CDZ How Quickly will Sanctuary Collapse from Sequester?

[william the wie]

Cities and states depend on federal funds passed by congress. The president is not required to disburse those funds. That's tool one.

If States or cities do not protect their citizens that is a violation of their civil rights if they are a protected class as with the women killed or kidnapped in CA by felonious illegal aliens. that's tool two.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I dont agree with sanctuary cities at all, however It does make me wonder what is going to happen when 20 thousand or so illegals living in a city suddenly find themselves back in the shadows. Will this cause more thefts and violence or will they end up leaving for the next city that has not yet dropped its sanctuary status.
Although I totally agree with the plan, I think it has a fairly high chance of backfiring when it comes to public safety.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I think this issue should be revisited at the Supreme Court. A State should not have the constitutional power to circumvent the government's power to enforce its borders.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think this issue should be revisited at the Supreme Court. A State should not have the constitutional power to circumvent the government's power to enforce its borders.

I do not believe that they do.

What the courts have decided (and I think rightfully so) is that the federal government cannot compel the states to uphold federal law in lew of federal agencies doing so. The states cannot actively block the feds but they do not have to actively help them either. That is as I understand it at least unless you have something that shows otherwise.

I believe that is a proper balance between federal and state powers. I do not think that the federal government should be able to force the states to go along with something that they disagree with.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What the courts have decided (and I think rightfully so) is that the federal government cannot compel the states to uphold federal law in lieu of federal agencies doing so.

So, the popular question is this:

What's the point of having federal immigration law if you're going to allow states and municipalities to ignore it? That doesn't seem fair.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

In the constitution is a supremacy clause, It basically states that the Constitution, and federal laws made in accordance to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.
So in other words since the immigration laws that maintain the countries sovereignty are already there, If the federal government makes a law that mandates the following of those laws, the States do have to comply with the federal government.
There would be nothing unconstitutional about withholding certain funding from the states that failed to comply.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I do not think that the federal government should be able to force the states to go along with something that they disagree with.

Then as I see it, you might as well remove our national borders. The government no longer has the power to enforce the law or its sovereign borders from illegal aliens who trespass here.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I think this issue should be revisited at the Supreme Court. A State should not have the constitutional power to circumvent the government's power to enforce its borders.

I do not believe that they do.

What the courts have decided (and I think rightfully so) is that the federal government cannot compel the states to uphold federal law in lew of federal agencies doing so. The states cannot actively block the feds but they do not have to actively help them either. That is as I understand it at least unless you have something that shows otherwise.

I believe that is a proper balance between federal and state powers. I do not think that the federal government should be able to force the states to go along with something that they disagree with.

Lets say Texas decides that the federal government is wrong and that slavery should be allowed.
does the federal government have the right to step in and stop Texas citizens from owning slaves.

 

[007]

It's going to be an interesting issue. It's going to spill over to the issue of states legalizing pot as well.

In the meantime the borders will be shut down and illegal aliens caught at the border will be detained and deported.

So much for the dems illegal votes.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

It's going to be an interesting issue. It's going to spill over to the issue of states legalizing pot as well.

In the meantime the borders will be shut down and illegal aliens caught at the border will be detained and deported.

So much for the dems illegal votes.

pot will be a different type of argument.
Pot is not specifically mentioned in the constitution. Immigration is in the constitution. The federal government does have the power or authority from the constitution to create laws on immigration and naturalization. The federal government however was not granted the right to give non citizens the rights of citizens.
So if it was not specifically given to the federal government, it could be interpreted that the states have the right to do so. So basically the federal government can enforce the border of states. The states at the same time would appear to have the authority to grant rights (within that state). And, although the federal government would not basically have the right to force a state to comply with the no sanctuary law, the government would have the right to withhold federal funding that might be used for aiding the illegals.
It could be interesting.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hines v. Davidowitz 312 US 52 (1941)

Page 62

Paragraph 7

...the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution, was pointed out by the authors of The Federalist in 1787 (9), and has since been given continuous recognition by this court (10)...

(9) The importance of national power in all matters relating to foreign affairs and inherent danger of state action in this field are clearly developed in Federalist papers No. 3, 4, 5, 42 and 80.

(10) E.g., Henderson v. Mayor of New York 92 US 259; People v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 107 US 59; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 US 698, 711. Cf. Z. & F. Assets Realization Corp. v. Hull, 311 US 470

 

[007]

It's going to be an interesting issue. It's going to spill over to the issue of states legalizing pot as well.

In the meantime the borders will be shut down and illegal aliens caught at the border will be detained and deported.

So much for the dems illegal votes.

pot will be a different type of argument.
Pot is not specifically mentioned in the constitution. Immigration is in the constitution. The federal government does have the power or authority from the constitution to create laws on immigration and naturalization. The federal government however was not granted the right to give non citizens the rights of citizens.
So if it was not specifically given to the federal government, it could be interpreted that the states have the right to do so. So basically the federal government can enforce the border of states. The states at the same time would appear to have the authority to grant rights (within that state). And, although the federal government would not basically have the right to force a state to comply with the no sanctuary law, the government would have the right to withhold federal funding that might be used for aiding the illegals.
It could be interesting.

