Spicer: States will likely see 'greater enforcement' of federal law against rec mj

[Timshel]

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.....

I thought Roberts ruling was BS. But the anti commandeering doctrine is not relevant to it.

EDIT: Or at least, it is not relevant to the individual mandate tax/penalty. The medicaid expansion did raise some of those issues but was not ruled to violate anti commandeering doctrine because it was only related to new funds.

 

[anatta]

Cutting funding is exactly what Trump is doing to the sanctuary cities for non compliance with his demands. He is clearly going to lose on this. He is not only violating federalist principles he is assuming powers he does not have, that even congress does not have.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-on-sanctuary-cities/?utm_term=.c2cba190071d



Yes, federalism is about the division of power between federal, state and local governments. If you have some bizarre definition then state it but I don't need a civics or vocabulary lesson from an idiot like you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism

division of power ,balance of power. Of course. My point is federalism changes over time.
There is no "marblecake federalism"anymore. I doubt what we have can even be called co-operatative federalism lile during FDR's time.

The powers of the feds-mostly thru the advancing of the regulatory state have been growing since Reagan.
We don't even use just block grants anymore,like in housing where we tell locals where to put subsidized housing-
not just to create it. the point is left unchecked federal powers are like kudzu vine. They need to be constantly
checked -but there are still unambiguous powers that fall under the supremacy claue
++
It's an interesting opinion piece -i'm fairly sure that "withholding funds when states or localities violate federal laws and regulations" would be Constitutional..again many grants have compliance language.

For sure no one is arguing the feds' can withhold funding on a wholesale basis,
but they would be on firm ground where it's contractual.

Also those plenary powers of the executive on immigration are written by statute no matter how weird the 9th Appellate wants to interpret it.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Don't you ever get tired of being dead wrong about everything? All you offer up is false baloney.

It's obvious you miss a hell of a lot.

It's not a states rights issue? Really? And there aren't already 100,000 jobs in that industry? And it's not the will of the people in those states?

You don't even think when you post anymore. I get that it's a form of therapy for you to come here & spew nonsense, but enough of calling others moronic when you don't have any insight whatsoever, and actually think Trump is some sort of pillar of honesty. We've got some pretty hardcore hacks on here, but you're definitely going for the blue ribbon.

 

[sear]

"(1) State officials need not enforce federal laws that the state has determined to be unconstitutional" N #94

States do not determine what is Constitutional.
Our 12 circuit court may be distributed throughout the nation.
But that doesn't make them State courts. They are federal courts.
And while any one of them can have the latest word, it is SCOTUS that gets the last word, if it chooses to.

"nor may Congress mandate that states enact specific laws. But"

"Motor Voter"?

"(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"

It's not that simple.
Perhaps your intended point is that no State has the LEGAL authority to trump federal law.

BUT !!

In practice, Colorado is doing so at this very moment, on pot.
And know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not, admit it or not; if President Trump sent the 82nd Airborne division to Colorado to shut down their State-controlled marijuana commerce, it just might possibly end up with a full-blown insurrection.

"How does the 10th not apply to the executive?" R #96

10A addresses which government prevails in the State / federal hierarchy.
The exec is fully a third of U.S. federal government.
Thus, 10A MUST apply to the exec. where relevant.

 

[anatta]

How does the 10th not apply to the executive?
LMFAO

good gawd man

 

[Timshel]

division of power ,balance of power. Of course. My point is federalism changes over time.
There is no "marblecake federalism"anymore. I doubt what we have can even be called co-operatative federalism lile during FDR's time.

The powers of the feds-mostly thru the advancing of the regulatory state have been growing since Reagan.
We don't even use just block grants anymore,like in housing where we tell locals where to put subsidized housing-
not just to create it. the point is left unchecked federal powers are like kudzu vine. They need to be constantly
checked -but there are still unambiguous powers that fall under the supremacy claue
++
It's an interesting opinion piece -i'm fairly sure that "withholding funds when states or localities violate federal laws and regulations" would be Constitutional..again many grants have compliance language.

For sure no one is arguing the feds' can withhold funding on a wholesale basis,
but they would be on firm ground where it's contractual.

Also those plenary powers of the executive on immigration are written by statute no matter how weird the 9th Appellate wants to interpret it.

Your point was that...

Federalism isn't "states rights", and it isn't "local control" or any of the terms you mishmash together

Is clearly wrong. Of course, federalism is about those issues addressed by "states' rights" and/or local control.

That the balance of power changes has nothing to do with your inability to define the word.

