- 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
In 1996 the Clinton Administration used Federal Highway funds to threaten Louisiana
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:07 pm
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:07 pm
LINK
LA Supreme Court reversed a ruling lowering drinking age back to 18, violating federal standards. President Bill Clinton reminded state leaders that if they did not revert back to the national standard of 21, federal funds were in danger of being lost.
Somehow that was okay. What gives, progressives?
LA Supreme Court reversed a ruling lowering drinking age back to 18, violating federal standards. President Bill Clinton reminded state leaders that if they did not revert back to the national standard of 21, federal funds were in danger of being lost.
Somehow that was okay. What gives, progressives?
18
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:08 pm to Golfer
Yawn!!
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:09 pm to Golfer
They are known hypocrites, nothing new about that.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:10 pm to Golfer
They s been doing that for decades.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:10 pm to TBoy
quote:
Yawn!!
Here you have a state court ruling in favor of its constitution/interests. And the President threatening federal dollars if there isn't compliance.
But it was okay because Clinton, right?
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:11 pm to Golfer
I thought it was shitty in 1996.
This post was edited on 4/25/17 at 5:12 pm
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:12 pm to Golfer
quote:
Somehow that was okay. What gives, progressives?
(1) It was to be done by Congress, not the executive, (2) the highway funds were related to the end goal of the encouragement, and (3) the funds at risk for loss were proportional to the goal and not so much so that it was coercive.
SCOTUS ruled on a case almost identical in nature, and under that same case where they said it was ok to do in this fashion, it would be illegal the way Trump is doing it. First and foremost because Congress is the only entity has federal spending power under the Constitution. His EO is dead on arrival simply due to that.
This post was edited on 4/25/17 at 5:15 pm
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:13 pm to Golfer
OMG! I didn't realize Clinton was behind the increase back then. fricked me over cause I turned 18 in 97 but had to wait till I was 21 to drink, well "legally" of course.
fricking Clintons! I hate them all over again.
fricking Clintons! I hate them all over again.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:14 pm to Golfer
I'm not Progressive. I'm not taking a position on the case on the ultimate merits, but this is not the same situation.
In the LA example, the requirement was written in the act
The argument here is that the Legislature never placed these conditions on funding under the ARRA, and the Executive branch is attempting to impose it when it the Legislature's prerogative to impose the conditions.
In the LA example, the requirement was written in the act
quote:
the 1986 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which requires states to set their legal drinking age at 21
The argument here is that the Legislature never placed these conditions on funding under the ARRA, and the Executive branch is attempting to impose it when it the Legislature's prerogative to impose the conditions.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:16 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
(1) It was to be done by Congress, not the executive,
From the article I linked:
Less than a week after the decision, the Clinton Administration warned Louisiana to find a way to reverse the ruling. The state would lose $17 million in Federal highway money if it does not comply with the 1986 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which requires states to set their legal drinking age at 21.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:17 pm to Golfer
What year is it? Impeach him!
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:17 pm to Golfer
quote:
Somehow that was okay.
Wait, it was?
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:17 pm to Golfer
The Executive implements the acts passed by the Legislature. Thus it is appropriate to say the Executive warned them that they risked losing the funding based on the law actually passed by Congress.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:18 pm to Golfer
You better be careful OP, those critical of the Clintons have a suicide rate 20x higher than the national average.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:19 pm to Golfer
quote:
From the article I linked:
Less than a week after the decision, the Clinton Administration warned Louisiana to find a way to reverse the ruling. The state would lose $17 million in Federal highway money if it does not comply with the 1986 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which requires states to set their legal drinking age at 21.
It's quite possible for the president to talk with Congress and get them to act if he knows what he's doing if he has a majority in Congress. You do know this right. It's no different than Trump saying "I'm going to repeal the ACA." Well, he's actually going to do none of the sort considering he can't; he's going to encourage Congress to do it and hope like hell they do because they are the only ones that can. That's exactly what Clinton was doing.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:22 pm to Golfer
Clinton used Congress, Trump did not. Had Congress passed a law that would cut off funding to cities which refused to comply with federal law, such a law would likely be upheld. It's not what was done, but how it was done that was the problem here.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:22 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
It's quite possible for the president to talk with Congress and get them to act if he knows what he's doing if he has a majority in Congress. You do know this right. It's no different than Trump saying "I'm going to repeal the ACA." Well, he's actually going to do none of the sort considering he can't; he's going to encourage Congress to do it and hope like hell they do because they are the only ones that can. That's exactly what Clinton was doing.
I passed Civics. I understand how this all works. I'm talking about the perspective and narrative portrayed here.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:26 pm to Golfer
quote:
I passed Civics. I understand how this all works. I'm talking about the perspective and narrative portrayed here.
I was simply answering your OP question: Trump issued an EO that is blatantly unconstitutional. The executive doesn't have the power to do what the EO sets out to do. Now, Trump can call up Ryan and McConnell and do it that way and he would have a slightly better case. I still don't think he could remove all funding from a state or city because of this. He would only be able to take a portion of it, and that would be perfectly legal. I'd take from federal police funding personally since they're the ones doing the refusing.
This post was edited on 4/25/17 at 5:28 pm
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:27 pm to Golfer
They did the same shite in AZ to force us to have the stupid MLK day
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:30 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
He would only be able to take a portion of it, and that would be perfectly legal. I'd take from federal police funding personally.
One could argue illegal aliens are a drain on police, infrastructure, and healthcare.
I'm in favor of sensible immigration and even behind a path to citizenship for those here currently (not automatic based on living here). But the complete disregard for federal laws on the books is insanity.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News