Indeed it does apply to funding;
The states cannot be compelled...
Withholding funding is an attempt to compel
Spicer: States will likely see 'greater enforcement' of federal law against rec mj
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
Indeed it does apply to funding;
The states cannot be compelled...
Withholding funding is an attempt to compel
Good lord; a pair of dumbasses parroting the leftist talking points they've been stupidly fed.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The notion that the President does not have the authority to decide who can, or cannot come into the country or enforce our immigration laws is the realm of lunacy that infests the Liberal Left.
You cannot violate our Federal laws by providing sanctuary to ILLEGAL immigrants who are breaking the law simply by being here....ILLEGALLY.
No amount of stupidity, whining, bullshit or bloviating can change that fact and it certainly is NOT a states right to ignore Federal immigration laws.
Dunces.
Wrong again BillyBlob; States do not have the right to ignore or violate Federal laws intended to keep our nation safe or control immigration into the nation.
Dunce.
Either Liberals are really stupid and ignorant, or just outright liars and hypocrites.
Bull fucking shit. No where in the Constitution does it state the President may ignore the rest of the constitution in the field of immigration. Congress cannot grant them the power. They don't have the power themselves to ignore the constitution.
The constitution does not even mention immigration and the power to establish uniform rules of naturalization is granted to congress.
The executive branch cannot withhold funding. Congress is limited...
"the 10th does not apply to immigration in that Congress has delegated those plenary powers to the executive." a #75
a)
And while I'm no authority on the matter, I don't recall reading a lot of historical accounts about 18th century immigration standards in the U.S.
They seem to be pretty much a legal afterthought.
In any case, for reason of the exact wording of Amendment #10 quoted above, and the literal legal meaning of them, I believe your comment in #75 is incorrect.
"There might be some grey zones on cooperating with ICE. I don't think so -but say there is.
That still allows the feds to withhold funding -there is no question about that."
Unquestionably.
Isn't that the kind of federal over-reach that lead to Fort Sumpter?
Trump is full of %$#@ !!
Trump promised to drain the swamp, to REDUCE federal regulation, etc.
And now, his remedy for this non-problem is $economic anal retentalism? Can you say: "bait & switch"?
Republicans criticized Obama for not shutting down Gitmo.
That was small potatoes compared to this.
a)
b) I just did a global character string search for "immigr" with our amended Constitution and got a grand total of zero hits.
And while I'm no authority on the matter, I don't recall reading a lot of historical accounts about 18th century immigration standards in the U.S.
They seem to be pretty much a legal afterthought.
In any case, for reason of the exact wording of Amendment #10 quoted above, and the literal legal meaning of them, I believe your comment in #75 is incorrect.
"There might be some grey zones on cooperating with ICE. I don't think so -but say there is.
That still allows the feds to withhold funding -there is no question about that."
Unquestionably.
Isn't that the kind of federal over-reach that lead to Fort Sumpter?
Trump is full of %$#@ !!
Trump promised to drain the swamp, to REDUCE federal regulation, etc.
And now, his remedy for this non-problem is $economic anal retentalism? Can you say: "bait & switch"?
Republicans criticized Obama for not shutting down Gitmo.
That was small potatoes compared to this.
Wrong again DickTard; he is not cutting funding based on "his demands" you glaring idiot. They are based on OUR LAWS. Yes DickTard, we actually have a President who is interested in ENFORCING our laws and ensuring that leftist states and cities who have been ignoring them and flaunting them for decades pay a price if they continue ignoring them.
He is clearly going to WIN this regardless of the efforts of leftist dimwitted jurists who may not like it and he has the CONSTITUTIONAL right to enforce those laws and force compliance with them.
Otherwise, we might as well shred the constitution and ALL laws because, unfortunately for leftTards like you, you cannot just pick and choose which laws you like and wish to comply with.
Liberals are the dumbest assholes on the planet without a doubt.
Only a Liberal dumbfuck can claim that illegal immigration is a non-problem. You liberals really are as stupid as you look.
