• 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

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...

OK yes. And the only thing I've seen is that it cant be by EO. Which is what I've been curious about.
 
apdst said:
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...


That's not applicable here. The problem the district court judge sees is that when money is given to the states conditions have to be specified up front as part of the legislation and the conditions have to have something to do with the use being made of the money. That was true in the case you cited. It's not here.
 
Lursa said:
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:
Click to expand...

Congress has to put conditions into the legislation. The President cannot put conditions on the money after the fact.
 
Gaius46 said:
Congress has to put conditions into the legislation. The President cannot put conditions on the money after the fact.
Click to expand...

There's nothing protecting state and city governments from openly violating Federal law.
 
JasperL said:
I have no idea what part of the article you're talking about. :roll:

Bottom line is you're unable to address any of the many arguments made by the court in THIS CASE, and so are diverting the discussion with a series of red herrings and straw men. I'm not participating in your games.
Click to expand...

You skipped it because it blows your claim out of the water.
 
apdst said:
......

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...
Click to expand...

I'll have to conclude you're just trolling at this point. From the first sentence at your link:

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.
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
You skipped it because it blows your claim out of the water.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what "it" is because your link was to an article I'd already quoted from. Maybe you meant to send me to the link I addressed just above this post? Dunno?
 
apdst said:
There's nothing protecting state and city governments from openly violating Federal law.
Click to expand...

I think we've had this discussion before. What laws are the states and cities violating?
 
JasperL said:
I have no idea what "it" is because your link was to an article I'd already quoted from. Maybe you meant to send me to the link I addressed just above this post? Dunno?
Click to expand...

Awhile ago you wanted look like a genius. What happened?
 
apdst said:
Awhile ago you wanted look like a genius. What happened?
Click to expand...

I'm clearly not a genius because I'm following you down ratholes, and I know better. I'll try to not make that mistake again. :roll:
 
JasperL said:
I'm clearly not a genius because I'm following you down ratholes, and I know better. I'll try to not make that mistake again. :roll:
Click to expand...

The usual fallback position. You want evidence, then when you're presented with it, you suddenly donxt know which way is up.
 
apdst said:
Immigration laws.
Click to expand...

What immigration laws? Did the state illegally immigrate somewhere? The city?

Or do you mean that the state or city refuse to enforce federal immigration laws? They don't have to. It's a 10th amendment thing and all that dual sovereignty stuff. See Printz v United States. The Federal government wanted state and local PDs to enforce provisions of the Brady Handgun Bill and were told by the SC that that is unconstitutional. Scalia wrote the opinion btw - it's very readable.
 
While I do believe the federal government can withhold funding from sanctuary cities, this ruling is Constitutionally sound. Congress decides where these funds go, not the Executive. They can still accomplish what Trump is trying to do, but it has to be done by Congress. Conservatives shouldn't have an issue with that.
 
Gaius46 said:
What immigration laws? Did the state illegally immigrate somewhere? The city?

Or do you mean that the state or city refuse to enforce federal immigration laws? They don't have to. It's a 10th amendment thing and all that dual sovereignty stuff. See Printz v United States. The Federal government wanted state and local PDs to enforce provisions of the Brady Handgun Bill and were told by the SC that that is unconstitutional. Scalia wrote the opinion btw - it's very readable.
Click to expand...

If it's a federal law, why dont they have to enforce it?

What other examples can you give me? Pot legalization would be one, but the last administration indicated that it was open to allowing it.

If something is "not" enumerated under Constitutional law, then it can fall to the state to decide. But if it's indeed covered by a Constitutionally supported federal law, how is this federally-based immigration issue covered by the 10th?
 
Lursa said:
If it's a federal law, why dont they have to enforce it?

What other examples can you give me? Pot legalization would be one, but the last administration indicated that it was open to allowing it.

If something is "not" enumerated under Constitutional law, then it can fall to the state to decide. But if it's indeed covered by a Constitutionally supported federal law, how is this federally-based immigration issue covered by the 10th?
Click to expand...

