• 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!

Federal judge blocks Trump’s executive order on denying funding to sanctuary cities

Common Sense 1 said:
It calls in to question his ability to rule fairly when he donated $30,000 to the Obama campaign. The Obama administration supported sanctuary cities. And the judge was involved in suing the state of Arizona while working for the Obama administration Justice Dept. Two giants conflicts? This will be appealed and I think his order will be permanently stayed.
Click to expand...

You ignored my entire post. Okee dokee!
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Since I haven't done the research into the appropriations and any earmarks governing the funds, I can't say anything more than what I wrote, which stands as a valid statement/observation.
Click to expand...

OK, I guess I'll give up. None of the people objecting to the ruling can point to any part of the ruling and argue why the judge decided it incorrectly.

I've asked others, but do you really support a system where a hypothetical Hillary could just decide, "To hell with those idiots in AL and Texas who went 40 points against me. They get nothing!" That's effectively what you're suggesting is OK, and 1) I'm sure it's not, which the court explains, and 2) we should all see that's incredibly dangerous precedent to set even if somehow legal.
 
JasperL said:
It's not a matter of "should" or not, but whether the POTUS has the authority to do it. The short answer is, HELL NO, the POTUS cannot create new conditions for federal grants not contained in the law authorizing the grants. Congress has the power to spend and it's Congress that places restrictions on spending. POTUS through his agencies is given discretion in many cases, but he cannot create arbitrary criteria not in the law, and deny all grants based on any damn thing he wants.

And, again, why would you favor such a system?

As to "where they say that" - the the court outlined this in detail. If you have an objection to the ruling, be specific about what part you think the judge got wrong.
Click to expand...

Ok...show us where the law and The Constituion prohibit it. You made the claim, now back it up.
 
JasperL said:
That's possible, but the Administration cannot withhold funds based on arbitrary criteria.

You're arguing the equivalent that the POTUS can legally, say, only spend transportation money in red states and let blue state highways go to ruin, and direct the various departments through an executive order that the purpose is to punish his political enemies. That's clearly not constitutionally allowed.
Click to expand...

If a state refuses to obey federal laws, why not?
 
apdst said:
Show us where they say that.

If a city segregated it's schools by race, should that city lose any Federal funding that it receives?
Click to expand...

Good question.
 
apdst said:
It's been done before. Why is it illegal, now?
Click to expand...

If you're asserting that the Feds have stripped funding from cities that segregate and that discretion to withhold funds was NOT specifically authorized by Congress, you'll need to prove your point and provide some specifics. When was it done before? What city? What funding was stripped?
 
holbritter said:
If a state refuses to obey federal laws, why not?
Click to expand...

It appears no one wants to read or address the actual ruling. It's a little frustrating in a thread about a judge's ruling.

But the short answer is Congress has the power of the purse, and POTUS cannot place new and arbitrary restrictions on funds that Congress did not impose. So, for example, POTUS Hillary couldn't decide it didn't like Texas' gun laws and issue an EO stripping Texas of all discretionary Medicare and transportation grants unless it changed its gun laws. It's unlikely Congress could do that without running afoul of the Constitution because of the disconnect between, say, rules about concealed carry permits and Medicare, but POTUS sure as hell cannot make up new requirements - that power belongs to CONGRESS.

Furthermore, why would you support giving POTUS that kind of arbitrary discretion?
 
JasperL said:
I could copy and paste from the ruling, or you could click on this link and start reading at page 35.

What the judge said!
Click to expand...

You can't show us the law, nor in The Constitution. That's what I thought. A judge said something you agree with and you sheepishly go along with. This is why our country is in danger.
 
JasperL said:
If you're asserting that the Feds have stripped funding from cities that segregate and that discretion to withhold funds was NOT specifically authorized by Congress, you'll need to prove your point and provide some specifics. When was it done before? What city? What funding was stripped?
Click to expand...

......

South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987),[1] was a case in which the United States Supreme Court considered the limitations that the Constitution places on the authority of the United States Congress when it uses its authority to influence the individual states in areas of authority normally reserved to the states. It upheld the constitutionality of a federal statute that withheld federal funds from states whose legal drinking age did not conform to federal policy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole
Click to expand...
 
Common Sense 1 said:
He is a federal district judge in 9th circuit. But not the appeals court. We all know the 9th circuit court of appeals. The most overruled circuit in the federal system.
Click to expand...
No, actually, you don't.

The 9th Circuit is no longer a liberal bastion; that's an outdated perception. It's pretty much middle of the road now. Nor are its rulings routinely overturned. The SCOTUS declines to hear over 99% of lower court rulings, which means that almost every ruling made by the 9th Circuit winds up being final.
 
