Anti-Commandeering: The Legal Basis for Refusing to Participate

Bigdog said:
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."
Click to expand...

Congress isn't requesting info but thanks for playing.
In case you didn't notice the Dept. of Justice is threatening to withhold funds
 
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...

So there's never been anytime where funds were threatened to be withheld, to get a State to comply??

Like maybe over speed limits??

:dealwithit:
 
Rune said:
One more time for the slow among us.

The Fedral Gov. cannot force the states to enforce Federal laws.
This is clear as day. It has nothing to do with Trump.
Click to expand...

So there's never been anytime where funds were threatened to be withheld, to get a State to comply??

Like maybe over speed limits??

:dealwithit:
 
Bigdog said:
"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
Click to expand...

Whatever Rune, we'll have to wait for the courts to settle the issues.

The courts will find priority in national security and safety issues that will override any of your objections.
 
Last edited:
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...

Because it's only against the Constitution, when it goes AGAINST something the liberal snowflakes want or support.
 
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...

This doesn't make any sense. You're really reaching.
 
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...

In other words, Obama could do it and it was OK with you.

Hypocritical coward.
 
Bigdog said:
Whatever Rune, we'll have to wait for the courts to settle the issues.

The courts will find priority in national security and safety issues that will override any of your objections.
Click to expand...

Those who desire security over liberty get what they deserve.
 
Rune said:
Please read the OP
Click to expand...

Enlighten us....just how does the OP rescind Article 6 of the constitution and its "supremacy clause"? No one has the authority to "pick and choose" which laws they wish to enforce and which ones they wish to ignore. The cure to this act of liberal radicalism is simple. Liberals don't mind at all as long as its "others" money they are spending, or its others that must face the justice system.....arrest several of these left wing career politician leeches for aiding and abetting terrorists and the rest will fall in lock step. The first act of terrorism that goes down in one of these supposed sanctuary states.....establish the precedent that there are consequences for acts of radicalism and placing this nation's security at risk.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So there's never been anytime where funds were threatened to be withheld, to get a State to comply??

Like maybe over speed limits??

:dealwithit:
Click to expand...

For the 11th time; states receive highway funding from the Fed.
If they don't respect the wishes of the Feds re that funding then the funding can of course, be witheld.
Since immigration is a Federal purview and states receive zero funds for immigration funding cannot be withheld. To do so would be to compel the state to enforce Federal law.
This is known as commandeering and is a violation of the 10th Amendment.
 
Rune said:
For the 11th time; states receive highway funding from the Fed.
If they don't respect the wishes of the Feds re that funding then the funding can of course, be witheld.
Since immigration is a Federal purview and states receive zero funds for immigration funding cannot be withheld. To do so would be to compel the state to enforce Federal law.
This is known as commandeering and is a violation of the 10th Amendment.
Click to expand...

Total Bullshit....when any "Illegal" commits a crime in any sanctuary state....then the acts of the state government have placed their citizens at risk. Now tell me that California does not receive any direct aid from Big Brother to fund all the local and state LEO's (Law Enforcement Organizations). All that federal funding is now being placed at risk by radical idiots. Last year California received some 135 Million US TAX dollars to aid in the funding of California state police and local sheriffs departments. I say let them fund their own "burning bed" they have set ablaze.

How long do you assume the STATE and ITS overpriced underfunded PENSION RETIREMENTS can stay afloat without the federal aid that supports numerous police forces in state's like California? Liberals never consider the reality that surrounds them, that's why their actions have directly resulted in all the military conflicts engaged by the US since WWI.
 
Last edited:
Ralph said:
Total Bullshit....when any "Illegal" commits a crime in any sanctuary state....then the acts of the state government have placed their citizens at risk. Now tell me that California does not receive any direct aid from Big Brother to fund all the local and state LEO's (Law Enforcement Organizations). All that federal funding is now being placed at risk by radical idiots. Last year California received some 135 Million US TAX dollars to aid in the funding of California state police and local sheriffs departments.
Click to expand...
Wrong,retard.
When an illegal hurts someone it is the fault of the Feds, since they are tasked with preventing the illegals from entering.
Since you don't understand something this fucking simple, you will never post in a thread of mine again.

Tell me Ralph, you drunken ignorant shitstain, why did the GOP refuse to make illegal entry a felony?
 
Last edited:
Rune said:
Wrong,retard.
When an illegal hurts someone it is the fault of the Feds, since they are tasked with preventing the illegals from entering.
Since you don't understand something this fucking simple, you will ever post in a thread of mine again.

Tell me Ralph, you drunken ignorant shitstain, why did the GOP refuse to make illegal entry a felony?
Click to expand...

Right.....the state of California has no "responsibility" to PROTECT and to SERVE, once that ILLEGAL has committed a local crime because its not its duty to lock up those who break Federal Law....it Then becomes the property of the STATE. As I said...full of shit.....as some 135 Million that helps fund all these pensions will be at risk. There is nothing the state can do except eat a big shit sandwich that they have constructed while calling it STEAK.

What you are suggesting as "logic" would be like a fully equipped Medical Emergency Ambulance going by the scene of an accident where people could have been saved while saying, "its not my district, not my job to save lives...piss on'em let those whose district and job it is take care of it."

You can "blame" and "deflect" all you want...but the reality exists, Criminals that break local laws are the responsibility of the STATE. When and if they refuse to enforce existing SUPREME law......why fund any agencies that refuses to PROTECT and to SERVE?
 
Last edited:
Ralph said:
Enlighten us....just how does the OP rescind Article 6 of the constitution and its "supremacy clause"? No one has the authority to "pick and choose" which laws they wish to enforce and which ones they wish to ignore. The cure to this act of liberal radicalism is simple. Liberals don't mind at all as long as its "others" money they are spending, or its others that must face the justice system.....arrest several of these left wing career politician leeches for aiding and abetting terrorists and the rest will fall in lock step. The first act of terrorism that goes down in one of these supposed sanctuary states.....establish the precedent that there are consequences for acts of radicalism and placing this nation's security at risk.
Click to expand...

I am sorry that you misunderstand the supremacy clause.

The supremacy clause means only that state law can never override Federal law. It doesn't mean that states must enforce Federal Law. That is why there are Federal courts in every state.
It is the job off the Feds to enforce Federal law.
 
Ralph said:
Right.....the state of California has no "responsibility" to PROTECT and to SERVE, once that ILLEGAL has committed a local crime....its the property of the STATE. As I said...full of shit.....as some 135 Million that helps fund all these pensions will be at risk. There is nothing the state can do except eat a big shit sandwich that they have constructed while calling it STEAK.
Click to expand...
Answer the question shitstain.

By the way, retard, where did you get the idea that the police must protect and serve? You really are just an ignorant fucktard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top