• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chicago scores legal victory in sanctuary city battle with Sessions

And the Feds cant hold $ back from a city, another defeat for Trumps rascist policies.

From a city and from a state. Lower the drinking age in your state and see highway funds get cut.

"The 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, [23 U.S.C. § 158], requires that States prohibit persons under 21 years of age from purchasing or publicly possessing alcoholic beverages as a condition of receiving State highway funds."
https://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/the_1984_national_minimum_drinking_age_act_2.html
 
What it is about is the conditions for continued federal grants to state/local LEO agencies. The choice is simple - each such LEO agency can do a cost/benefit analysis to determine if the cost of meeting the conditions equal or exceed the grant's value then decide whether to take it or leave it.

Umm, no.

Federal agencies can not make funding decisions based on cost/benefit analyses unless Congress says they can.

In this case, the grant does not grant Secy Sessions the power to make funding conditional based on his whims. The law which authorizes the grant specifies a formula that is used to determine how much money a LE agency gets under the grant.
 
This is great new for the alt right conservatives, they are in total favor of less government and local control right?

Actually . . . no. They're quite statist. Because they're alt-right, not mainstream right.
 
From a city and from a state. Lower the drinking age in your state and see highway funds get cut.

"The 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, [23 U.S.C. § 158], requires that States prohibit persons under 21 years of age from purchasing or publicly possessing alcoholic beverages as a condition of receiving State highway funds."
https://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/the_1984_national_minimum_drinking_age_act_2.html

Good work!

Now, can you show us the law that says Sessions can impose conditions on grants made by the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program ?
 
Correct. First thing you got right this thread.

Do you believe bad attempts to be snarky somehow adds to the intellect of your post?
 
Good work!

Now, can you show us the law that says Sessions can impose conditions on grants from Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program ?

I haven't said that it does and that I can well imagine will be one of the arguments Chicago makes.
 
This is not a states rights issue it is a federal rights issue. The federal government has sovereign of immigration not the states.
States are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. States have sovereignty too

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Do you believe bad attempts to be snarky somehow adds to the intellect of your post?

Well, one of us is reading the actual decision. I dunno about intellect, but actual knowledge, yeah...
 
AS I am (slowly, oh lord this is painful reading) making my way through the ruling, one important thing to note. According to the judge(who I note is a Reagan appointee), there are 3 primary questions in looking at the likelyhood of success on the merits(ie, whether Chicago is likely to win the case when it actually is heard):

  1. Did Congress authorize the Attorney General to impose substantive conditions on the Byrne JAG grant?
  2. If so, did Congress have the power to authorize those conditions under the Spending Clause?
  3. And finally, does Section 1373 violate the Tenth Amendment?

So realize, to make any comment on whether the Judge ruled properly, those are the questions you should be able to answer.
Ty for the leg work.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
From a city and from a state. Lower the drinking age in your state and see highway funds get cut.

"The 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, [23 U.S.C. § 158], requires that States prohibit persons under 21 years of age from purchasing or publicly possessing alcoholic beverages as a condition of receiving State highway funds."
https://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/the_1984_national_minimum_drinking_age_act_2.html

The law was upheld in the Dakota v Dole ruling. Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole

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.

You would get a long, torturous to read ruling on whether what Sessions did fit within that. However, Travis v Reno has been ruled in since, which says they cannot “commandeer the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program". Denying funding would be an effort to compel.
 
From and city and from a state. Lower the drinking age in your state and see highway funds get cut.

"The 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, [23 U.S.C. § 158], requires that States prohibit persons under 21 years of age from purchasing or publicly possessing alcoholic beverages as a condition of receiving State highway funds."
https://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/the_1984_national_minimum_drinking_age_act_2.html

Fail, they are apples and oranges, better luck next time
 
The more I read, the more I think this is going to be a long process, with both sides thinking they are in the right, with good legal arguments on both sides. Kudos to the judge for going in depth on the arguments used and how he sees them applying
 
I am not following what you are trying to say here. May be my fault. Can you explain more please.