It's not contractual here. You are making a bunch of bullshit excuses.... if if if. None of them apply and meanwhile you cheer his attacks on Federalism and his attempts to assume powers he does not possess.

No fucking statute over rules the constitution or can possibly give the President, Congress or anybody else an exemption from it. Congress has no power to grant the President any exemptions to the Constitution. Your plenary powers are bullshit. Certainly, the executive is afforded some deference but now way in hell is his power unqualified. Nothing in the constitution says it is or could be.

You are nothing but a fraud toting water for a wannabe dictator.

 

[Timshel]

good gawd man

How does it not apply to the President or the ability of congress to grant him new powers? You claim an exemption that does not exist anywhere. No statute can grant it.

 

[anatta]

ur point was that...
Is clearly wrong. Of course, federalism is about those issues addressed by "states' rights" and/or local control.

your inability to use standard definitions instead of shorthand "states rights" local control"
is problematic. you used "division of power" I agreed -and yet you comeback with these mishmash and tellme i'm wrong?
This is why it's absolutely useless debating you. your points are as firm as jello -and all you really want to do is argue in absurdum. Find someone else to play the circle game.

That the balance of power changes has nothing to do with your inability to define the word.

i defined it, i defined it over time, and i defined the fact it'd encroaching thru the regulatory state

It's not contractual here. You are making a bunch of bullshit excuses.... if if if. None of them apply and meanwhile

you cheer his attacks on Federalism and his attempts to assume powers he does not possess.

No fucking statute over rules the constitution or can possibly give the President, Congress or anybody else an exemption from it. Congress has no power to grant the President any exemptions to the Constitution. Your plenary powers are bullshit. Certainly, the executive is afforded some deference but now way in hell is his power unqualified. Nothing in the constitution says it is or could be.

You are nothing but a fraud toting water for a wannabe dictator.

Congress has granted statutory powers that are so wide they are plenary powers over immigration.

 

[Timshel]

your inability to use standard definitions instead of shorthand "states rights" local control"
is problematic. you used "division of power" I agreed -and yet you comeback with these mishmash and tellme i'm wrong?
This is why it's absolutely useless debating you. your points are as firm as jello -and all you really want to do is argue in absurdum. Find someone else to play the circle game.

i defined it, i defined it over time, and i defined the fact it'd encroaching thru the regulatory state

It's not contractual here. You are making a bunch of bullshit excuses.... if if if. None of them apply and meanwhile Congress has granted statutory powers that are so wide they are plenary powers over immigration.

My definition of federalism IS the standard definition! Yes, you are wrong. Federalism absolutely touches on those issues.

State whatever weird definition you want to use, jackass, and just STFU about it.

Congress cannot grant any unqualified powers to the executive through statute. No such power is granted to them by the constitution. Your attempts to destroy federalism and our republic by creating a dictatorship will have to come through an amendment.

 

[anatta]

My definition of federalism IS the standard definition! Yes, you are wrong. Federalism absolutely touches on those issues.

of course it "touches" but those words you were using are not a defininition -it's simplistic dumbed down wording to use "states rights".
It's pejorative, not accurate and should only be used in quotes like I did.

State whatever weird definition you want to use, jackass, and just STFU about it.

i have no idea what we practice now..we're past 'new federalism', I suppose the best definition is regulatory/administrative over-reach in to state affairs. as i've mentioned before.
But that does not mean there aren't enumerated powers of the feds on immigration and by statute.

how about "new and improved" federalism..lol. the Unitary president still has enumerated powers -it's that over-reach that is problematic.

Congress cannot grant any unqualified powers to the executive through statute. No such power is granted to them by the constitution. Your attempts to destroy federalism and our republic by creating a dictatorship will have to come through an amendment.

hyperbolic nonsense even from you

 

[sear]

"Congress has granted statutory powers that are so wide they are plenary powers over immigration." a #108

By some weak interpretation of text book notion perhaps.
But congress is a LEGISLATIVE body. They don't carry guns, Mace, and handcuffs and scurry around writing parking tickets.

If the U.S. federal government had infinite resources, then U.S. federal statutes might as well be the word of god.

But in practice, BECAUSE U.S. resources are finite, priorities are by necessity implemented in the enforcement of congress' statutes.
And unless enumerated in the statutory language, those priorities become the purview of, in this case, the president.

You don't need me to explain the equilibrium of "separation of powers". But as you know, an equilibrium is not static. It's a perpetual contest for authority.

