- 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
1
Posted on 1/24/25 at 3:21 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Wouldn't it be people unable to get relief funds over a political spat?
You do realize that after the last fire, their legislature put in funding to clear underbrush.....and Newsome nixed it.
Thats not federal disaster relief, thats paying for stupidity, over and over again.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 3:21 pm to Eurocat
Full support. They created this problem. They shouldn't get a dime of aid without conditions.
This post was edited on 1/24/25 at 3:22 pm
Posted on 1/24/25 at 3:22 pm to trinidadtiger
quote:
You do realize that after the last fire, their legislature put in funding to clear underbrush.....and Newsome nixed it.
Thats not federal disaster relief, thats paying for stupidity, over and over again.
What does any of that have to do with conditioning the funds on Voter ID?
Posted on 1/24/25 at 3:23 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Wouldn't it be people unable to get relief funds over a political spat?
Are you sure he's talking about direct payments to affected individuals?
This post was edited on 1/24/25 at 3:24 pm
Posted on 1/24/25 at 3:24 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Are you sure he's talking about direct payments to affected individuals?
No, I haven't seen that level of detail. But plenty of individual and business funding flows through the State as well in these situations.
The water and fire mitigation parts seem reasonable and necessary to me either way. The Voter ID piece is overly coercive and too attenuated from the purpose of the funding to stand up legally, IMO.
This post was edited on 1/24/25 at 3:26 pm
Posted on 1/24/25 at 3:26 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Wouldn't it be people unable to get relief funds over a political spat?
I wouldn't call Trump's reasoning a "political spat."
He has two conditions and both are well reasoned.
1. Given the fact that currently anybody can vote in California without any verification of who they are, California citizens (and possibly the citizens of every other state as well if we're talking about a federal election) are having their voting rights undermined. That's a civil rights issue.
2. If California refuses to act responsibly with regard to preparing for the wildfires that inevitably will happen there, why should taxpayers in Alabama or Texas or Maine have to financially enable their irresponsibility when they have no ability to fire the current state leadership?
Posted on 1/24/25 at 3:27 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
What does any of that have to do with conditioning the funds on Voter ID?
Nothing except that it's a civil rights travesty and he's using the lever he's got to force them to correct it.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 3:27 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Given the fact that currently anybody can vote in California without any verification of who they are, California citizens (and possibly the citizens of every other state as well if we're talking about a federal election) are having their voting rights undermined. That's a civil rights issue.
That has nothing to do with disaster relief, which is why I don't think he is serious about it.
quote:
If California refuses to act responsibly with regard to preparing for the wildfires that inevitably will happen there, why should taxpayers in Alabama or Texas or Maine have to financially enable their irresponsibility when they have no ability to fire the current state leadership?
I've already said that the fire mitigation part is fine by me, at least as a condition on the State itself getting money.
I wouldn't support any conditions on payouts to the homeowners, individuals, etc.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 3:27 pm to Eurocat
Louisiana was withheld federal money for high ways unless drinking laws were changed. I guess they can do it?
Posted on 1/24/25 at 3:27 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
But plenty of individual and business funding flows through the State as well in these situations.
And does not need to.
quote:
The water and fire mitigation parts seem reasonable and necessary to me either way. The Voter ID piece is overly coercive and too attenuated from the purpose of the funding to stand up legally, IMO.
The voter ID law piece is almost certainly a bargaining chip to force the mitigation parts.
The problem with the mitigation parts is looney leftists will sue the state if they try to do any mitigation. And they have a history of winning because the state has stupid laws. He needs to require legislative action from them.
This post was edited on 1/24/25 at 3:28 pm
Posted on 1/24/25 at 3:28 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
The voter ID law piece is almost certainly a bargaining chip to force the mitigation parts.
How strong of a bargaining chip is it, if it doesn't hold up in court? I'm sure the State would sue over it if money was actually withheld on that basis.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 3:28 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Wouldn't it be people unable to get relief funds over a political spat?
What's the hardship of imposing voter ID requirements?
Posted on 1/24/25 at 3:29 pm to Eurocat
We need a national citizenship audit and purging / cleaning of the voter rolls in all states. But it would be marvelous if Trump forced California to be the first.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 3:29 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
That has nothing to do with disaster relief
Yeah, I realize that.
But it's a very serious issue—a civil rights issue—and he's using the lever he's got to force them to stop violating citizen's civil rights.
Where is the rule book that you're appealing to that makes it against the rules to use political leverage for two otherwise unrelated issues?
Posted on 1/24/25 at 3:30 pm to BigPerm30
quote:
Louisiana was withheld federal money for high ways unless drinking laws were changed. I guess they can do it?
When the conditions are narrowly tailored to accomplish a reasonable governmental objective and its not overly coercive, sure. South Dakota took that one to SCOTUS, and lost. That case gave us the parameters for this sort of thing.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 3:30 pm to SDVTiger
Yes, I disagree.
Now if he would have said "We will give you aid this one last time, but only after I see legislation passed that says, "fire prevention take precedence over animal extinction, having things look "nice and pretty" so we will cut brush, etc", I would have no problem with that.
But he is bringing in an issue that is not tied in with all this.
Imagine if Gore had beaten Bush (it was close!) and was President when Katring hit and he said, "Aid will only be given if Louisiana passes a bill legalizing gay marriage". Completely inappropriate (and I know that it is legal now, but back then it was not).
Now if he would have said "We will give you aid this one last time, but only after I see legislation passed that says, "fire prevention take precedence over animal extinction, having things look "nice and pretty" so we will cut brush, etc", I would have no problem with that.
But he is bringing in an issue that is not tied in with all this.
Imagine if Gore had beaten Bush (it was close!) and was President when Katring hit and he said, "Aid will only be given if Louisiana passes a bill legalizing gay marriage". Completely inappropriate (and I know that it is legal now, but back then it was not).
This post was edited on 1/24/25 at 3:32 pm
Posted on 1/24/25 at 3:31 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
I'm sure the State would sue over it if money was actually withheld on that basis.
As people have already posted, many states were threatened with the loss of highway funding for not toeing the line on the drinking age.
If it were unconstitutional to do that, it seems that one of those states would have done so then.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 3:31 pm to Eurocat
The dems made the rules, they have blackmailing states for decades with money.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 3:31 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Where is the rule book that you're appealing to that makes it against the rules to use political leverage for two otherwise unrelated issues?
South Dakota v. Dole
quote:
The Court established a five-point rule for considering the constitutionality of expenditure cuts of this type:
The spending must promote "the general welfare."
The condition must be unambiguous.
The condition should relate "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs."
The condition imposed on the states must not, in itself, be unconstitutional.
The condition must not be coercive.
The factors in bold would be the problem here.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News