JasperL said:
It appears no one wants to read or address the actual ruling. It's a little frustrating in a thread about a judge's ruling.
Click to expand...
I'm shocked. Shocked and stunned. ;)


But the short answer is Congress has the power of the purse, and POTUS cannot place new and arbitrary restrictions on funds that Congress did not impose. So, for example, POTUS Hillary couldn't decide it didn't like Texas' gun laws and issue an EO stripping Texas of all discretionary Medicare and transportation grants unless it changed its gun laws. It's unlikely Congress could do that without running afoul of the Constitution because of the disconnect between, say, rules about concealed carry permits and Medicare, but POTUS sure as hell cannot make up new requirements - that power belongs to CONGRESS.

Furthermore, why would you support giving POTUS that kind of arbitrary discretion?
Click to expand...
That should be pretty obvious: Partisanship and policy preferences. It's fine when someone from "your team" exceeds their authority, oversteps Constitutional bounds, or otherwise acts in an authoritarian manner, especially when doing so advances policies that you prefer.
 
JasperL said:
OK, I guess I'll give up. None of the people objecting to the ruling can point to any part of the ruling and argue why the judge decided it incorrectly.

I've asked others, but do you really support a system where a hypothetical Hillary could just decide, "To hell with those idiots in AL and Texas who went 40 points against me. They get nothing!" That's effectively what you're suggesting is OK, and 1) I'm sure it's not, which the court explains, and 2) we should all see that's incredibly dangerous precedent to set even if somehow legal.
Click to expand...

What about my statement do you disagree with? If the law was written with Executive discretion, then it clearly cannot be unConstitutional if the Executive Department applies the discretion they have been given. It was you who questioned my statement and I stand by my statement, and I'm not trying to argue anyone else's point.
 
apdst said:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/454167/
Click to expand...

Some selected quotes from your own article:
But under its authority to regulate interstate commerce, Congress can threaten to withhold essential federal funding for highway infrastructure if states do not comply.
...
Without the trust fund, Congress loses a powerful means to keep states in compliance with national standards.
...
In 1974, in the midst of the Arab oil embargo, President Nixon and Congress set the national speed limit at a sauntering 55 miles per hour, in order to ease the demand for gasoline, and tied states' compliance to highway funding.
Click to expand...

The point is CONGRESS has the power of the purse, and Trump cannot create new conditions for "federal grants" not authorized by CONGRESS.
 
I dont understand how denying them funds is "unConstitutional." I have not see any law that shows just how.

The reason the judge gave was that Trump could not deny the $. He identified Trump, not Congress.

Can Congress get on board and do it? Because I have no idea why denying states $$ for something illegal is unConstitutional. Does anyone know the Constitutional basis?

It would really be nice if they could do something useful as a group :roll:
 
AliHajiSheik said:
What about my statement do you disagree with? If the law was written with Executive discretion, then it clearly cannot be unConstitutional if the Executive Department applies the discretion they have been given. It was you who questioned my statement and I stand by my statement, and I'm not trying to argue anyone else's point.
Click to expand...

The OP is about a particular decision by a district court judge striking down Trump's EO on sanctuary cities. If you're not wanting to discuss the decision or the order, then that's fine. According to the judge, Trump cannot create new conditions for federal grants and withhold funds from cities based on arbitrary conditions he created from thin air because that's a power granted to CONGRESS. I'm not quite sure where you disagree, which is why it's easier to stick with the OP and the particular EO and decision striking it down.
 
apdst said:
Show us where they say that.

If a city segregated it's schools by race, should that city lose any Federal funding that it receives?
Click to expand...

.Yes.
 
Visbek said:
No, actually, you don't.

The 9th Circuit is no longer a liberal bastion; that's an outdated perception. It's pretty much middle of the road now. Nor are its rulings routinely overturned. The SCOTUS declines to hear over 99% of lower court rulings, which means that almost every ruling made by the 9th Circuit winds up being final.
Click to expand...

My bad.... I have seen that headline so many times. Looked and found this.

The 9th Circuit’s reversal rate is higher than average, but it’s not the absolute highest among the circuit courts. That distinction goes to the 6th Circuit, which serves Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee, with an 87 percent average between 2010-15. The 9th Circuit is in third place.

6th Circuit - 87 percent;

11th Circuit - 85 percent;

9th Circuit - 79 percent;

3rd Circuit - 78 percent;

2nd Circuit and Federal Circuit - 68 percent;

8th Circuit - 67 percent;

5th Circuit - 66 percent;

7th Circuit - 48 percent;

DC Circuit - 45 percent;

1st Circuit and 4th Circuit - 43 percent;

10th Circuit - 42 percent.

February 10th, 2017
 
Last edited by a moderator:
apdst said:
Ok...show us where the law and The Constituion prohibit it. You made the claim, now back it up.
Click to expand...

Yes, I dont yet understand this point. Unless it's that it needs to be decided by Congress and not POTUS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom