Texas governor says he will ban sanctuary cities

PostmodernProphet said:
really?......is that why no state police give Miranda warnings?.......is that why NYC policemen can arrest UN delegates?.....the cities and states cannot IGNORE federal law......

cite me these four cases.....
Click to expand...
http://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/commandeering-and-constitutional-change and

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/201...ave-to-comply-the-anti-comandeering-doctrine/

Laws passed in pursuance of the Constitution do stand as the supreme law of the land. But that doesn’t in any way imply the federal government lords over everything and everybody in America.
First off, as James Madison asserted in Federalist 45, the powers of the federal government are “few and defined.” So federal power actually extends into only a few spheres. Most power and authority was left to the states and the people.
Second, even within those areas that the federal government does exercise authority, it cannot force state or local governments to cooperate in enforcement or implementation. The feds must exercise their authority on their own, unless the state and local governments choose to assist.
Simply put, the federal government cannot force state or local governments to act against their will.
This is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine, and it is well established in constitutional jurisprudence. Four Supreme Court opinions dating back to 1842 serve as the foundation for this legal doctrine.
In Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), Justice Joseph Story held that the federal government could not force states to implement or carry out the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. He said that it was a federal law, and the federal government ultimately had to enforce it.
The fundamental principle applicable to all cases of this sort, would seem to be, that where the end is required, the means are given; and where the duty is enjoined, the ability to perform it is contemplated to exist on the part of the functionaries to whom it is entrusted. The clause is found in the national Constitution, and not in that of any state. It does not point out any state functionaries, or any state action to carry its provisions into effect. The states cannot, therefore, be compelled to enforce them; and it might well be deemed an unconstitutional exercise of the power of interpretation, to insist that the states are bound to provide means to carry into effect the duties of the national government, nowhere delegated or instrusted to them by the Constitution.
​
In the early 90s, the state of New York sued the federal government asserting provisions in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 were coercive and violated its sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. The Court majority in New York v. United States (1992) agreed, holding that “because the Act’s take title provision offers the States a ‘choice’ between the two unconstitutionally coercive alternatives–either accepting ownership of waste or regulating according to Congress’ instructions–the provision lies outside Congress’ enumerated powers and is inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment.”
Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the majority in the 6-3 decision.
As an initial matter, Congress may not simply “commandee[r] the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program.”
​
She later expounded on this point.
While Congress has substantial powers to govern the Nation directly, including in areas of intimate concern to the States, the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions.
​
O’Connor argues that standing alone, both options offered to the State of New York for dealing with radioactive waste in the act represented an unconstitutional overreach. Therefore, forcing the state to choose between the two is also unconstitutional.
A choice between two unconstitutionally coercive regulatory techniques is no choice at all. Either way, “the Act commandeers the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program.”
​
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.
​
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.
The legitimacy of Congress’s exercise of the spending power “thus rests on whether the State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of the ‘contract.’ ” Pennhurst, supra, at 17. Respecting this limitation is critical to ensuring that Spending Clause legislation does not undermine the status of the States as independent sovereigns in our federal system. That system “rests on what might at first seem a counterintuitive insight, that ‘freedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one.’ ” Bond, 564 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8) (quoting Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 758 (1999) ). For this reason, “the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions.” New York, supra, at 162. Otherwise the two-government system established by the Framers would give way to a system that vests power in one central government, and individual liberty would suffer.
​
Taken together, these four cases firmly establish a legal doctrine holding that the federal government has no authority to force states to cooperate in implementing or enforcing its acts. Even lawyers cannot dispute the legitimacy of nullification through noncooperation.
 
domer76 said:
Not their jurisdiction to enforce it.
Click to expand...

So....by this logic....if a criminal robs a federally insured bank (an illegal)....the states and local police have no authority to arrest that criminal because its the fed's responsibility? Really? FYI: A law is a law...regardless of its source of origin, if any certified law enforcement officer confronts a federally pursued criminal, regardless of jurisdiction...its a public and civil duty to arrest that known and identified criminal. Do not confuse the language concerning "probable cause" and jurisdiction. Its the duty of any law enforcement agency to arrest any criminal....its the duty of the Judicial branch to litigate circumstances of that arrest.

