Federal laws don't stop at the Orleans Parish line... are they not part of the United States?
Wrong. State and city officials are not obligated to enforce federal laws.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:00 pm to CommoDawg
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
We heard over and over again that its a federal issue, USSC even rules that way
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:00 pm to skrayper
What law does the GOP want to violate?
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:00 pm to CommoDawg
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.
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 on 1/26/17 at 1:01 pm to texag7
quote:
Sanctuary cities are unconstitutional
no
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:01 pm to CommoDawg
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 on 1/26/17 at 1:02 pm to CommoDawg
Don't interrupt the echo chamber with any type of logic about the sanctuary city issue. TIA
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:02 pm to BigJim
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 on 1/26/17 at 1:03 pm to skrayper
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 on 1/26/17 at 1:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
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 on 1/26/17 at 1:03 pm to Damone
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 on 1/26/17 at 1:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
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 on 1/26/17 at 1:05 pm to NC_Tigah
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.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News