What it really boils down to is that it's an issue of Federalism, which is really what the 10th amendment is all about. The Constitution recognizes that the states are independent entities in their own right, remember that one of the biggest issues at the founding was balancing the rights of states against the powers of the Federal government.

Since at least 1935 the Supreme Court has consistently held that for the federal government to force states to enforce federal law violates state sovereignty. States can enforce federal law if they want to - and in many cases it makes sense - but the Federal government cannot force them to.

Justice Scalia does a really good job of laying out the details in his opinion in Printz v United States. It's a long read but worthwhile.
 
If the congressional funding law indicates any verbiage allowing the executive the flexibility to appropriate the funds, then its an inappropriate ruling.

Some laws, like large sections of the ACA, allow for extensive executive interpretation and execution.

If the law doesn't, and its a priority for the administration to get a handle on local/state cooporation in enforcement of existing federal immigration statues, then they should inform congress to write the appropriate language and immediately pass it.
 
Gaius46 said:
What it really boils down to is that it's an issue of Federalism, which is really what the 10th amendment is all about. The Constitution recognizes that the states are independent entities in their own right, remember that one of the biggest issues at the founding was balancing the rights of states against the powers of the Federal government.

Since at least 1935 the Supreme Court has consistently held that for the federal government to force states to enforce federal law violates state sovereignty. States can enforce federal law if they want to - and in many cases it makes sense - but the Federal government cannot force them to.

Justice Scalia does a really good job of laying out the details in his opinion in Printz v United States. It's a long read but worthwhile.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reference.

But we have forced states to comply with federal laws. In a few ways. 55 mph back in the 70s...feds threatened to withhold highway funds. (since changed). Same with seatbelt laws. And many civil rights laws like segregation, correct?
 
Gaius46 said:
What immigration laws? Did the state illegally immigrate somewhere? The city?

Or do you mean that the state or city refuse to enforce federal immigration laws? They don't have to. It's a 10th amendment thing and all that dual sovereignty stuff. See Printz v United States. The Federal government wanted state and local PDs to enforce provisions of the Brady Handgun Bill and were told by the SC that that is unconstitutional. Scalia wrote the opinion btw - it's very readable.
Click to expand...

Harboring illegal aliens is illegal. You've argued that the states aren't required to enforce Federal laws, but they do have yo obey Federal law, whether it be desegregation laws, gun laws, or immigration laws.
 
Lursa said:
Thanks for the reference.

But we have forced states to comply with federal laws. In a few ways. 55 mph back in the 70s...feds threatened to withhold highway funds. (since changed). Same with seatbelt laws. And many civil rights laws like segregation, correct?
Click to expand...

The highway examples are different because the decision making stayed with the states. The states could decide to not go along with the 55mph limit but they would be penalized. That's different for forcing state police to enforce federal drugs - in that case the state has no choice in the matter.

You also have to remember that nothing here stop the Federal government from enforcing it's laws in the states. The Federal government has every right to enforce federal civil rights laws anywhere in the country. They just have to use federal employees to do it.
 
Samhain said:
If the congressional funding law indicates any verbiage allowing the executive the flexibility to appropriate the funds, then its an inappropriate ruling.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that's true. When Congress appropriates money for grants, it will establish the requirements for that money. What Trump is attempting to do is add an additional requirement on top of the list that Congress voted for and was made part of the law that governs that money. He just doesn't have the prerogative to create additional hurdles not in the law.

If the law doesn't, and its a priority for the administration to get a handle on local/state cooporation in enforcement of existing federal immigration statues, then they should inform congress to write the appropriate language and immediately pass it.
Click to expand...

Right, that's what is required!
 
apdst said:
Harboring illegal aliens is illegal. You've argued that the states aren't required to enforce Federal laws, but they do have yo obey Federal law, whether it be desegregation laws, gun laws, or immigration laws.
Click to expand...

1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses

Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.
Click to expand...


That's the federal law. How is, say, the Governor of California violating it? Is he hiding illegals in the governor's mansion? Can you point to state programs that hide illegals?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom