- 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: POTUS Executive Order regarding Sanctuary Cities ruled Unconstitutional
Posted on 8/1/18 at 4:02 pm to Scoop
Posted on 8/1/18 at 4:02 pm to Scoop
It's hilarious to see libtards celebrate lower court rulings when it's clear they are going to lose miserably at the Supreme Court.
It's the Travel Ban all over again.
It's the Travel Ban all over again.
0
Posted on 8/1/18 at 4:08 pm to Lg
9th is wrong again. I believe this was settled back when Carted tied funding to the 55mph speed limit. IIRC
ETA - this issue will probably get more complicated because of interpreting Section 1373 as 'comandeering' by some people and others don't see it that way, same with how sanctuary cities are operating. Also involved is the 10th Amendment.
ETA - this issue will probably get more complicated because of interpreting Section 1373 as 'comandeering' by some people and others don't see it that way, same with how sanctuary cities are operating. Also involved is the 10th Amendment.
This post was edited on 8/1/18 at 4:44 pm
Posted on 8/1/18 at 4:46 pm to EGCROSS
quote:
So does that mean the federal government can’t hold funds for anything anymore like LA hwy money when we didn’t want to raise the drinking age? Of course not only with liberal crazy crap that makes no logical sense.
It hasn't been challenged but probably not anymore after the Sebelius case.
The administration's actions are clearly unconstitutional in this regard because the Federal government cannot force a state to enforce federal law. It's called the anti-commandeering rule and it is a direct result of the 10th Amendment. This has been in place for a long time and this decision is not unexpected.
In terms of withholding funds to get states to change their laws, in Sebelius (one of the famous Obamacare cases), the SCOTUS held that the federal government may not withhold funding already in place in order to coerce state action. Whether that expands to actions like withholding infrastructure funds, has yet to be determined.
This post was edited on 8/1/18 at 4:50 pm
Posted on 8/1/18 at 4:51 pm to asurob1
quote:
That's gonna leave a mark.
The 9th Circus is simply an annoying speed bump on the way to the Supreme Court where, as usual, they (the 9th Circuit)will be overturned.
Posted on 8/1/18 at 4:51 pm to Lg
I’m at sea in the Pacific Ocean with intermittent cell service and I knew which court issued the ruling before I opened the link. The 9th circuit court is a predictable joke
This post was edited on 8/1/18 at 6:42 pm
Posted on 8/1/18 at 4:54 pm to L.A.
Just to be clear, all of you "small-government conservatives" would be totally okay with the federal government being allowed to force state agencies into action?
Posted on 8/1/18 at 4:58 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
Just to be clear, all of you "small-government conservatives" would be totally okay with the federal government being allowed to force state agencies into action?
I understand your point and I agree, but in turn, should a state accept Federal funding if it's not going to do with it what the Fed asks it to do.
Posted on 8/1/18 at 5:00 pm to Lg
quote:
should a state accept Federal funding if it's not going to do with it what the Fed asks it to do.
Yes. Because federal tax rates are ridiculous. A state can't raise enough revenue to run properly because the feds already tax us to death.
ETA: When you think about it, it is extortion via the tax code. You have forced to give the federal government roughly 20-25% of your state GDP and the the federal government forces you into action to remain fiscally solvent.
This post was edited on 8/1/18 at 5:02 pm
Posted on 8/1/18 at 5:02 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:Forced to follow criminal law while accepting Federal Funds? Yes. I'm a small government states' rights guy, but if a state decided to reinstitute slavery, or Jim Crow, or harbor Ruuuussian Hackers, I'd be for putting the screws to them. You wouldn't?
Just to be clear, all of you "small-government conservatives" would be totally okay with the federal government being allowed to force state agencies into action?
Posted on 8/1/18 at 5:03 pm to EGCROSS
quote:That was the first thing that came to mind.
So does that mean the federal government can’t hold funds for anything anymore like LA hwy money when we didn’t want to raise the drinking age? Of course not only with liberal crazy crap that makes no logical sense.
Posted on 8/1/18 at 5:04 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Forced to follow criminal law while accepting Federal Funds? Yes. I'm a small government states' rights guy, but if a state decided to reinstitute slavery, or Jim Crow, or harbor Ruuuussian Hackers, I'd be for putting the screws to them. You wouldn't?
None of those analogies are relevant because the State is the one initiating the act.
Posted on 8/1/18 at 5:07 pm to Lg
The Ninth Circuit is in communist North Korea.....
Posted on 8/1/18 at 5:14 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:I don't follow
None of those analogies are relevant
Posted on 8/1/18 at 5:20 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
I don't follow
In each of your examples, the State government is initiating action that violates the Constitution or federal statute:
Slavery - Direct violation of 13th Amendment
Jim Crow - Violation of 14th Amendment and CRA of 1964
Harboring Russian Hackers - This one is the most similar but nothing would prevent the feds from going in and arresting them. If the state tried to impede the feds, then there would be a problem.
Here, sanctuary cities aren't impeding the feds from enforcing immigration law, they just aren't allocating state assets (or actually local assets) to aid in the enforcement.
Posted on 8/1/18 at 5:37 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:Wow.
Here, sanctuary cities aren't impeding the feds from enforcing immigration law, they just aren't allocating state assets (or actually local assets) to aid in the enforcement.
Seems like a distinction without a difference
If a state offered sanctuary to slavers, or Ruuuuusian Hackers, or passively allowed Jim Crow, I don't see the difference.
Posted on 8/1/18 at 7:59 pm to Antonio Moss
(no message)
This post was edited on 8/1/18 at 8:12 pm
Posted on 8/1/18 at 8:56 pm to Lg
quote:
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,
Posted on 8/1/18 at 9:00 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Seems like a distinction without a difference
There is a pretty big difference. The Executive Order would have coerced state agencies into action. Right now, nothing is stopping the feds from enforcing their law, it's just that the state agencies weren't doing it.
States can enforce federal law; they just aren't required to.
Page 4 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News