Sarcasm doesn't translate in text old fool.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
'Sanctuary' Means Career Criminals Can Run and Hide
- Thread starter anatta
- Start date
Sarcasm doesn't translate in text old fool.
The Only Sarge
32ConfirmedCommieKills
OMG Rune says I am deluded! Deluded all the way to the bank......you are deluding yourself if you think one side has more patriotic members than another. Again, partisan bullshit.
The Only Sarge
32ConfirmedCommieKills
I suspect you dont try and learn from others experience. You are already too smart.Sarcasm doesn't translate in text old fool.
Must suck to be you.
Some day I will meet a happy liberal but I'm not holding my breath.
no clue wtf you are talking about,,is this another Rune's Farcical Interpretation of Constitutional Law? you betcha'
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/201...ave-to-comply-the-anti-comandeering-doctrine/
https://s3.amazonaws.com/tacdocs/The+Anti-Commandeering+Doctrine.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States
One to talk.I suspect you dont try and learn from others experience. You are already too smart.
Must suck to be you.
Some day I will meet a happy liberal but I'm not holding my breath.
Again sarcasm doesn't translate in text.
that only goes to enforcement by the states of federal laws. I haven't heard that argument before -so props for bringing up.Typing real slow; the anti-commandeering principle of the 10th ammendment specifically prevents the Feds from withholding funds from sanctuary states retard.
++
Printz v. United States (1997) serves as the lynchpin for the anti-commandeering doctrine. At issue was a provision in the Brady Gun Bill that required county law enforcement officers to administer part of the background check program. Sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack sued, arguing these provisions unconstitutionally forced them to administer a federal program. Justice Antonin Scalia agreed, writing in the majority opinion “it is apparent that the Brady Act purports to direct state law enforcement officers to participate, albeit only temporarily, in the administration of a federally enacted regulatory scheme.”
Citing the New York case, the court majority declared this provision of the Brady Gun Bill unconstitutional, expanding the reach of the anti-commandeering doctrine.
We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/201...-the-legal-basis-for-refusing-to-participate/
it does NOT mean the fed's can't withhold funding -that is not "commandeering" the states to enforce fed'l law.
that only goes to enforcement by the states of federal laws. I haven't heard that argument before -so props for bringing up.
++
Printz v. United States (1997) serves as the lynchpin for the anti-commandeering doctrine. At issue was a provision in the Brady Gun Bill that required county law enforcement officers to administer part of the background check program. Sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack sued, arguing these provisions unconstitutionally forced them to administer a federal program. Justice Antonin Scalia agreed, writing in the majority opinion “it is apparent that the Brady Act purports to direct state law enforcement officers to participate, albeit only temporarily, in the administration of a federally enacted regulatory scheme.”
Citing the New York case, the court majority declared this provision of the Brady Gun Bill unconstitutional, expanding the reach of the anti-commandeering doctrine.
We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/201...-the-legal-basis-for-refusing-to-participate/
it does NOT mean the fed's can't withhold funding -that is not "commandeering" the states to enforce fed'l law.
Yes it does, do some research before you make broad based claims...
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.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/
Yes it does, do some research before you make broad based claims...
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.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/
you are talking about the Medicade opt-out; it's not the same idea. the Supremacy clause shows the fed'shave complete control on immigration regulation. The Medicade opt out was because of an existing sharing of powers (federalism) by fed/state contract.
The states have a right to "opt-out" because the ACA changed Medicade from coverage of non-elderly poor to the entire population
( essentially changing the existing compact between the states and the feds) I bolded the Roberts reasoning allowing the opt-out .
The ACA in total addressed by the Roberts court in the 4 separate rulings regarding the ACA. from your link:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-393
The threatened loss of over 10 percent of a State’s overall budget is economic dragooning that leaves the States with no real option but to acquiesce in the Medicaid expansion. The Government claims that the expansion is properly viewed as only a modification of the existing program, and that this modification is permissible because Congress reserved the “right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision” of Medicaid. §1304. But the expansion accomplishes a shift in kind, not merely degree. The original program was designed to cover medical services for particular categories of vulnerable individuals. Under the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid is transformed into a program to meet the health care needs of the entire nonelderly population with income below 133 percent of the poverty level. A State could hardly anticipate that Congress’s reservation of the right to “alter” or “amend” the Medicaid program included the power to transform it so dramatically. The Medicaid expansion thus violates the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion.
The Only Sarge
32ConfirmedCommieKills
Maybe not but stupid sure as hell does.Sarcasm doesn't translate in text old fool.
that only goes to enforcement by the states of federal laws. I haven't heard that argument before -so props for bringing up.
++
Printz v. United States (1997) serves as the lynchpin for the anti-commandeering doctrine. At issue was a provision in the Brady Gun Bill that required county law enforcement officers to administer part of the background check program. Sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack sued, arguing these provisions unconstitutionally forced them to administer a federal program. Justice Antonin Scalia agreed, writing in the majority opinion “it is apparent that the Brady Act purports to direct state law enforcement officers to participate, albeit only temporarily, in the administration of a federally enacted regulatory scheme.”
Citing the New York case, the court majority declared this provision of the Brady Gun Bill unconstitutional, expanding the reach of the anti-commandeering doctrine.
We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/201...-the-legal-basis-for-refusing-to-participate/
it does NOT mean the fed's can't withhold funding -that is not "commandeering" the states to enforce fed'l law.
Yes it is.
Maybe not but stupid sure as hell does.
I wouldn't say you are as stupid as Bravo but you will do.
you are talking about the Medicade opt-out; it's not the same idea. the Supremacy clause shows the fed'shave complete control on immigration regulation. The Medicade opt out was because of an existing sharing of powers (federalism) by fed/state contract.
The states have a right to "opt-out" because the ACA changed Medicade from coverage of non-elderly poor to the entire population
( essentially changing the existing compact between the states and the feds) I bolded the Roberts reasoning allowing the opt-out .
The ACA in total addressed by the Roberts court in the 4 separate rulings regarding the ACA. from your link:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-393
The threatened loss of over 10 percent of a State’s overall budget is economic dragooning that leaves the States with no real option but to acquiesce in the Medicaid expansion. The Government claims that the expansion is properly viewed as only a modification of the existing program, and that this modification is permissible because Congress reserved the “right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision” of Medicaid. §1304. But the expansion accomplishes a shift in kind, not merely degree. The original program was designed to cover medical services for particular categories of vulnerable individuals. Under the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid is transformed into a program to meet the health care needs of the entire nonelderly population with income below 133 percent of the poverty level. A State could hardly anticipate that Congress’s reservation of the right to “alter” or “amend” the Medicaid program included the power to transform it so dramatically. The Medicaid expansion thus violates the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion.
No one is arguing that the Feds control imigration, they do. They are responsible to enforce their own laws but cannot force the States to do so under the 10th.
They certainly CANNOT withhold funding to acomplish an unconstitutional overreach as SCOTUS has ruled at least 4 times.
The Only Sarge
32ConfirmedCommieKills
The law is in place. Obumbo and Lynch put it in place. All Trump has to do is hit the button.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/24/justice-dept-promises-crackdown-sanctuary-cities/
“This is a very significant change, and we’re deeply grateful to you,” Rep. John Abney Culberson, Texas Republican, told Ms. Lynch at a hearing of the House Appropriations Committee.
He promised to provide Ms. Lynch with a list of sanctuary jurisdictions and urged her to scour the list and see who is refusing to comply.
“If they insist on paying it out of their policy, and they won’t honor detainers, and they won’t share information, you know, don’t ask for federal money unless you follow federal law,” he said. “Delighted to hear you’re moving in that direction, and we’re going to work with you cooperatively and in a supportive way to ensure that that happens.”
The moves are bound to anger immigrant rights advocates, who for years have cheered as hundreds of county and city governments, jails, and sheriff’s and police departments have adopted sanctuary policies.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/24/justice-dept-promises-crackdown-sanctuary-cities/
“This is a very significant change, and we’re deeply grateful to you,” Rep. John Abney Culberson, Texas Republican, told Ms. Lynch at a hearing of the House Appropriations Committee.
He promised to provide Ms. Lynch with a list of sanctuary jurisdictions and urged her to scour the list and see who is refusing to comply.
“If they insist on paying it out of their policy, and they won’t honor detainers, and they won’t share information, you know, don’t ask for federal money unless you follow federal law,” he said. “Delighted to hear you’re moving in that direction, and we’re going to work with you cooperatively and in a supportive way to ensure that that happens.”
The moves are bound to anger immigrant rights advocates, who for years have cheered as hundreds of county and city governments, jails, and sheriff’s and police departments have adopted sanctuary policies.
The law is in place. Obumbo and Lynch put it in place. All Trump has to do is hit the button.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/24/justice-dept-promises-crackdown-sanctuary-cities/
“This is a very significant change, and we’re deeply grateful to you,” Rep. John Abney Culberson, Texas Republican, told Ms. Lynch at a hearing of the House Appropriations Committee.
He promised to provide Ms. Lynch with a list of sanctuary jurisdictions and urged her to scour the list and see who is refusing to comply.
“If they insist on paying it out of their policy, and they won’t honor detainers, and they won’t share information, you know, don’t ask for federal money unless you follow federal law,” he said. “Delighted to hear you’re moving in that direction, and we’re going to work with you cooperatively and in a supportive way to ensure that that happens.”
The moves are bound to anger immigrant rights advocates, who for years have cheered as hundreds of county and city governments, jails, and sheriff’s and police departments have adopted sanctuary policies.
What law? That link did not discuss any laws.
The Only Sarge
32ConfirmedCommieKills
AG opinion is law.What law? That link did not discuss any laws.
The "law" is in place and has been forever. You want Federal Aid money for your programs you got to adhere to Fed policies to receive it. It is not a right of the States/Cities. The Feds withhold monies for roads/schools et al when a State doesnt adhere to say a 55MPH speed limit. That is the lay of the land. Call it what you want but it is in place.
AG opinion is law.
The "law" is in place and has been forever. You want Federal Aid money for your programs you got to adhere to Fed policies to receive it. It is not a right of the States/Cities. The Feds withhold monies for roads/schools et al when a State doesnt adhere to say a 55MPH speed limit. That is the lay of the land. Call it what you want but it is in place.
Wishful thinking doesn 't make laws old fool.
The Only Sarge
32ConfirmedCommieKills
And you would be wrong as usual.Wishful thinking doesn 't make laws old fool.
correct -that is the commandeering you refered to ( i never heard that term before -thanks)No one is arguing that the Feds control imigration, they do. They are responsible to enforce their own laws but cannot force the States to do so under the 10th.
don't know what you are referring to here as "unconstitutional over-reach" fed's can most definately withhold funding to sanctuary cities.They certainly CANNOT withhold funding to acomplish an unconstitutional overreach as SCOTUS has ruled at least 4 times.
correct -that is the commandeering you refered to ( i never heard that term before -thanks)
don't know what you are referring to here as "unconstitutional over-reach" fed's can most definately withhold funding to sanctuary cities.
Clear as.day in the links I gave you.
And you would be wrong as usual.
What law old fool?