Dunce.
It certainly does. You are clueless. You can't even define federalism. GTFO here you fraud.
As the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. United States, the purpose of the anti-commandeering doctrine is the “[p]reservation of the States as independent and autonomous political entities.” That independence and autonomy is massively undermined if the federal government can take away the states’ power to decide what state and local officials may do while on the job. As Scalia put it in the same opinion, federal law violates the Tenth Amendment if it “requires [state employees] to provide information that belongs to the State and is available to them only in their official capacity.” The same is true if, as in the case of Section 1373, the federal government tries to prevent states from controlling their employees’ use of information that “is available to them only in their official capacity.”
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/201...ave-to-comply-the-anti-comandeering-doctrine/
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.
The states do not have the right to ignore ANY federal law....PERIOD.
The law concerning mj is a federal law....
Obama had 8 years to change that law and didn't ..... why, all of sudden is it Trump, Trump, Trump....
Trump said he will enforce the Constitutional laws of the land as is his duty....as it is every presidents duty.
He has no authority to pick and choose which laws he will enforce and which he will ignore as you've seen Obama do....Obama thought he was the law unto himself,
he is the one that broke the law and didn't hold to the oath he took as president....not Trump.
From DickTard:
As Scalia put it in the same opinion, federal law violates the Tenth Amendment if it “requires [state employees] to provide information that belongs to the State and is available to them only in their official capacity.” The same is true if, as in the case of Section 1373, the federal government tries to prevent states from controlling their employees’ use of information that “is available to them only in their official capacity.”
I bolded the relevant statement from Scalia; the notion that Liberals can comprehend the written word is almost as hysterical as claiming they know what is contained in the Constitution, which they attempt to shred each and every day.
States have an obligation to comply with Federal laws regarding immigration and they violate those laws when they declare they are sanctuaries to those who are breaking the laws.
Dear retards in liberal leftist states like California; you can ignore the laws. The Feds can also cut off funding as a result of you ignoring them.
As Scalia put it in the same opinion, federal law violates the Tenth Amendment if it “requires [state employees] to provide information that belongs to the State and is available to them only in their official capacity.” The same is true if, as in the case of Section 1373, the federal government tries to prevent states from controlling their employees’ use of information that “is available to them only in their official capacity.”
I bolded the relevant statement from Scalia; the notion that Liberals can comprehend the written word is almost as hysterical as claiming they know what is contained in the Constitution, which they attempt to shred each and every day.
States have an obligation to comply with Federal laws regarding immigration and they violate those laws when they declare they are sanctuaries to those who are breaking the laws.
Dear retards in liberal leftist states like California; you can ignore the laws. The Feds can also cut off funding as a result of you ignoring them.
(1) State officials need not enforce federal laws that the state has determined to be unconstitutional; nor may Congress mandate that states enact specific laws. But
(2), states may not block federal authorities who attempt to enforce a federal law unless a court has held that the law is unconstitutional. And
(3), individuals are not exempt from prosecution by the federal government just because the state where they reside has legalized an activity or pronounced that a federal law is unconstitutional; if convicted, individuals can attempt to vindicate their constitutional rights in court.
The pertinent word being 'enforce'.....
If there is a question of a laws constitutionality, take it to the Supreme Court and settle the matter there....
I find these specious and false claims coming from Liberals ironic in that they were fine when the Feds Obama Care compelled states to comply with it and the threat of non-funding. Hell, the law even mandates ALL citizens pay for health care or be subsidized and if not, forced to pay a fine and into the plan.
You people are stupid on steroids.
Apples and watermelons trash bag
Why do you think the Supreme Court went out of their way to change the Obama care law...."forced to pay a fine and into the plan".....
Obama's lawyers insisted on this 'fine'.....Roberts went out of his way to help them.....
Forcing to pay a 'fine' into the plan was obviously unconstitutional.....so the Supreme Court interpreted "fine" to be an additional TAX on those without health care....making
that requirement legal, as the power of the government to tax is constitutional.....