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

[Timshel]

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

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

Did you not understand my noncompliance, comrade dumbfuck? Again, I use the quotes to signify that the concept is nonsense. I am not sure why you are doing it, but it seems that you are misunderstanding some grammatical rule.

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

Because you clearly fucked it, up comrade. Let's look at your claim again.

Congress delegates immigration authortty to POTUS, POTUS enforces by administrative law.

This clearly seems to imply that congress has delegated all power to the executive and just leaves it at that. That's not how it happens. Congress delegates through legislation and the President has to follow that. Administrative law set by the President is not at all a necessary part and his powers there are very limited.

This is your response to the fact that the constitution grants no plenary power, unitary power or power period to the President in regards to immigration. Congress certainly cannot grant him exemptions to the constitution in that field.

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

.....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

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.

Dumbass, I did not quote the Texas case or say it was about spending. It's also not the only relevant precedent.

Again, spending, which is not a power of the President, is absolutely related to the anti commandeering doctrine.

I already told you, I don't agree with Obama's guidelines entirely but he may have the power under Title IX. Trump has no power/authority to do what he is trying to do.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/li...s/tix_dis.html

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

[BRUTALITOPS]

He did almost nothing to stop it, at least not after his first few years, and I doubt Hillary would have attempted to reverse his later policies. She couldn't have afforded to politically. I am not sure Donald can but thanks to Republican voters and dicksuckers like you, he might.


You are such a fraud. I think it is hilarious that you think there is equivalence between telling states to accommodate trans people and continuing the violent drug war in those states that have legalized it. It's not close to equivalent. One is a clear violation of individual liberty and clearly an attempt to further a national police state and the other is a directive to government agents to be nice to students. You don't give a shit about states' rights.

What the fuck are you talking about idiot? I never said they are equivalent I just said they take a hypocritical stance

[anatta]

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

Did you not understand my noncompliance, comrade dumbfuck? Again, I use the quotes to signify that the concept is nonsense. I am not sure why you are doing it, but it seems that you are misunderstanding some grammatical rule.

i do not care what you comply or non-comply with. States rights is meaningless/.
"States rights" is as least acceptable -it's much like using (sic) although there is no reference here.
Why you continue to debate/demonstrate this with yourself it's my concern.
All I careabout is not using the phrase when referring to federalism

This clearly seems to imply that congress has delegated all power to the executive and just leaves it at that. That's not how it happens. Congress delegates through legislation and the President has to follow that. Administrative law set by the President is not at all a necessary part and his powers there are very limited.

here you go with your inferrals. Congress has delegated almost all powers on the travel ban-
not so much on internal immigration enforcement in the US -but still a wide latitude. Catch and release was done by Obama,and now Trump over turned it for example. nobody is saying Trump c nnot do this ( maybe you)
The temporary travel ban
is clearly in his wheelhouse - but the XO has to be written to exclude US citizens or aliens with green cards.
Not having excluded those got him into the courts. now the idiotic 9th is questioning his authority here
when it's clear he has that power..

This is your response to the fact that the constitution grants no plenary power, unitary power or power period to the President in regards to immigration. Congress certainly cannot grant him exemptions to the constitution in that field.

Dumbass, I did not quote the Texas case or say it was about spending.

your language is horribly disconnected then you rail when I I point it out. Look what you wrote- simplistic crap that "legislating is spending"

Again, spending, which is not a power of the President, is absolutely related to the anti commandeering doctrine.

I already told you, I don't agree with Obama's guidelines entirely but he may have the power under Title IX. Trump has no power/authority to do what he is trying to do.

Trump Can Cut off funds for sanctuary cities
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...207-story.html
his “anti-commandeering” doctrine, however, doesn’t protect sanctuary cities or public universities — because it doesn’t apply when Congress merely requests information. For example, in Reno v. Condon (2000), the Court unanimously rejected an anti-commandeering challenge to the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, which required states under certain circumstances to disclose some personal details about license holders. The court concluded that, because the DPPA requested information and “did not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes,” it was consistent with the New York and Printz cases.

[Timshel]

here you go with your inferrals. Congress has delegated almost all powers on the travel ban-
not so much on internal immigration enforcement in the US -but still a wide latitude. Catch and release was done by Obama,and now Trump over turned it for
example. nobody is saying Trump c nnot do this ( maybe you)

The temporary travel ban
is clearly in his wheelhouse - but the XO has to be written to exclude US citizens or aliens with green cards.
Not having excluded those got him into the courts. now the idiotic 9th is questioning his authority here
when it's clear he has that power..

We are not talking about the travel ban??? But no they have not delegated all powers to him there and again they can't possibly grant him exemptions to any part of the Constitution (the 1st or 5th are being raised).


Learn to use the quote function.

[Rune]

good gawd man

Answer my direct question zipperhead.
You are so fucking wtrong on this.

[anatta]

We are not talking about the travel ban??? But no they have not delegated all powers to him there and again they can't possibly grant him exemptions to any part of the Constitution (the 1st or 5th are being raised).


Learn to use the quote function.

(8 U.S.C. §1182(f)https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182


The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty … inherent in the executive power,” the Supreme Court said in 1950. And lest there be doubt, Congress adopted a provision in 1952 saying the president “may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants” whenever he thinks it “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.

