Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-29-2020, 01:08 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,850 posts, read 26,294,125 times
Reputation: 34059

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HereOnMars View Post
Good question. I ask the same thing. Why should an entire state suffer because a governor chooses to protect a population of people who continue to defy the laws of the country by not applying for citizenship, yet live under the state's protection?
The governor is not violating federal law. It is the responsibility of federal officials to enforce federal law and the state of California does not prevent the feds from enforcing federal law, they are merely refusing to allow local law enforcement to enforce it.

Quote:
in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842), that the states cannot be compelled to use state law enforcement resources to enforce federal law. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle in cases such as Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) and New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), which held that the federal government may not enact a regulatory program that "commandeers" the state's legislative and administrative mechanisms to enforce federal law. States therefore may refuse to use their legislative or administrative resources to enforce federal law.

 
Old 07-29-2020, 01:12 PM
 
Location: in a galaxy far far away
19,221 posts, read 16,705,467 times
Reputation: 33352
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Different courts decided that issue with grants to Sanctuary cities differently some said it was ok to withhold funds others said it wasn't. The 9th circuit said that it is legal for the feds to favor non-sanctuary cities, and since that is the federal court that serves California I would guess that they would decide the same when it comes to these nonsense "business sanctuary city laws"

I'm all in favor of personal freedom, but aren't I entitled to have some "personal freedom" too? Because when these idiots order their residents to ignore state health department mandates they are impacting my personal freedom,
Yeah, I'm not going to delve into the court decisions or any Constitutional law issues with you on this but to answer your question about your personal freedom.

Yes, you do have a right to personal freedom as everyone here does. It's time to evaluate those personal freedoms when the safety and health of others comes into play, though. Logical people will see that taking all precautions to protect themselves and others, even strangers, is the best thing they can do. Personal freedom needs to move over a bit and let common decency take the lead.

Still, threatening to withhold funding is a threat and Newsom is exacting the same threat as he was given last year, which btw, he didn't like at all and made known in a press conference. So now that he does it this year makes him a hypocrite ... imo. Just the way I see it. YMMV and does, I'm sure.
 
Old 07-29-2020, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,850 posts, read 26,294,125 times
Reputation: 34059
Quote:
Originally Posted by HereOnMars View Post
Yeah, I'm not going to delve into the court decisions or any Constitutional law issues with you on this but to answer your question about your personal freedom.

Yes, you do have a right to personal freedom as everyone here does. It's time to evaluate those personal freedoms when the safety and health of others comes into play, though. Logical people will see that taking all precautions to protect themselves and others, even strangers, is the best thing they can do. Personal freedom needs to move over a bit and let common decency take the lead.

Still, threatening to withhold funding is a threat and Newsom is exacting the same threat as he was given last year, which btw, he didn't like at all and made known in a press conference. So now that he does it this year makes him a hypocrite ... imo. Just the way I see it. YMMV and does, I'm sure.
So we should indulge the fantasies of two cities who have decided that they can do whatever they want and the state can be damned? What about the next city or county that decides to do that same thing. We aren't confined to one zip code so no matter how careful the people are where I live we are at the mercy of people in other parts of the state, and both of these cities were approached and asked to comply with the state directives they flat out refused. And letting bars reopen and permitting hundreds of people to cram into a church has nothing to do with common decency, in fact that is the exact opposite.

But you tell me- what is your solution?
 
Old 07-29-2020, 01:59 PM
 
Location: On the water.
21,741 posts, read 16,361,136 times
Reputation: 19831
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
How are Newsom's actions here any different than Trump trying to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities? It's literally the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Not at all the same. A sanctuary city means that local police will not enforce federal immigration laws, but they do not challenge the legality of immigration laws or deny federal officers the right to enforce those laws. A 'business sanctuary city' means that the city will NOT comply with state directives such as closing bars or churches or restaurants, ignore mask and social distancing requirements and they are directing Police to not enforce the state’s laws or orders.

Supreme Court rulings prohibit the federal government from forcing states or localities to become unwilling enforcers of federal policy. But cities and counties, however, have no right under the Constitution to resist state laws or regulations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Where did I suggest he couldn't?

He can, he is, and by doing so he's acting like Trump did with wanting to withhold federal funds as punishment.

You and go ahead and justify his actions all you want, it doesn't change the fact he's trying to strong arm these cities like Trump tried to do with CA using funding.
What sleepy said.

But let’s try another analogy as well:
Black guy is riding his bicycle down a street into a park. He’s wearing a shirt says “F**k Trump”. Trump orders his attorney general to tell the guy if he goes into the park he will be arrested for protesting without a permit.