Right now, on this issue, it seems like President Trump may be winning. But the fat lady ain't singin' yet.

 

[Timshel]

of course it "touches" but those words you were using are not a defininition -it's simplistic dumbed down wording to use "states rights".
It's pejorative, not accurate and should only be used in quotes like I did.

i have no idea what we practice now..we're past 'new federalism', I suppose the best definition is regulatory/administrative over-reach in to state affairs. as i've mentioned before.
But that does not mean there aren't enumerated powers of the feds on immigration and by statute.

how about "new and improved" federalism..lol. the Unitary president still has enumerated powers -it's that over-reach that is problematic.
hyperbolic nonsense even from you

FUCK OFF! I don't need instructions from someone as stupid as you on my word choices!

I did not use it as a definition, I mentioned those things in the same sentence because they are OBVIOUSLY related. Apparently, you did not know but it is a fact that federalism deals with issues raised by "states' rights" arguments and those concerning local control.

The only enumerated power in the constitution even related to immigration is granted to congress.

If congress could simply grant the President exemption from the tenth amendment it would absolutely destroy federalism.

You are a fraud. You apparently don't have the first clue what our Constitution says or what federalism is.

 

[Timshel]

But in practice, BECAUSE U.S. resources are finite, priorities are by necessity implemented in the enforcement of congress' statutes.And unless enumerated in the statutory language, those priorities become the purview of, in this case, the president.

Nope. The president cannot add any stipulations, congress has to enumerate them "unambiguously" in the statute and they have not.

Right now, on this issue, it seems like President Trump may be winning. But the fat lady ain't singin' yet.

He will definitely lose on this case. I am barely worried about it or I would have rasied the issue before.

 

[sear]

"Nope." DI #113

Yup.

"The president cannot add any stipulations" DI #113

"Stipulations"? I don't recall where that word was introduced into this discussion.

Your ostensibly corrective wording:
"congress has to enumerate them "unambiguously" in the statute and they have not." DI #113

My posted comment which you are ostensibly correcting:
".And unless enumerated in the statutory language, those priorities become the purview of, in this case, the president." s

There you go. You're agreeing with me, and pretending to correct me all in the same sentence fragment.

"congress has to enumerate them "unambiguously" in the statute and they have not." DI #113

Excellent!
Then please explain to us why:
a) Obama was able to adjust the standard from birth certificate designated gender to the gender self-identification standard, and

b) how Trump is now able to reverse it

yet the statutory language hasn't changed IN EITHER CASE !

You are ostensibly disagreeing with me, despite the wording of your post.
But the newspapers are proving me correct daily.

 

[anatta]

FUCK OFF! I don't need instructions from someone as stupid as you on my word choices!

I did not use it as a definition, I mentioned those things in the same sentence because they are OBVIOUSLY related. Apparently, you did not know but it is a fact that federalism deals with issues raised by "states' rights" arguments and those concerning local control.

The only enumerated power in the constitution even related to immigration is granted to congress.

If congress could simply grant the President exemption from the tenth amendment it would absolutely destroy federalism.

You are a fraud. You apparently don't have the first clue what our Constitution says or what federalism is.

as long as you put "states right" in quotes you are good. There is no such stand alone definition of states rights.

The only enumerated power in the constitution even related to immigration is granted to congress.

mindlessly ignorant to even bring this up. Congress delegates immigration authortty to POTUS, POTUS enforces by administrative law.

POTUS has wide latititude -look at DARPA by Obama. It just so happened Texas et all US
caught Obama up as "legislating".. Other then "legislating" POTUS powers are extensive.

It's not unreasonable to say that withholding funds on immigration related matters isn't Constitutional.
It depends on how they are drawn..

* you look so cute when you blow up *

 

[Timshel]

"Nope." DI #113

Yup.

"The president cannot add any stipulations" DI #113

"Stipulations"? I don't recall where that word was introduced into this discussion.

Your ostensibly corrective wording:
"congress has to enumerate them "unambiguously" in the statute and they have not." DI #113

My posted comment which you are ostensibly correcting:
".And unless enumerated in the statutory language, those priorities become the purview of, in this case, the president." s

There you go. You're agreeing with me, and pretending to correct me all in the same sentence fragment.

"congress has to enumerate them "unambiguously" in the statute and they have not." DI #113

Excellent!

I don't think I am answering with you but maybe I am wrong.

Your words suggests that the President can direct the priority of resource usage so long as Congress has not enumerated any priorities in the statute.

