SCOTUS Obamacare Ruling To Tank Drump Sanctuary Cities Nonsense

[JohnnyApplesack]

The Trump administration announced this week that it will make good on its January threat to claw back funding from so-called sanctuary cities that limit information-sharing with federal immigration officials. Yet hundreds of legal experts say the move would itself be illegal—in part due to a court ruling Republicans cheered just a few years ago.


In 2012, the Supreme Court forced the Obama administration to make Medicaid expansion voluntary for states instead of mandatory, ruling that when the federal government “threatens to terminate other significant independent grants as a means of pressuring the States to accept” a federal policy, it is unconstitutionally coercive.

https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/..._eo_13768_sanctuary_jurisdictions_finalv2.pdf

this load can't win for losing

 

[task0778]

You don't see the difference between pressuring states to accept a federal policy and following federal law?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

You don't see the difference between pressuring states to accept a federal policy and following federal law?

He's a liberal.

 

[JohnnyApplesack]

You don't see the difference between pressuring states to accept a federal policy and following federal law?

huh?......so the Constitution is unconstitutional?

doesn't SCOTUS interpret federal law?

 

[saveliberty]

You don't see the difference between pressuring states to accept a federal policy and following federal law?

huh?......so the Constitution is unconstitutional?

doesn't SCOTUS interpret federal law?

Point is what you cited was policy moron.

 

[task0778]

You don't see the difference between pressuring states to accept a federal policy and following federal law?

He's a liberal.

My bad.

 

[saveliberty]

You don't see the difference between pressuring states to accept a federal policy and following federal law?

He's a liberal.

My bad.

Liberal intellectual compensation is a bitch. Feel your pain.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Dump's failures will continue to pile up

 

[Silent Warrior]

Don't be too hard on JonnieApplebrain. He just doesn't understand so parrots the party line like the rest of the sheeple.

 

[Care4all]

Basically, through a few Supreme Court Rulings over the years from other things that the Federal government tried to force on to the States, but not in the constitution itself, the courts have ruled in these suits, that the Federal government can not FORCE states to follow what the Feds want, unless it is in the Bill itself....

As Example if there were Laws pertaining to illegal aliens that the federal government threatened to take other federal monies away from the States not following these laws, it is unconstitutional....

UNLESS

The federal law that the States were not following, had IN THE LAW ITSELF, the punishment for not following it....

like a federal law that says... if you do not follow our federal immigration stance/law then the federal funds from x, y, and z, will be withheld from your State until you follow the federal law.

The SC has ruled several times if memory serves, you can not introduce a penalty AFTER THE FACT to enforce the federal will....the punishment/penalty has to be part of the law itself....

I believe THIS is what the op is trying to say....

 

[The Irish Ram]

What does the sanctuary city do when their illegals leave that city for a life of crime in the city next door? Do you recoil and tell us it isn't your fault? Do you send the criminal to jail and then release him because jails are not happy rooms? If one of your sanctuaried kills my daughter, do I kill you or one of your children? Just how does the new normal that you want us all to embrace in the USA work?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The Trump administration announced this week that it will make good on its January threat to claw back funding from so-called sanctuary cities that limit information-sharing with federal immigration officials. Yet hundreds of legal experts say the move would itself be illegal—in part due to a court ruling Republicans cheered just a few years ago.


In 2012, the Supreme Court forced the Obama administration to make Medicaid expansion voluntary for states instead of mandatory, ruling that when the federal government “threatens to terminate other significant independent grants as a means of pressuring the States to accept” a federal policy, it is unconstitutionally coercive.

https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/..._eo_13768_sanctuary_jurisdictions_finalv2.pdf

this load can't win for losing

So states can start lowering the drinking age from 21, right?

 

[JohnnyApplesack]

this is horrible news for all xenophobes, bigly sad

 

[protectionist]

The Trump administration announced this week that it will make good on its January threat to claw back funding from so-called sanctuary cities that limit information-sharing with federal immigration officials. Yet hundreds of legal experts say the move would itself be illegal—in part due to a court ruling Republicans cheered just a few years ago.


In 2012, the Supreme Court forced the Obama administration to make Medicaid expansion voluntary for states instead of mandatory, ruling that when the federal government “threatens to terminate other significant independent grants as a means of pressuring the States to accept” a federal policy, it is unconstitutionally coercive.

https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/..._eo_13768_sanctuary_jurisdictions_finalv2.pdf

this load can't win for losing

You call THIS "nonsense" ? If you do, YOU are nonsense.

"Any person who, knowing that an alien has come to the U.S. in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection such alien in any place, including any building… shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years.”
(8 U.S. Code, section 1324)

Sanctuary City Leaders Should be IMPRISONED

 

[protectionist]

this is horrible news for all xenophobes, bigly sad

Only if you are ignorant of the LAW (see Post # 14)

 

[EvilCat Breath]

If you object to being the victim of a criminal here illegally you are a xenophobe.

 

[Fenton Lum]

What does the sanctuary city do when their illegals leave that city for a life of crime in the city next door? Do you recoil and tell us it isn't your fault? Do you send the criminal to jail and then release him because jails are not happy rooms? If one of your sanctuaried kills my daughter, do I kill you or one of your children? Just how does the new normal that you want us all to embrace in the USA work?

What everyone on america always does, find someone else to blame.

 

[Fueri]

meh, the Feds have done this before, ala highway funds and enforcement of speed limits, blood alcohol levels etc.

I'm too lazy to go looking for case law/examples, but from what I remember the funding in question has to somehow be tied to purpose for which is intended. For instance in the case of blood alcohol levels the feds could withhold federal money from the federal highway fund etc. but couldn't just indiscriminately cut money wherever it wanted.

this is potentially a lot more broad, IMO, but most likely it would start with money for law enforcement to get an inroad and then expand from there. it may have to go through congress first to codify a statute or something, but that's likely doable, given the broad support on the right, and the majority in both houses right now.

that doesn't mean it won't go to court, because it certainly will, but the guvmint has some options that are rooted in precedent here....

 

[protectionist]

What everyone on america always does, find someone else to blame.

Or pretend that blame doesn't belong where it does ?

 

[protectionist]

meh, the Feds have done this before, ala highway funds and enforcement of speed limits, blood alcohol levels etc.

I'm too lazy to go looking for case law/examples, but from what I remember the funding in question has to somehow be tied to purpose for which is intended. For instance in the case of blood alcohol levels the feds could withhold federal money from the federal highway fund etc. but couldn't just indiscriminately cut money wherever it wanted.

this is potentially a lot more broad, IMO, but most likely it would start with money for law enforcement to get an inroad and then expand from there. it may have to go through congress first to codify a statute or something, but that's likely doable, given the broad support on the right, and the majority in both houses right now.

that doesn't mean it won't go to court, because it certainly will, but the guvmint has some options that are rooted in precedent here....

Just JAIL the offenders (mayors, County officials, governors) - keep it simple.