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

[Truth Detector]

Indeed it does apply to funding;
The states cannot be compelled...
Withholding funding is an attempt to compel

Yes they can be if they are in violation of Federal laws.

Dumbass.

[Truth Detector]

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.

[sear]

"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." DI #89

The spit hit the fan with Wickard v. Filburn.

[NOVA]

"tell me why sanctuary cities are constitutional.." a #69

a) Thanks for asking.

b) The short answer is Article Ten of our Bill of Rights.

c) Why should States or cities have to enforce federal law? You support unfunded federal mandates?

d) Municipalities have positive incentive to maintain social accord.
Thus instilling in residents of the jurisdiction fear of the police could degrade, not promote community.

(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....

[Truth Detector]

"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." DI #89

The spit hit the fan with Wickard v. Filburn.

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.

[Rune]

the 10th does not apply to immigration in that Congress has delegated those plenary powers to the executive.

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.

How does the 10th not apply to the executive?

LMFAO

[NOVA]

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.

The blatant hypocrisy of the lefties is mind-blowing....

[Rune]

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

[Rune]

(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....

Wrong fucktard.
States need not enforce federal laws period.
That is the feds job.

[NOVA]

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.....

[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/...=.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