Sanctuary Cities - Legit?

[heydaralon]

How do I become a sanctuary city? It seems like it might come in handy as a way to avoid paying federal income tax and other annoying government regulations. I'll let a few beaners sleep in my garage if that is what it takes...

[clubgop]

In case any of you wondered what it's like to have a prescription medicine junkie follow you around and spew senseless random bile. There it is.

ad hominem personal attacks unable to address the issues, contradicting everything you posted before. But DB once again proves he doesn't know shit. If I was a prescription junkie I couldnt pick a worse profession, maybe Olympic athlete. The testing we are subject too a useless government bureaucrat couldnt understand that level of accountability.

This is nostalgic DB posting.

/comfy/

Indeed. A man in your circumstance he finds comfy as well. Read the Alex Jones thread. At least you both are comfy.

[The Conservative]

How will the judge be in "hot water"?

Obama could withhold money if states didn't put in "unisex" bathrooms for "transgendered" people but this was against the law...explain to me how? The judge is going to be in hot water because... he put opinion in front of law.

The worst thing that might happen to him is that he'll be reversed by the circuit court of appeals. It that's "hot water," then I concede the point. But it's actually tepid water, at best.

It will put the judge in the limelight and each time something comes up on his docket he will be looked at with a microscope now... trust me, judges don't like that kind of pressure.

[de officiis]

Obama could withhold money if states didn't put in "unisex" bathrooms for "transgendered" people but this was against the law...explain to me how? The judge is going to be in hot water because... he put opinion in front of law.

The worst thing that might happen to him is that he'll be reversed by the circuit court of appeals. It that's "hot water," then I concede the point. But it's actually tepid water, at best.

It will put the judge in the limelight and each time something comes up on his docket he will be looked at with a microscope now... trust me, judges don't like that kind of pressure.

Eh, federal district judges make decisions every day that are heavily scrutinized and put them in the potential limelight, but they have lifetime appointments so they get used to it.

[DBTrek]

I'm still fuzzy on why the 10th Amendment is a sticking point at all.
The Federal government isn't forcing cities not to be sanctuary cities.

Ergo this is not being violated:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Likewise, the Federal government is not required to send billions of dollars of pork to states either. So to a layman the argument looks like this:

• Trump: We'll suspend Federal aid from sanctuary cities until they feel like complying with our immigration laws.
  
  Sanctuary Cities: You can't! That violates the 10th Amendment.
  
  Trump: Nope. Not giving you money isn't the federal government taking powers it hasn't been granted. You all can do what you want, but we're not paying for it. We're certainly within our rights to spend federal dollars as we choose.

Now, sure . . . Congress controls the purse strings. So I'm not suggesting the president can single-handedly yank the funding himself. But the idea that not handing billions of federal pork dollars to a state somehow violates the 10th? What am I missing? It makes no sense.

[Smitty-48]

If I had to guess, it would be that they are interpreting the order as "comandeering" state and local officials to enforce federal law.

[TheOneX]

I'm still fuzzy on why the 10th Amendment is a sticking point at all.
The Federal government isn't forcing cities not to be sanctuary cities.

Ergo this is not being violated:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Likewise, the Federal government is not required to send billions of dollars of pork to states either. So to a layman the argument looks like this:

• Trump: We'll suspend Federal aid from sanctuary cities until they feel like complying with our immigration laws.
  
  Sanctuary Cities: You can't! That violates the 10th Amendment.
  
  Trump: Nope. Not giving you money isn't the federal government taking powers it hasn't been granted. You all can do what you want, but we're not paying for it. We're certainly within our rights to spend federal dollars as we choose.

Now, sure . . . Congress controls the purse strings. So I'm not suggesting the president can single-handedly yank the funding himself. But the idea that not handing billions of federal pork dollars to a state somehow violates the 10th? What am I missing? It makes no sense.

Because these people suffer from a lack of reading comprehension. The only grounds they can actually go on is that the president can't unilaterally do this, it has to be an act of Congress. Which is a bit more hazy depending on what authority Congress has given the president over such matters, but Congress does always have the power to override the president or any federal agency if they so choose.

[Smitty-48]

Also, are you allowed to put conditions on appropriations which have already happened, retroactively? Wouldn't congress have to pass a new law? The money has already been appropriated, can you just add conditions to that, by Executive Fiat?

[Smitty-48]

Oh, also, didn't the states fight the Obamacare mandate as being unconsitutional because it included a "penalty", in that you can tax but you can't punish, so wouldn't the threat to cut funding as a punishment, be the proverbial NFIB v. Sebelius "gun to the head"?

[DBTrek]

The ACA penalty was levied on individuals.
The 10th Amendment addresses Federal powers vs. Non-Federal powers.
Not sure they're similar.