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 suspect it wont be a complicated decision. Its well settled law that you can't force cities and states to enforce federal laws. ESPECIALLY retroactively.
If Sessions or this administration had a brain they would tie it to new future funding. This didn't pass muster-not even remotely. And they HAD to know it going in. This is theater of the worst sort.
LOL, whatever happened to the party that believed in states rights? Where are those folks?
Yeah, this is largely a local vs. federal issue, and will be interesting to see how it plays out in court. I can't imagine it working well for Trump, especially considering how they're trying to pull this on funds that have already been promised to local jurisdictions.
Yeah, this is largely a local vs. federal issue, and will be interesting to see how it plays out in court. I can't imagine it working well for Trump, especially considering how they're trying to pull this on funds that have already been promised to local jurisdictions.
LOL. Gorsuch is not going to make Trump a happy camper on this one.
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 Constitution is based on a systems of checks and balances. The Judicial branch has a lifetime appointment. The writers of the Constitution put impeachment as a check on a over reaching Judicial branch and Executive branch.
This guy had it right.....to bad he got impeached, but managed to avoid conviction and removal from office.
But perhaps, most ironic were the words uttered by an Arkansas law school professor who was running for Congress in 1974. In February of that year, Bill Clinton explained "high crimes and misdemeanors" as follows: "I think the definition should include any criminal acts plus a willful failure of the president to fulfill his duty to uphold and execute the laws of the United States. [Another] factor would be willful, reckless behavior in office; just totally incompetent conduct of the office and the disregard of the necessities that the office demands."
The Judges in these cases...."willful, reckless behavior in office". They ruled on political not constitutional basis, "disregarding the necessities that the office demands." as stated by President Clinton. Those fall under the "high crimes" bar.
They should be impeached, convicted and removed from office.
None.....There are a ton of employers breaking the law also. Why are they getting a pass?
Could be, but why are there sanctuary cities, and please REMEMBER, in this thread, we are NOT talking about employers, we are talking about SANCTUARY cities who are receiving federal funding even though they are breaking the law...why do you agree with that?
Who would have thought that the right doesn't like states rights, and wants them to enforce federal law at their expense?
It's federal money, given to those states who are breaking the law.
Leave it to a leftist, to complain about the federal government given federal money to a state, then the left complaining the federal government is infringing on the states rights.....because the federal government gave them money....
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Are they breaking laws? Sure, deport them. But its the FEDERAL job to do so, not local.
So, federal law, is not state law?
Holy crap folks, I've seen some stupid crap written, but this has to take the cake....
So, the state government does NOT have to enforce FEDERAL law, because they just don't want to?
Such a SAD statement from a leftist, expected.....but so SAD....
Could be, but why are there sanctuary cities, and please REMEMBER, in this thread, we are NOT talking about employers, we are talking about SANCTUARY cities who are receiving federal funding even though they are breaking the law...why do you agree with that?
You've obviously not read anything posted in this thread. It's been asked over and over and over what law they are breaking and no one has shown they are breaking any laws.
Quote:
Don't change the subject to fit your argument.
To fit my argument? I showed where people are ignoring actual laws.
You've obviously not read anything posted in this thread. It's been asked over and over and over what law they are breaking and no one has shown they are breaking any laws.
To fit my argument? I showed where people are ignoring actual laws.
and no one has been able to define "sanctuary city".
The executive office does not control the money. Congress does.
I know that. The funds in question have been already appropriated. At that point, the executive can spend it or not. You can't force them to spend money.
rump is asking them to do something the courts have ruled they CAN NOT do, enforce federal immigration laws.
Nobody is asking them to "enforce immigration laws." ICE has a name they are after and the guy is in the county jail. Cities are saying they won't hand them over. At this point, they have gone beyond not enforcing immigration laws. They are harboring a criminal. I can't believe they are not taken to court over this. Never thought denying them funds is the right thing to do. Sue the hell out of them and put that mayor and police chief in jail.
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.
