Trump cannot punish sanctuary cities
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-04-2017, 08:21 PM
RE: Trump cannot punish sanctuary cities
(25-04-2017 06:20 PM)Dom Wrote:  Federal judge rules Trump cannot punish sanctuary cities by withholding funds.

Trump's lack of understanding of our legal system is showing again.

Hobo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thoreauvian's post
25-04-2017, 09:24 PM
RE: Trump cannot punish sanctuary cities
(25-04-2017 07:11 PM)pablo Wrote:  ... If the far right had their way we'd be in something like a theocratic, oligarchy, plutocracy ...

Sharia Law, in other words. Funny how that label terrifies the right, but not its effects.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Airportkid's post
26-04-2017, 02:18 PM
RE: Trump cannot punish sanctuary cities
(25-04-2017 08:21 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(25-04-2017 06:20 PM)Dom Wrote:  Federal judge rules Trump cannot punish sanctuary cities by withholding funds.

Trump's lack of understanding of our legal system is showing again.

Hobo

And his inability to seek or accept expert advice. He has access to all the legal help needed and then some.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
26-04-2017, 03:46 PM
RE: Trump cannot punish sanctuary cities
(26-04-2017 02:18 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(25-04-2017 08:21 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  Trump's lack of understanding of our legal system is showing again.

And his inability to seek or accept expert advice. He has access to all the legal help needed and then some.

More proof that he's not qualified for the job.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
26-04-2017, 04:41 PM
RE: Trump cannot punish sanctuary cities
It's my opinion that this sanctuary city fight is the most important domestic issue battle to keep Trump in check. This is a battle against a dictatorship. This could be modern day Trail of Tears. The judges and mayors who stop this are heros. After we dump Trump we need to remember who stood up against him and reward them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2017, 05:11 PM
RE: Trump cannot punish sanctuary cities
So when Trump disregards the law to get things the way he wants things - it's bad.

But when cities disregard laws to get things how they want things - it's a good thing.


Funny how that works.....

Blink

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
26-04-2017, 05:26 PM (This post was last modified: 26-04-2017 05:33 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Trump cannot punish sanctuary cities
(26-04-2017 05:11 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  So when Trump disregards the law to get things the way he wants things - it's bad.

But when cities disregard laws to get things how they want things - it's a good thing.


Funny how that works.....

Blink

I think that it's not a good/bad thing, but more of a legal/not legal thing at this point. The federal government cannot legally require the states to enforce federal law as a condition of funding. At least unrelated funding. My question is can the federal government compel the states to enforce federal law if they explicitly paid for precisely that? Could the federal government force them to take the money and use it for a specific purpose within a specific time? That's more interesting to me. The "No Pablo, No Peso" should clearly be illegal to me. At least I think that's what the court's saying. Could be wrong.

I think Trump's like the √úbermensch of con men and wants to see how good he really is. Already pulled a con on us he wasn't expecting to work, so now he's gonna see if he can con a bunch of old dead white men who liked to get drunk and run around in women's clothes while making public policy. My money's on the old dead drunk white dudes. Thumbsup

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2017, 05:30 PM
RE: Trump cannot punish sanctuary cities
(26-04-2017 05:11 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  So when Trump disregards the law to get things the way he wants things - it's bad.

But when cities disregard laws to get things how they want things - it's a good thing.


Funny how that works.....

Blink

One law is good and one law is bad.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2017, 05:32 PM
RE: Trump cannot punish sanctuary cities
(26-04-2017 05:26 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(26-04-2017 05:11 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  So when Trump disregards the law to get things the way he wants things - it's bad.

But when cities disregard laws to get things how they want things - it's a good thing.


Funny how that works.....

Blink

I think that it's not a good/bad thing, but more of a legal/not legal thing at this point. The federal government cannot legally require the states to enforce federal law as a condition of funding. At least unrelated funding. My question is can the federal government compel the states to enforce federal law if they explicitly paid for precisely that? Could the federal government force them to take the money and use it for a specific purpose within a specific time? That's more interesting to me. The "No Pablo, No Peso" should clearly be illegal to me. At least I think that's what the court's saying. Could be wrong.

I believe the feds can do it, and get away with it.

Remember Nixon enforcing the national 55 mph? They threatened to withhold national
Highway funding if they didn't comply. It held for many years, even if it wasn't "legal"....

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2017, 05:36 PM (This post was last modified: 26-04-2017 06:11 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Trump cannot punish sanctuary cities
(26-04-2017 05:32 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(26-04-2017 05:26 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I think that it's not a good/bad thing, but more of a legal/not legal thing at this point. The federal government cannot legally require the states to enforce federal law as a condition of funding. At least unrelated funding. My question is can the federal government compel the states to enforce federal law if they explicitly paid for precisely that? Could the federal government force them to take the money and use it for a specific purpose within a specific time? That's more interesting to me. The "No Pablo, No Peso" should clearly be illegal to me. At least I think that's what the court's saying. Could be wrong.

I believe the feds can do it, and get away with it.

Remember Nixon enforcing the national 55 mph? They threatened to withhold national
Highway funding if they didn't comply. It held for many years, even if it wasn't "legal"....

I do remember that. Now I gotta decide whether it's worth 30 seconds of googling. The best thing about google is the answer to any question which just randomly pops into my head is only seconds away, the worst thing about google is the answer to any question which just randomly pops into my head is only seconds away. When I was a kid we had to actually work for our knowledge goddamit.

...

Okay. First it looks like the President doesn't have dick control over the funding for States, only Congress does. Power of the purse I've heard it called. Second it looks like we've already considered it and it's the same legal justification that the States used for not being compelled to expand Medicaid under ObamaBooboo and they won. And there was precedent prior to that. Which is kind of ironic. Or hypocritical depending on your point of view. (What happens to us when we are completely desensitized to hypocrisy which is precisely what's happening now. Been happening for a while now. Wilbur Mills only mistake was he fucked Fanne Foxe in the Tidal Basin 40 years too soon.) Finally, it looks like Trump and his people fuck up every time they say why they're doing it, they explicitly state their coercive intent. Their lawyers must be like "wtf? Now how do you expect me to defend it?" like all the time. The few times they've tried so far with the immigration ban were comical. If the legal matter involves consideration of intent, and your intent is precisely what the court has found illegal a bunch of times, and you advertise your already found to be illegal intent to the entire fucking planet on twitter, how would you expect the courts to rule?

Like I said, it's a devishly fiendish clever plot to probe just how stupid we really are. He's already run the con on us and now wants to see just how far he can run it.

Finally, the Court ruled that the federal government cannot force the states to act against their will by withholding funds in a coercive manner. In Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), the Court held that the federal government can not compel states to expand Medicaid by threatening to withhold funding for Medicaid programs already in place. Justice Roberts argued that allowing Congress to essentially punish states that refused to go along violates constitutional separation of powers.


Now how come Nixon got away with it?

Now I remember, it was taken as an emergency action in response to the oil crisis.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: