- 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 1:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Yep, looks like they can whack the funding with ease, assuming that's the direction to convince sanctuaries to play nice.
then the constitutional argument goes out the window
0
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:48 pm to Five0
quote:
You cannot commit tax fraud, but as an uninvolved third party you have no duty to stop it. Make sense now?
Not really. Your analogy is weak.
The states and cities are very much involved and don't meet your "uninvolved party" claim. They are not only involved, they are actively encouraging the crime.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:49 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
There are certain posters who would get down voted for posting tomorrow's winning lottery numbers.
I can post a heartwarming story about a cancer stricken kid being cured by a golden retriever puppy and I'd get 2-3. Some would get it even worse.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:50 pm to NOFOX
quote:The 10thA applies where Constitutional authority is not granted to the Feds. Of course states must abide by federal law. e.g., It's how that bastard Nixon set interstate speed limits to 55mph
10th Amendment still exists.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:50 pm to Pettifogger
hey can we stop whining about downvotes of a post while lamenting the lack of discussion when that poast has led to over 5 pages of legitimate discussion?
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:51 pm to Dale51
quote:
National security and enforcement of those laws is not only a federal government role, it is an obligation.
it's an obligation of the feds
that's why we have the DHS
quote:
If federal law states that protecting criminal aliens is a violation of those laws, the parties that make that dynamic up are also in violation.
i said earlier the behavior may be criminal and one could theoretically imagine RICO charges if the feds got creative
This post was edited on 1/26/17 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
those were state laws in violation of federal laws
And the policies of sanctuary cities are in direct violation of federal law. It doesn't have to be expressly written out as a law either. Take for instance restaurants denying service to blacks. Feds came in and said you can't do that. They used in part interstate commerce to make their case because roads built with federal money were used to supply restaurants. The same applies here and every time the state will end up losing because they can't get around the interstate commerce argument. The Feds can nail these cities with issuing drivers licenses to illegals who then participate in interstate commerce.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:53 pm to Dale51
quote:
they are actively encouraging the crime.
You don't say?
"Accomplice liability allows the court to find a person criminally liable for acts committed by a different person. If a person aids, assists, or encourages another in the commission of a crime, they are said to be an “accomplice” to the crime. The person who actually commits the act is called the “principal.”
So I'm wrong how?
This post was edited on 1/26/17 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Minds would be exploding from NOLA to Chicago and all of California!
RICO charges
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
well Obama was criticizing a statutory law
if CONGRESS passes this funding-withholding as a law, then the constitutional argument goes out the window
Not really. Congress cannot use it's spending power to compel state action. With the drinking age case, the withholding was only 5% and deemed related to highway safety. The restrictions would have to relate to the grant/program and the withholding cannot be so severe that it amounts to compulsion. So they can probably restrict DOJ grants, but once they start trying to withhold HUD funds and other stuff, they will likely run into problems.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:54 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
Take for instance restaurants denying service to blacks. Feds came in and said you can't do that. They used in part interstate commerce to make their case because roads built with federal money were used to supply restaurants.
no no. your'e close but missing one key aspect
the feds made this illegal via a law
that law was based on the ICC, using the argument you made above
i get what you're saying, and i agree these actions may be ILLEGAL, but that doesn't mean there is a direct force/obligation for states to execute federal laws. IN THIS CASE, they may be violating federal law and that would be illegal, but that's something different
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
hey can we stop whining about downvotes of a post while lamenting the lack of discussion when that poast has led to over 5 pages of legitimate discussion?
blatant upvote trolling
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:56 pm to CommoDawg
quote:And I thought James Buchanan's "Seccession is unconstitutional, but the Federal Government is powerless to stop it" was the all time champ
They are obligated to follow federal law, but not enforce it
You're probaby a homo like Buchanan too
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:56 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
I can post a heartwarming story about a cancer stricken kid being cured by a golden retriever puppy and I'd get 2-3. Some would get it even worse.
No one pays me any mind but If what you post is true then you are likely doing something right!
This post was edited on 1/26/17 at 1:57 pm
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:56 pm to Pettifogger
I think there's just a massive misunderstanding between the concepts of "illegal" and "unconstitutional".
A lot of things are illegal that are not unconstitutional.
A lot of things are illegal that are not unconstitutional.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:56 pm to Pettifogger
quote:Downvote for the callout on upvotes.
blatant upvote trolling
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:57 pm to NOFOX
quote:
The restrictions would have to relate to the grant/program and the withholding cannot be so severe that it amounts to compulsion
one key difference is compulsion vs criminality
if the feds make a law (if there isn't one already) that says a locality cannot receive federal grants if they violate local, state, or federal law, then that's 100% constitutional and outside of that test. that's how the statutory solution would get around these issues (the OP, iirc, is about EO action alone)
quote:
So they can probably restrict DOJ grants, but once they start trying to withhold HUD funds
i think as of now it's just immigration-related funds, which are directly related to immigration enforcement
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:57 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
Hell, if illegals are using/have access to roads, bridges, schools, law enforcement, fire protection, water, power,hospitals, airports, etc., cut the federal funds for those systems.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i said earlier the behavior may be criminal and one could theoretically imagine RICO charges if the feds got creative
Why bother with that? Just strip funding and close facilities that support the violation of federal law. Could it be taken to court?...probably. I say go for it.
*why does it seem odd that so many are willing to protect welfare fraud and violent crimes simply because "not all of them are like that?*
Posted on 1/26/17 at 1:58 pm to Bard
"Didn't stop the feds from withholding highway funds from La until we changed our drinking age laws. #Precedent"
and it probably wouldn't stop Trump and like-minded legislators, either, but the highway fund BS was accomplished through legislation, which presumably met the test of conditioning funding on raising the drinking age (something I still say should be unconstitutional).
and it probably wouldn't stop Trump and like-minded legislators, either, but the highway fund BS was accomplished through legislation, which presumably met the test of conditioning funding on raising the drinking age (something I still say should be unconstitutional).
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News