Next day a black guy is riding his bike down a street and starts to turn into a park in LA. There’s a big fire in park buildings and fire department is battling with hoses and ladders and personnel all over the area. Newsom tells his attorney general to inform the cyclist that if he tries to ride through the conflagration scene, he can be arrested for interfering with first responders battling a public emergency.

Is Newsom acting same as Trump?
 
Old 07-29-2020, 01:59 PM
 
Location: all over the place (figuratively)
6,616 posts, read 4,885,622 times
Reputation: 3601
Quote:
Originally Posted by wac_432 View Post
Well, everything is pretty much falling apart in my area. With the restrictions changing weekly, even interested parties (a decreasing % of the population anyway) don't know the rules. Even I didn't realize that ANY gathering of non-household members were banned in my town. I was taking my cues from the small(2-3 people)-to-large(dozens of people) gatherings of adults in the local parks, church parking lots, sidewalks, front yards, and inside houses. I guess they are taking their cues from outdoor dining and drinking that is--for some reason--allowed.

I had to dig down 5 levels in our local emergency website to find the rules. "No gatherings of any kind anywhere. Masks on in public."

Except if you are spending money, it seems. Then you can "gather" with masks off.

I think we're pretty close to the "**** it point" if not past it already.
It was never going to be enforceable as a blanket rule for religious ceremonies.

Also, restaurants can and often do serve groups from single households.

Except for protests (controversial to ban) and when bars were open, the government has consistently, indirectly discouraged gatherings that are large or lengthy.
 
Old 07-29-2020, 02:05 PM
 
Location: in a galaxy far far away
19,221 posts, read 16,705,467 times
Reputation: 33352
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
So we should indulge the fantasies of two cities who have decided that they can do whatever they want and the state can be damned? What about the next city or county that decides to do that same thing. We aren't confined to one zip code so no matter how careful the people are where I live we are at the mercy of people in other parts of the state, and both of these cities were approached and asked to comply with the state directives they flat out refused. And letting bars reopen and permitting hundreds of people to cram into a church has nothing to do with common decency, in fact that is the exact opposite.

But you tell me- what is your solution?
Clearly, you missed what I wrote.

Quote:
Logical people will see that taking all precautions to protect themselves and others, even strangers, is the best thing they can do. Personal freedom needs to move over a bit and let common decency take the lead.
smh
 
Old 07-29-2020, 02:08 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,982 posts, read 32,668,735 times
Reputation: 13635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt View Post
What sleepy said.

But let’s try another analogy as well:
Black guy is riding his bicycle down a street into a park. He’s wearing a shirt says “F**k Trump”. Trump orders his attorney general to tell the guy if he goes into the park he will be arrested for protesting without a permit.

Next day a black guy is riding his bike down a street and starts to turn into a park in LA. There’s a big fire in park buildings and fire department is battling with hoses and ladders and personnel all over the area. Newsom tells his attorney general to inform the cyclist that if he tries to ride through the conflagration scene, he can be arrested for interfering with first responders battling a public emergency.

Is Newsom acting same as Trump?
Sleepy just justified Newsom's actions like you are trying to do now except with some extreme, overly dramatic analogy .

Both attempted to use withholding funding as a form of punishment for noncompliance. Whether you think Newsom's case is more justified is completely irrelevant to my point.
 
Old 07-29-2020, 02:14 PM
 
Location: On the water.
21,741 posts, read 16,361,136 times
Reputation: 19831
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Sleepy just justified Newsom's actions like you are trying to do now except with some extreme, overly dramatic analogy .

Both attempted to use withholding funding as a form of punishment for noncompliance. Whether you think Newsom's case is more justified is completely irrelevant to my point.
“Overly dramatic”? Nonsense. I nailed it. Your point then lacks critical nuance. The circumstances, the intentions, and the outcomes are different as night and day.
 
Old 07-29-2020, 02:19 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,982 posts, read 32,668,735 times
Reputation: 13635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt View Post
“Overly dramatic”? Nonsense. I nailed it. Your point then lacks critical nuance. The circumstances, the intentions, and the outcomes are different as night and day.
Yes they are different but the action and purpose, being punitive, was the same. There are other ways Newsom could have gone about compliance but he decided to follow Trumps playbook.
 
Old 07-29-2020, 02:22 PM
 
Location: in a galaxy far far away
19,221 posts, read 16,705,467 times
Reputation: 33352
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Yes they are different but the action and purpose, being punitive, was the same. There are other ways Newsom could have gone about compliance but he decided to follow Trumps playbook.
Money has always been a strong motivator and used more than once. Depending on which side uses it is when it's justified. It's still hypocrisy. I wonder if Newsom even recognizes that he's using the same tactics as he was faced with last year?
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.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top