If the states have no authority of arrest....why the federal law suit against the state of Az.? To prove that you're further full of BS. What exactly did the court rule when Az. sued over the federal v. states in relation to enforcing immigration law? 567 US. The court ruled that sections 3, 5(C) and 6 of S.B. 1070 of that state law preempted federal law....BUT......left other parts of the law intact. Among those parts? A provision of that STATE LAW that allows state agencies to investigate a person's "immigration status". If any criminal crosses a state line....a sovereign border protected by both a Constitution and Common Law....that state has the inherent right of self protection to confront that criminal element.

There is no such thing as "choosing" which laws to enforce and which one's not to enforce. That's what the Constitution did.....it made ONE UNION from the many states for one specific and primary reason....NATIONAL DEFENSE and the COMMON WELFARE (common among the states). In other words the UNION was designed to do those things that each individual state was incapable of doing alone...first and foremost that Union was designed for DEFENSE against any and all common threats.


FYI: The executive offices duty (POTUS) is to ENFORCE LAW...not make new law, tweak law, or pick and chose which law they "feel" is good and which one they "feel" is not good and therefore not worth enforcing. Executive...literally means TO EXECUTE a DUTY. The only place laws can be tweaked or drafted in not in the WHITE HOUSE but in Congress. In this nation all laws, both state and federal must be representative of the PEOPLE'S will not the Presidents...unilateral will.

A federal law does one thing...it makes the criminal OPEN GAME for any and all law enforcement agencies regardless of what state line that criminal might navigate. No law enforcement agency has to concern themselves with "JURISDICTION"....that is unless you opine that some states are not part of that UNION the constitution was designed to protect.
 
Last edited:
Rune said:
Prigg v. Pennsylvania
Click to expand...

This case stated that Pennsylvania was in error when it passed a law contradictory to federal law.....not only does it not prohibit states from enforcing immigration laws, it overturned a case where the state attempted to prevent federal law from being enforced.....
 
Rune said:
NEW YORK v. UNITED STATES et al
Click to expand...

this is a SCOTUS case......first, let me point out that if you are saying the states have the prerogative to defy federal law it might not be a good idea to cite as an authority a case where the state sought PERMISSION from a federal court to act......this case involved two contradictory federal laws. The state brought action arguing that obviously they could not comply with both......the SC concluded that BOTH were unconstitutional. It does not necessarily follow that states are not required to follow federal laws.
 
Rune said:
JAY PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA, PETITIONER 95-1478 v. UNITED STATES RICHARD MACK, PETITIONER 95-1503
Click to expand...

It would appear that your error lies in not recognizing the difference between a state taking affirmative action to enforce a federal law and a state refusing to comply with a federal law.
 
Rune said:
Show us
Don't tell us.
By the way you are comepletely incorrect.
Click to expand...

The 10A says any power not given to the feds nor denied to the states is reserved to the states or the people. Re immigration, the constitution gives congress power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization". So that's all they have. Everything else re immigration is a state matter.
 
danielpalos said:
Article 1, Section 9 declares immigration to be a federal purview and no longer a States' right.
Click to expand...

Is this what you are referring to

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

So up to 1808, the states are free to admit any immigrant they wish. What happens after 1808? It doesn't say so what are you talking about.?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
any city that harbors illegal aliens should have their mayors and entire city council arrested for harboring fugitives from justice.
Click to expand...

A better idea is to charge them with violating section 1324 of title 8 of the US code which makes it a federal felony to encourage illegals to live in america.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
stop wasting our time......states MUST do what the federal laws order them to do......everything else is just bullshit.....
Click to expand...

since the federal government has become lawless and unlawful; it is the responsibility of we the people to just say no to unlawful lawlessness and disorder. in a constitutional republic, we are responsible. we do not have a king or caesar. we are responsible for our testimonies. accounting day soon. the most high court will eventually soon judge us according to our testimonies as concerning The Lord Jesus Christ and His revealed will. on earth as in heaven. it is good.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top