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.
The federal government can deny funds for farting. What they give, they can deny the next day.
Welcome to the top down government our fathers and mothers, grand fathers and mothers created, by changing the role of the federal government.
See, government can select the winners and the losers at will.
Remember Obama doing it? They don't like being on the losing side this time.
Nope...look up high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The Judges took an oath to "uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic".
Clearly, they failed to uphold the Constitution in their rulings and instead decided on political decisions. The intent of the President of the United States based on campaign statements!!! REALLY!!!
That is NOT upholding the Constitution. Clearly they should be impeached, tried and removed from office.
Very strange response since this is what you claimed:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509 View Post
The Constitutional remedy for judicial overreach is impeachment and removal from office. I really think people should start discussing this option. That is the clearest limit on judicial overreach.
Not agreeing with YOU on these issues does not create a criminal offense, what are you even thinking about?
All these rulings will be overturned on appeal. The sad part is that we have Federal judges that think they are the most important branch of government.
The Constitutional remedy for judicial overreach is impeachment and removal from office. I really think people should start discussing this option. That is the clearest limit on judicial overreach.
Can you point to the section of the Constitution that provides for impeachment as a remedy for judicial overreach? I'm not familiar with it.
The conservatives should actually like this ruling, even if they don't agree with sanctuary cities. Federal laws are up to the federal government to enforce.
A true conservative would like this ruling, or at least understand it.
Willfully ignorant, rabidly anti-immigrant Trump supporters don't like it, regardless of their proclaimed political leanings.
The federal government can deny funds for farting. What they give, they can deny the next day.
Welcome to the top down government our fathers and mothers, grand fathers and mothers created, by changing the role of the federal government.
See, government can select the winners and the losers at will.
Remember Obama doing it? They don't like being on the losing side this time.
Yes. But "federal government" means congress not the president. A perfect example is highway or education funding that comes with many strings attached (but nothing about immigration enforcement). If Congress says cut off sanctuary cities, then is is legal. If Trump says it without it being in a bill passed by Congress it is not. Simple as that.
I think Trumpies are now learning what Obamabots did over the past eight years: it is virtually impossible for a president to do anything meaningful without the consent of Congress.
No it isn't. You are just posturing because you have no data.
Show us the clause or amendment in the US or any State Constitution, or even a city charter, to back your mouth.
I believe I asked this of you many times, never with an answer. Didnt you use to support state's right?
Government agencies cut checks all the time. What are you talking about?
The executive office does not control the money. Congress does.
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.