Anti-Commandeering: The Legal Basis for Refusing to Participate

Rune said:
This is why Trump cannot withhold funding in an attempt to compel local officials to enforce federal law.
The 10th amendment directly prohibits it.

That the Justice Department is making this threat is an indictment of Sessions ability to carry out his duties.
Click to expand...

You keep saying it's attempting to compel local officials. I say it's nothing more than withholding money.
 
Rune said:
Equal treatment under the law for all.

The law in question is the state law.
Click to expand...

Funny how you morons on the left constantly talk about equal treatment under the law then support all sorts of programs that put certain groups above others.
 
Rune said:
why are they withholding the money?
Click to expand...

I don't really care whether those local traitor governments want to protect criminals that sneak into the country. As long as they don't get the money if they do it, that's fine with me. That means it isn't to compel. I say it's to punish and am perfectly OK if those selling out their own country have to do without.
 
NOVA said:
Not when Obama does it if the schools don't serve the kids the meals dictated by Michelle....:good4u:
Click to expand...

Obama threatened to do it over transgender access if LOCAL schools didn't comply with federal law. Strange how Rune doesn't address how that violates the 10th Amendment.
 
NOVA said:
Not when Obama does it if the schools don't serve the kids the meals dictated by Michelle....:good4u:
Click to expand...

It's not illegal if the state is being funded for a specific purpose but refuses to comply.
There is no federal funding for the states for immigration enforcement, which is the origin of the sanctuary state issue.

Localities were told to house and feed illegals until ICE picked them up. They then routinely left then to rot in local jails and become a financial burden to the localities.
 
CFM said:
Obama threatened to do it over transgender access if LOCAL schools didn't comply with federal law. Strange how Rune doesn't address how that violates the 10th Amendment.
Click to expand...
I did address this twice, myopic man.
On this page no less.
 
Rune said:
It's not illegal if the state is being funded for a specific purpose but refuses to comply.
There is no federal funding for the states for immigration enforcement, which is the origin of the sanctuary state issue.

Localities were told to house and feed illegals until ICE picked them up. They then routinely left then to rot in local jails and become a financial burden to the localities.
Click to expand...

If they truly let those piece of shit illegals rot like they should, there is no cost.

I see your double standard. Obama does it, OK. Trump does it, wrong.

Truly a NL.
 
CFM said:
I don't really care whether those local traitor governments want to protect criminals that sneak into the country. As long as they don't get the money if they do it, that's fine with me. That means it isn't to compel. I say it's to punish and am perfectly OK if those selling out their own country have to do without.
Click to expand...
The threat is to withhold if they don't comply.

Done with your stupidity.
 
Rune said:
OK, I see this is a little too complex for you.

I will try once more to explain it to you.
They can withhold money that was funded to pay for their demands, if you refuse their demands. They can only withhold monies specifically aimed at the federal interest.
General funds cannot be withheld.
Are you starting to get it?

Since the Feds do not fund the states for immigration enforcement, they cannot withhold funds when the states (rightly) choose to not enforce federal laws. This is called the anti-commandeering doctrine of the 10th amendment. It has been upheld numerous times by the SCOTUS, and the concept dates to the founding.
At issue is a too strong central government, surely something you should be concerned with.
Click to expand...

It is not settled law.

"This “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."
 
Rune said:
It's not illegal if the state is being funded for a specific purpose but refuses to comply.
There is no federal funding for the states for immigration enforcement, which is the origin of the sanctuary state issue.

Localities were told to house and feed illegals until ICE picked them up. They then routinely left then to rot in local jails and become a financial burden to the localities.
Click to expand...

You would do better to argue the legality of denying federal grants and funding. Because the states who don't comply will get theirs cut off.
 
Rune said:
OK, I see this is a little too complex for you.

I will try once more to explain it to you.
They can withhold money that was funded to pay for their demands, if you refuse their demands. They can only withhold monies specifically aimed at the federal interest.
General funds cannot be withheld.
Are you starting to get it?

Since the Feds do not fund the states for immigration enforcement, they cannot withhold funds when the states (rightly) choose to not enforce federal laws. This is called the anti-commandeering doctrine of the 10th amendment. It has been upheld numerous times by the SCOTUS, and the concept dates to the founding.
At issue is a too strong central government, surely something you should be concerned with.
Click to expand...

"A separate constitutional doctrine, the anti-coercion doctrine, likewise won’t shield sanctuaries. This doctrine holds that while Congress may impose conditions on receipt of federal funds, it cannot coerce states into accepting those conditions.

In the 1980s, Congress passed a law withholding 5% of highway funds from any state that refused to adopt a minimum drinking age of 21. The Supreme Court, in South Dakota v. Dole (1987), upheld it. Because highway funds are expended — in part — to ensure safe travel, the court reasoned that raising the drinking age was “relevant to the federal interest in the project and the overall objectives thereof.” More significantly, withholding 5% of federal funds wasn’t coercive because while it represented a loss of $615 million dollars, it was only 0.19% of states’ total budgets."

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-rivkin-foley-sanctuary-city-20161207-story.html
 
Rune said:
OK, I see this is a little too complex for you.

I will try once more to explain it to you.
They can withhold money
Click to expand...

"Provided the percentage withheld didn’t approach the 20% threshold, it should be constitutional. As with the highway funds in South Dakota, these programs are designed in part to improve safety of campuses and communities. This goal would be furthered by withholding funds from cities and universities that provide sanctuary for criminals present in the country illegally. Such individuals, by definition, not only are unvetted by the federal government, but have committed crimes while here."

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-rivkin-foley-sanctuary-city-20161207-story.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top