- 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 1:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
Seems like there's a closer and stronger relationship between the application of federal immigration laws and receipt of federal funding as opposed to mandated drinking ages and highway funds.
1
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:06 pm to texag7
on one level, I can understand where you are coming from, but I doubt what you're saying is true. In general, the Feds cannot compel action by a state (or subsidiary thereof). This is why the eradication of sanctuary cities is couched in terms of cutting off funding. the Feds can't make, say, a State Trooper enforce a federal law, such as immigration laws.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:07 pm to texag7
quote:
Sanctuary cities are unconstitutional
It's amazing how this little fact seems to go right over their heads.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:08 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?
Those funds were specifically and unambiguously conditioned by congress to states adopting the drinking age. There is also a substantial nexus between the interstate highway funds and the drinking age. Here, the EO doesn't draw a nexus between specific funds and enforcing immigration law.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:08 pm to Seldom Seen
quote:
It's amazing how this little fact seems to go right over their heads.
you using them alternative facts, again?
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:08 pm to NOFOX
quote:
Feds cannot force states to enforce federal laws.
true
quote:
Feds cannot coerce states to act against their will.
false
that's how LA was forced to raise its drinking age to 21
the case referenced, SD v. Dole, is the drinking age case. the feds CAN do this, but there are limits
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:09 pm to CommoDawg
quote:
Wrong. State and city officials are not obligated to enforce federal laws.
This is completely false. If that was the case, we would still have Jim Crow laws and segregation.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:09 pm to Damone
quote:
Seems like there's a closer and stronger relationship between the application of federal immigration laws and receipt of federal funding as opposed to mandated drinking ages and highway funds.
100%, especially after the case involving Arizona. the USSC came down HARD on the federal domain of immigration
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:10 pm to CommoDawg
quote:
Here, the EO doesn't draw a nexus between specific funds and enforcing immigration law.
the EO doesn't draw a nexus b/c federal funds related to immigration and enforcing immigration?
bruh
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:11 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
If that was the case, we would still have Jim Crow laws and segregation.
those were state laws in violation of federal laws
when a conflict arises b/w the 2, the feds win via the Supremacy Clause
this is why Arizona's immigration laws were struck down
this is a state official being forced to enforce a federal law, which they cannot be made to do
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
Chizz is exactly right. But you can make a case against those mayors for harboring fugitives.
This post was edited on 1/26/17 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:13 pm to antibarner
no he's not and his example is bad, too
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:14 pm to CommoDawg
quote:Obama did this for 8 years and it was ok then.
The executive cannot simply make up new conditions on its own and impose them on state and local governments. Doing so undermines both separation of powers and federalism.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:14 pm to CommoDawg
quote:you are mistaken. The feds cannot force state and local officials to enforce federal laws (which is how states get around weed being federally illegal), but they are required by the Constitution and court rulings to comply with informational requests on matters where the federal government has jurisdiction (such as immigration) and inform federal officials so they can come collect. Some sanctuary cities try to get around this by prohibiting law enforcement from asking about immigration status, but they are still legally bound if there is any way they know or should know (such as the special symbol on illegals drivers licenses in california) that the person is here illegally. All ins has to do is issue a standing request for any and all detention of illegals be reported to catch these cities violating the law and withold funds
Wrong. State and city officials are not obligated to enforce federal laws.
This post was edited on 1/26/17 at 1:15 pm
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:14 pm to CommoDawg
Here is some nice funding that might persuade states to convince these little sanctuary snowflakes to play.
LINK
Here's a summary of federal funding in 2016 for law enforcement agencies
This is 2016 but you know the gravy train is still there.
State and Local Programs
• $2.5 billion for various state and local grant programs, which is $174 million above the fiscal year 2015 enacted level
• $476 million for Byrne Justice Assistance Grants
• $210 million for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
• $72 million for missing and exploited children programs; $45 million to address the sexual assault kit backlog at law enforcement agencies
• $70 million for programs to improve police-community relations, including the purchase of body-worn cameras for police
LINK
Here's a summary of federal funding in 2016 for law enforcement agencies
This is 2016 but you know the gravy train is still there.
State and Local Programs
• $2.5 billion for various state and local grant programs, which is $174 million above the fiscal year 2015 enacted level
• $476 million for Byrne Justice Assistance Grants
• $210 million for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
• $72 million for missing and exploited children programs; $45 million to address the sexual assault kit backlog at law enforcement agencies
• $70 million for programs to improve police-community relations, including the purchase of body-worn cameras for police
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
Then what about aiding and abetting fugitives? Which they are clearly doing.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
false that's how LA was forced to raise its drinking age to 21 the case referenced, SD v. Dole, is the drinking age case. the feds CAN do this, but there are limits
They cannot do it by threatening to withhold previous statutory grants, that's why I followed the statement with this quote from Indepedent Business v. Sebelius
quote:
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.
This post was edited on 1/26/17 at 1:18 pm
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:16 pm to Knight of Old
quote:
Every, single, dadgum word out of DJT's mouth will be met with contradiction and defiance. The big surprise will be when these obstructionists get curb-stomped in court and -over time- at the ballot boxes...
Not in Chicago, LA, San Francisco, or New York they won't.
This will just add to their votes next election.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:17 pm to Bard
quote:
Didn't stop the feds from withholding highway funds from La until we changed our drinking age laws. #Precedent
Yep
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:17 pm to CommoDawg
I am still confused after reading the initial post. Presidents in the past have used the same sort of tactics to push civil rights issues. When a state accepts government funding then the state must also follow all of the federal rules. Isn't this the same sort of thing?
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News