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

quote:

---

that is the case that said feds could impose mandatory drinking ages on states or the states could have funding withheld

that case established a judicial framework/analysis. as long as Trumps's EOs fit within that analysis, they're fine

---

There are a lot of conditions to that case. That was a statute that spelled out 5% of highway funds would be withheld, not 100%.

The Court shot down Barry conditioning all medicaid funds on states adopting medicaid expansion. It was unconstitutional coercsion of the states.

quote:

---

so if they violate 1373 (which i linked), they are subject to losing the grants and possible penalties

---

Now they are going to play nice!

quote:

---

That makes no sense.

---

it makes total sense

states have certain powers

fedgov has certain powers

fedgov can do whatever it wants within its federal power (Which is a frickton)

states can do whatever they want as long as they don't violate the above federal law

states do not have to use their resources to enforce federal law (But they can). they have the option

*ETA: obviously states and fedgov cannot violate what little is left of constitutional protections of individuals

quote:

---

They are obligated to follow federal law, but not enforce it.


That makes no sense.

---

You cannot commit tax fraud, but as an uninvolved third party you have no duty to stop it. Make sense now?

Eta:

If you help commit the tax fraud, you are now an accessory and guilty of tax fraud. Clearer?

OP gets downvoted to hell for having the audacity to start a substantive discussion - why I come here

quote:

---

This is not a high crime or misdemeanor.

---

But it is a costly crime.

quote:

---

What happens

---

Comeuppance?

well Obama was criticizing a statutory law

if CONGRESS passes this funding-withholding as a law, then the constitutional argument goes out the window

California state and local law enforcement agencies may have to choose between more than $100 million in federal aid and the “sanctuary city” immigration policies that supporters say are humane, but critics say fuel crime.

Although the Obama administration and Attorney General Loretta Lynch have not objected to sanctuary city policies, Congress instructed the Department of Justice’s Inspector General to monitor compliance.

In some situations, federal agencies pay for illegal immigrants to be held in local jails, only to be turned away when they come to deport the prisoners, the report said.

“The findings are pretty clear — these are sanctuaries and they are violating federal law,” Vaughan said. “They should change their policies before more people get killed, and if they don’t, they should be debarred from DOJ grants.”


Rep. John Abney Culberson, R-Texas, said cities and states that embrace sanctuary policies can be stripped of federal grants, including the entire states of Connecticut and California, as well as Las Vegas, Milwaukee, Miami, Chicago, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia, which were audited in the Inspector General report.

“If these ten jurisdictions do not repeal their sanctuary policies to comply with this federal immigration law, they will not be eligible for Byrne-JAG and State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) law enforcement grants and could be subject to civil and criminal penalties,” Culberson said in a statement. “Under the new Department of Justice grant guidelines, these ten jurisdictions will now have to choose between receiving law enforcement grant money or protecting criminal illegal aliens. They can no longer do both. If these jurisdictions refuse to comply they could also be forced to repay every dollar they have received from these grant programs.”

Inspector General Michael Horowitz said in his report that based on his agency’s discussions with ICE officials about the impact these laws and policies were having on their ability to interact with local officials, as well as the information reviewed, “these policies and others like them may be causing local officials to believe and apply the policies in a manner that prohibits or restricts cooperation with ICE in all respects… That, of course, would be inconsistent with and prohibited by Section 1373.”

LINK