True pot isn't mentioned in the constitution, but it is another example of states ignoring federal law. If the courts decide that the states can't supersede their authority on immigration because it is federal law, then that does set a precedent to use against them for selling pot... right... or not?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Hines v. Davidowitz 312 US 52 (1941)

Page 62

Paragraph 7

...the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution, was pointed out by the authors of The Federalist in 1787 (9), and has since been given continuous recognition by this court (10)...

(9) The importance of national power in all matters relating to foreign affairs and inherent danger of state action in this field are clearly developed in Federalist papers No. 3, 4, 5, 42 and 80.

(10) E.g., Henderson v. Mayor of New York 92 US 259; People v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 107 US 59; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 US 698, 711. Cf. Z. & F. Assets Realization Corp. v. Hull, 311 US 470

yes, but can the federal government force the states to comply.
The word nullification comes to mind.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hines v. Davidowitz 312 US 52 (1941)

Page 62

Paragraph 7

...the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution, was pointed out by the authors of The Federalist in 1787 (9), and has since been given continuous recognition by this court (10)...

(9) The importance of national power in all matters relating to foreign affairs and inherent danger of state action in this field are clearly developed in Federalist papers No. 3, 4, 5, 42 and 80.

(10) E.g., Henderson v. Mayor of New York 92 US 259; People v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 107 US 59; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 US 698, 711. Cf. Z. & F. Assets Realization Corp. v. Hull, 311 US 470

yes, but can the federal government force the states to comply.
The word nullification comes to mind.

Like I said previously, we might as well remove our borders. Because state nullification of our immigration law means exactly that.

 

[007]

We're going to find out one way or another, and soon. I believe it's going to be one of the first things president Trump does, and if I was a bettin' man, I'd say he's already got a plan.

 

[TemplarKormac]

TheOldSchool

You have anything informative to say?

 

[Moonglow]

There is a law in the Constitution which refers to asset forfeiture...That law has not been enforced since Reagan...

 

[Maryland Patriot]

It's going to be an interesting issue. It's going to spill over to the issue of states legalizing pot as well.

In the meantime the borders will be shut down and illegal aliens caught at the border will be detained and deported.

So much for the dems illegal votes.

pot will be a different type of argument.
Pot is not specifically mentioned in the constitution. Immigration is in the constitution. The federal government does have the power or authority from the constitution to create laws on immigration and naturalization. The federal government however was not granted the right to give non citizens the rights of citizens.
So if it was not specifically given to the federal government, it could be interpreted that the states have the right to do so. So basically the federal government can enforce the border of states. The states at the same time would appear to have the authority to grant rights (within that state). And, although the federal government would not basically have the right to force a state to comply with the no sanctuary law, the government would have the right to withhold federal funding that might be used for aiding the illegals.
It could be interesting.

True pot isn't mentioned in the constitution, but it is another example of states ignoring federal law. If the courts decide that the states can't supersede their authority on immigration because it is federal law, then that does set a precedent to use against them for selling pot... right... or not?

like I said, that might be tricky. There is a difference between what the federal government makes as a law and what is specifically discussed in the constitution.
Just like in the 70s when the federal government tried to force all states to drop the maximum speed on highways to 55. The states were under no obligation to follow that new federal law, however at the same time the federal government had not obligation to grant any federal highway funds to states that did not comply.
what could the feds take away from states that refuse to outlaw marijuana?

 

[007]

It's going to be an interesting issue. It's going to spill over to the issue of states legalizing pot as well.

In the meantime the borders will be shut down and illegal aliens caught at the border will be detained and deported.

So much for the dems illegal votes.

pot will be a different type of argument.
Pot is not specifically mentioned in the constitution. Immigration is in the constitution. The federal government does have the power or authority from the constitution to create laws on immigration and naturalization. The federal government however was not granted the right to give non citizens the rights of citizens.
So if it was not specifically given to the federal government, it could be interpreted that the states have the right to do so. So basically the federal government can enforce the border of states. The states at the same time would appear to have the authority to grant rights (within that state). And, although the federal government would not basically have the right to force a state to comply with the no sanctuary law, the government would have the right to withhold federal funding that might be used for aiding the illegals.
It could be interesting.

True pot isn't mentioned in the constitution, but it is another example of states ignoring federal law. If the courts decide that the states can't supersede their authority on immigration because it is federal law, then that does set a precedent to use against them for selling pot... right... or not?

like I said, that might be tricky. There is a difference between what the federal government makes as a law and what is specifically discussed in the constitution.
Just like in the 70s when the federal government tried to force all states to drop the maximum speed on highways to 55. The states were under no obligation to follow that new federal law, however at the same time the federal government had not obligation to grant any federal highway funds to states that did not comply.
what could the feds take away from states that refuse to outlaw marijuana?

Funding for medicare/medicaid? People are using those funds to buy "medicinal" pot.

 

[TheOldSchool]

TheOldSchool

You have anything informative to say?

Nothing that wouldn't get me banned for saying it in the CDZ