But in practice, BECAUSE U.S.resources are finite, priorities are by necessity implemented in the enforcement of congress' statutes.And unless enumerated in the statutory language, those priorities become the purview of, in this case, the president.

But that is not really the case. The President cannot set priorities by cutting funding based on non compliance with directives unless they are enumerated in the statue. If I am not disagreeing with you then ok but I still think your sentences are a bit misleading.

Then please explain to us why:
a) Obama was able to adjust the standard from birth certificate designated gender to the gender self-identification standard, and

b) how Trump is now able to reverse it

yet the statutory language hasn't changed IN EITHER CASE !

You are ostensibly disagreeing with me, despite the wording of your post.
But the newspapers are proving me correct daily.

a) I assume you are asking in relation to the the bathroom issues... I don't know what his basis for that was but I am guessing it is title IX. I can look deeper but title IX gives the feds the power to cut funding for gender discrimination.

b) Trump can reverse any EO.

 

[Timshel]

as long as you put "states right" in quotes you are good. There is no such stand alone definition of states rights.

States' rights. States' rights. States' rights....

I usually put the term "states' rights" in quotes because the concept is utter bullshit (states do not have rights). IDK, why you insist on them but I am guessing it's based on your ignorance of the language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/577/01/

mindlessly ignorant to even bring this up. Congress delegates immigration authortty to POTUS, POTUS enforces by administrative law.

No, most immigration law is set in statute not through administrative law.

If congress must delegate to the Prez then that is obviously not a plenary or unquestioned power and Congress certainly cannot grant exemption to the tenth.

POTUS has wide latititude -look at DARPA by Obama. It just so happened Texas et all US
caught Obama up as "legislating".. Other then "legislating" POTUS powers are extensive.

Spending is clearly a legislative power.

It's not unreasonable to say that withholding funds on immigration related matters isn't Constitutional.
It depends on how they are drawn..

* you look so cute when you blow up *

??? Your triple negative makes your meaning a little hard to determine. Did you mean...

It's reasonable to say that withholding funds on immigration related matters is Constitutional.

It has to be related to immigration and it has to be done by congress.


Please, take a break from attacking our democracy and take a refresher course in the English language, comrade. LOL

 

[anatta]

States' rights. States' rights. States' rights....

I usually put the term "states' rights" in quotes because the concept is utter bullshit (states do not have rights). IDK, why you insist on them but I am guessing it's based on your ignorance of the language.

fantastic..keep up the quotes,and you'll get no corrections from myself

No, most immigration law is set in statute not through administrative law.

*duh* It's enforced thru administrative law -exactly what I said, yet you fail to comprehend,or reactively disagree

If congress must delegate to the Prez then that is obviously not a plenary or unquestioned power and Congress certainly cannot grant exemption to the tenth.

why you keep going on and on is not my concern.
POTUS has wide discressionary power -so long as it's not effectively legislating enforcement
again see Tx et all v US

Spending is clearly a legislative power.

.....you are flat lining..when discresionary enforcement becomes much more then simple "prosecutorial discretion" it is in fact legislating..spending has nothing to do with it

??? Your triple negative makes your meaning a little hard to determine. Did you mean...

by anatta
It's not unreasonable to say that withholding funds on immigration related matters isn't Constitutional.

It has to be related to immigration and it has to be done by congress.

you miss the idea that POTUS can enjoin funding to states who do not conform to administrative guidelines.
Obama was threatening the exact same thing with his "guidance" on bathroom law.

 

[sear]

" The President cannot set priorities by cutting funding based on non compliance with directives unless they are enumerated in the statue. " DI #116

Congress controls the $purse $strings.

BUT !!

If congress appropriates $X.xx for ICE, the president has some influence on HOW that $X.xx is spent.

For example, Obama reportedly deported more illegal aliens in 8 years than Bush did in 8 years.

BUT !!

Obama's priority was to deport those with records of violent crime, rather than tax paying soccer Moms that happened to not have documentation.

 

[sear]

PS

The thread topic is rec mj. I'll try to steer it back there.

"..when discresionary enforcement becomes much more then simple "prosecutorial discretion" it is in fact legislating..spending has nothing to do with it" a #118

It's all up & down the line.
Do prosecutors have discretion? SURE!

Do the front-line troops (local State & federal law enforcers) have discretion? SURE!

Does everyone else in the chain have discretion? OF COURSE!

BUT !!

It's the president that has policy discretion, more so than the DEA agent with the handcuffs tucked into the utility belt of his uniform.