[Timshel]

(8 U.S.C. §1182(f)https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182


The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty … inherent in the executive power,” the Supreme Court said in 1950. And lest there be doubt, Congress adopted a provision in 1952 saying the president “may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants” whenever he thinks it “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.

Why are you trying to change the subject?

There is no exemption to the Constitution. His EO is reviewable on constitutional grounds.

LOL, you quoted an article that clearly disagrees with you but left that part out...

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...206-story.html


“The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty … inherent in the executive power,” the Supreme Court said in 1950. And lest there be doubt, Congress adopted a provision in 1952 saying the president “may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants” whenever he thinks it “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Typically, legal experts say, the president would almost certainly win a legal fight involving national security and foreign citizens entering the country.

But the rollout of this executive order has been far from the norm. Trump’s campaign promise to impose a Muslim ban, his recent tweets attacking the GOP-appointed judge who ruled against him and the White House’s clumsy handling of the order’s implementation may change the calculation.

“The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned,” Trump tweeted Saturday. “Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system,” he tweeted Sunday.


Jack Goldsmith, a national security lawyer in the Bush administration and professor at Harvard Law School, predicted Trump’s tweets “will certainly backfire” against him.


“The tweets will make it very, very hard for courts in the short term to read immigration and constitutional law, as they normally would, with significant deference to the president’s broad delegated powers from Congress and to the president’s broad discretion in foreign relations,” Goldsmith wrote Monday on the Lawfare blog.


Temple University law professor Peter Spiro agreed the court may look differently at the case. The “path of least resistance would be for the Supreme Court to steer clear of the controversy for now. It could simply refuse to hear an emergency appeal from a 9th Circuit ruling in the case,” he said Monday. “Even though the Supreme Court has been extremely deferential to presidential decision-making relating to immigration in the past, I don’t think they will be here.”

[Timshel]

annata is an idiot. Use your own words, quote things that agree with you or just provide the entire source honestly, comrade scumbag dumbfuck!

[anatta]

Why are you trying to change the subject?

There is no exemption to the Constitution. His EO is reviewable on constitutional grounds.

LOL, you quoted an article that clearly disagrees with you but left that part out...

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...206-story.html


“The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty … inherent in the executive power,” the Supreme Court said in 1950. And lest there be doubt, Congress adopted a provision in 1952 saying the president “may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants” whenever he thinks it “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”


Typically, legal experts say, the president would almost certainly win a legal fight involving national security and foreign citizens entering the country.


But the rollout of this executive order has been far from the norm. Trump’s campaign promise to impose a Muslim ban, his recent tweets attacking the GOP-appointed judge who ruled against him and the White House’s clumsy handling of the order’s implementation may change the calculation.

it doesn't "disagree" it says it was handled poorly -the same thing I said. It also says Trump is on sound Constitutional ground.. why do you throw around red herrings like "his XO is reviewable" it was a stupid thing for the solicitor to say -but the point here that Robart COMPLETELY IGNORED this statute in his ruling as did the 9th.

And I've already demonstrated your WaPO article is biased ( now there is a surprise ) speculation.The LA Times article bypasses much of it in clear terms .

You are such a colossal waste of time.you post like a schizophrenic..throwing in statements without attribution,and then when called on it go on to something else..

[Timshel]

it doesn't "disagree" it says it was handled poorly -the same thing I said. It also says Trump is on sound Constitutional ground.. why do you throw around red herrings like "his XO is reviewable" it was a stupid thing for the solicitor to say -but the point here that Robart COMPLETELY IGNORED this statute in his ruling as did the 9th.

And I've already demonstrated your WaPO article is biased ( now there is a surprise ) speculation.The LA Times article bypasses much of it in clear terms .

You are such a colossal waste of time.you post like a schizophrenic..throwing in statements without attribution,and then when called on it go on to something else..

Yes, it does, DUMBFUCK! It clearly indicates that the EO is reviewable which disagrees with your claims that the President is exempt from the tenth or the constitution in regards to immigration acts.

Whether it is reviewable is no red herring. You have claimed it is not. Do you even know what "reviewable" means or that you were suggesting the other EO's violation of the tenth is not reviewable?

It is obvious that you don't know what you are talking about, comrade. You need to go back for more training as your cover has been blown.

The WaPo article cited facts and court precedent. That it does not agree with you does not allow you to escape the points raised.

You have not called me on a single point. You are just stupid or you need more work on the language comrade because this is apparently sailing over your head.

[CFM]

Sucks, too - the states that have legalized recreational are all basically blue states. No clout, no power; the feds don't care about backlash in those areas.

I can't stand this admin.

Are you saying federal laws should't be enforced?

They can't stand you. Difference is they are doing something that you don't like and you aren't doing anything but crying like a pussy.

[Rune]

Poor anatta
What a loser.

[Althea]

And yet, every hard drug addict that gets interviewed, will state that they began with using pot. That being said, end the drug war. Boys will be boys, and retarded proles will be retarded proles.

Yep....and they all started before that with mother's milk.

[Phantasmal]

Actually, aren't cigarettes or alcohol their first experience before marijuana. I would like to see if those substances were in play first, because I smoked cigarettes and drank before I smoked pot.

[Althea]

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

Yes...didn't we see that with the original Medicaid expansion ruling?