Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not up on every funding scheme out there but any removed would have to be specific to this issue. I have no idea if this is even relevant but if there was federal funding going to a state to hold federal prisoners, that could be removed but would someone not going to do it anyway care?
.
But how is road funding in South Dakota related to South Dakotan rejection of the NMDAA? What's the minimum age in South Dakota you can buy alcohol?
It happened South Dakota v. Dole 1987. Supreme Court found that restricting federal funding could be used to leverage an intransigent state to a policy that benefitted the general welfare. The government merely needs to word the action correctly (much like adding that has moved in interstate commerce to the Brady act) for it to be legal and binding.
"John Marshall has made his decision: now let him enforce it."
Andrew Jackson
Trump and Congress can do anything they like as long as they frame it correctly, becaue the House of Representatives ultimately hold she purse strings. If they decide they don't want to fund a city or state, I would like to see the Supreme court make them.
Sounds like bull**** to me anyway. The gist of the idea is that the federal governement cannot withold funds that have nothing to do with a lawful law--in other words, they can't withold money for roads to coerce a state to raise its legal drinking age to 21. The difference is that a state has a right to set the drinking age at any age it likes--it has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to aid and abet criminals in criminal behavior. Illegas are illegal by FEDERAL law. Apples and oranges.
Personally, I think he ought to just arrest the mayors of these cities and architects of these laws. But that is just me.
Exactly. Just keep prosecuting and convicting them. Easy cases to win, as their illegal acts are being committed very publicly. And if another steps up to take the convict's place, prosecute and convict them, as well. Keep going until the offending state and/or local authorities are no longer willing to go to prison for illegal aliens.
With regard to violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(ii)-(iv) and (v)(ii), domestic transportation, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or aiding/abetting, the basic statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years, unless the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years.
This will be the sequester for big cities. I personally watched as Obama and congress pass the seauester which decimated the jobs in my small town. Now sanctuary cities, if they choose to be, can suffer a similar fate.
Remember he has a pen and phone. He can make an EE then let the courts decide if it's legal a few years down the line, JUST like Obama.
You're citing DeBlasio, not any Supreme Court ruling, and DeBlasio didn't cite any ruling either. He's speculating.
Do you think Trump hasn't been advised by his legal team on what he can and cannot do? These cities are in violation of Federal immigration laws. Are they not harboring fugitives? Seems to me there is a lot of room for a President to take action against them that would be completely legal.
No City has a right to Federal money. It is up to Congress. We'll see, but I think you're going to be very surprised. This isn't going to be Barack Obama's administration. This administration is going to be looking out for the interests of the American people. It's going to be very different.
Yep. Don't forget after Trump's appointment to the court, he will be backed by the court too. That's all 3 branches. "Elections have consequences" - Obama
Congress sure can. Good thing you guys lost that too.
True. Congress makes law. The Supreme Court (and all courts) interpret the law. I see nothing in the Constitution that says how Congress must dole out money to the States or cities. Any existing laws on the matter that were passed by Congress can easily be changed.
No they cant. The court ruling applies to funding in general.
Example: they cant defund parks and recs because school test scores are not to their liking.
In this case, they cant defund all city agencies just because the police dept wont detain undocumented residents.
Sorry haters, you lose.
What court ruling? You haven't cited one. Congress makes the laws. Not the court.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