I will try again. The federal government has been financially aiding state/local police departments with grant money. They have recently decided to add cooperation agreements to assist ICE by having state/local police inform them of illegal aliens in their custody at least 48 hours before releasing them as a condition of getting continued federal grants. The state/local police (Chicago in this case) insists that the ICE cooperation is too expensive and wants to keep getting the grant money with no strings attached.

My point is that if the cost of complying with new the grant conditions (ICE cooperation) is too high then simply do without the federal grant. This is basically the same thing as was done during the drive 55 campaign to "save gas" - the federal highway funding to the states was made conditional on their agreement to enforce a 55 mph maximum speed on all of their state's roadways to keep getting federal highway funds. IIRC, only one western state declined the "offer" and decided that driving slower to comply would cost more in lost "windshield time" for state and county workers than the value of the federal highway funds they would get and lost (no longer got) those federal highway funds.
 
Umm, no.

Federal agencies can not make funding decisions based on cost/benefit analyses unless Congress says they can.

In this case, the grant does not grant Secy Sessions the power to make funding conditional based on his whims. The law which authorizes the grant specifies a formula that is used to determine how much money a LE agency gets under the grant.

The amount of the grant (what you call the formula) does not change - the Sessions deal is either cooperate with ICE or lose the grant entirely.
 
The judge ruled that Congress has the sole right to place stipulations on the Byrne Grant to cities, not Sessions.
 
The Trump admin is certainly going about this foolishly. They need to simply deny funding to sanctuary cities where applicable. The Republicans need to get off their asses and do their part because the purse strings are under the control of Congress for most things.

You're delusional. It would be next to impossible for Congress to restrict funds because they don't agree with the politics of certain cities/states.
 
I will try again. The federal government has been financially aiding state/local police departments with grant money. They have recently decided to add cooperation agreements to assist ICE by having state/local police inform them of illegal aliens in their custody at least 48 hours before releasing them as a condition of getting continued federal grants. The state/local police (Chicago in this case) insists that the ICE cooperation is too expensive and wants to keep getting the grant money with no strings attached.

My point is that if the cost of complying with new the grant conditions (ICE cooperation) is too high then simply do without the federal grant. This is basically the same thing as was done during the drive 55 campaign to "save gas" - the federal highway funding to the states was made conditional on their agreement to enforce a 55 mph maximum speed on all of their state's roadways to keep getting federal highway funds. IIRC, only one western state declined the "offer" and decided that driving slower to comply would cost more in lost "windshield time" for state and county workers than the value of the federal highway funds they would get and lost (no longer got) those federal highway funds.

Oh. That is not the legal argument that was argued. I listed the legal arguments earlier. Thank you for clarifying.
 
The law was upheld in the Dakota v Dole ruling. Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole
Yes the Fed's can withhold funds to coerce compliance.

You would get a long, torturous to read ruling on whether what Sessions did fit within that. However, Travis v Reno has been ruled in since, which says they cannot “commandeer the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program". Denying funding would be an effort to compel.

It is not a legislative process of the state, the federal government has purvey of immigration policy and law. A state legislature cannot overrule or subserviate that policy. And the feds can use funding to coerce compliance with federal law.
 
Yes the Fed's can withhold funds to coerce compliance.



It is not a legislative process of the state, the federal government has purvey of immigration policy and law. A state legislature cannot overrule or subserviate that policy. And the feds can use funding to coerce compliance with federal law.

You really should read the ****ing ruling. I am not going to waste my time educating you if you cannot make that basic effort.
 
[url="http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/chicago-scores-legal-victory-in-sanctuary-city-battle-with-sessions/]Chicago scores legal victory in sanctuary city battle with Sessions[/url]




The battle is far from over, but Jeffrey 'The Gnome' Sessions loses the initial sanctuary-city round in federal court.

That judge needs to be fired. What a shameful ruling.
 
Back
Top Bottom