The Idiot Trump, Consistent at Being Ignorant of the Law

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘Trump issued a threat over Twitter on Thursday, suggesting that he would pull federal funding from the world-renowned university after it canceled a speech by polarizing Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos.
[…]
Despite the veiled threat, education experts said Mr. Trump would face serious legal obstacles pulling federal funding from UC Berkeley. First, the bulk of the federal monies for universities are earmarked for student loans and grants under Title IV. The law requires institutions to meet certain conditions, mostly involving educational standards, and the president’s questionable assertion that the school violated free speech rights likely wouldn’t offer sufficient legal pretext for excluding Berkeley.

“Like most things Trump tweets, the threat to pull funding from Berkeley is more bluster than fact,” said Ben Miller, senior director for postsecondary education at the Center for American Progress, a centrist think tank, and a former policy advisor in the U.S. Department of Education.’

Could Trump yank UC Berkeley funding over Yiannopoulos incident?

As is the case with other rights, the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are not ‘absolute,’ they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government consistent with free speech jurisprudence, such as time, place, and manner restrictions having no bearing on content.

Restrictions on speech out of concern for public safety are perfectly Constitutional, as they don’t seek to preempt the message the speaker seeks to express.

Trump’s empty threat is as ignorant as it is ridiculous, completely devoid of merit or justification.

Given the fact that the school has violated no free speech rights, there would be no legal grounds for excluding Berkeley from receiving Federal funds.

 

[Meathead]

Yet another mutation of butt hurt.

 

[Lilah]

‘Trump issued a threat over Twitter on Thursday, suggesting that he would pull federal funding from the world-renowned university after it canceled a speech by polarizing Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos.
[…]
Despite the veiled threat, education experts said Mr. Trump would face serious legal obstacles pulling federal funding from UC Berkeley. First, the bulk of the federal monies for universities are earmarked for student loans and grants under Title IV. The law requires institutions to meet certain conditions, mostly involving educational standards, and the president’s questionable assertion that the school violated free speech rights likely wouldn’t offer sufficient legal pretext for excluding Berkeley.

“Like most things Trump tweets, the threat to pull funding from Berkeley is more bluster than fact,” said Ben Miller, senior director for postsecondary education at the Center for American Progress, a centrist think tank, and a former policy advisor in the U.S. Department of Education.’

Could Trump yank UC Berkeley funding over Yiannopoulos incident?

As is the case with other rights, the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are not ‘absolute,’ they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government consistent with free speech jurisprudence, such as time, place, and manner restrictions having no bearing on content.

Restrictions on speech out of concern for public safety are perfectly Constitutional, as they don’t seek to preempt the message the speaker seeks to express.

Trump’s empty threat is as ignorant as it is ridiculous, completely devoid of merit or justification.

Given the fact that the school has violated no free speech rights, there would be no legal grounds for excluding Berkeley from receiving Federal funds.

"Restrictions on speech out of concern for public safety are perfectly Constitutional, as they don’t seek to preempt the message the speaker seeks to express."

Is this a joke?

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Ah, the old warlord of Blowhardistan is back.

Ass is still stinging from Evita Clinton getting here fat ass kicked, is it?

 

[BULLDOG]

‘Trump issued a threat over Twitter on Thursday, suggesting that he would pull federal funding from the world-renowned university after it canceled a speech by polarizing Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos.
[…]
Despite the veiled threat, education experts said Mr. Trump would face serious legal obstacles pulling federal funding from UC Berkeley. First, the bulk of the federal monies for universities are earmarked for student loans and grants under Title IV. The law requires institutions to meet certain conditions, mostly involving educational standards, and the president’s questionable assertion that the school violated free speech rights likely wouldn’t offer sufficient legal pretext for excluding Berkeley.

“Like most things Trump tweets, the threat to pull funding from Berkeley is more bluster than fact,” said Ben Miller, senior director for postsecondary education at the Center for American Progress, a centrist think tank, and a former policy advisor in the U.S. Department of Education.’

Could Trump yank UC Berkeley funding over Yiannopoulos incident?

As is the case with other rights, the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are not ‘absolute,’ they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government consistent with free speech jurisprudence, such as time, place, and manner restrictions having no bearing on content.

Restrictions on speech out of concern for public safety are perfectly Constitutional, as they don’t seek to preempt the message the speaker seeks to express.

Trump’s empty threat is as ignorant as it is ridiculous, completely devoid of merit or justification.

Given the fact that the school has violated no free speech rights, there would be no legal grounds for excluding Berkeley from receiving Federal funds.

"Restrictions on speech out of concern for public safety are perfectly Constitutional, as they don’t seek to preempt the message the speaker seeks to express."

Is this a joke?

Not a joke, but it is funny that RWNJs don't understand that particular fact,

 

[Hossfly]

‘Trump issued a threat over Twitter on Thursday, suggesting that he would pull federal funding from the world-renowned university after it canceled a speech by polarizing Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos.
[…]
Despite the veiled threat, education experts said Mr. Trump would face serious legal obstacles pulling federal funding from UC Berkeley. First, the bulk of the federal monies for universities are earmarked for student loans and grants under Title IV. The law requires institutions to meet certain conditions, mostly involving educational standards, and the president’s questionable assertion that the school violated free speech rights likely wouldn’t offer sufficient legal pretext for excluding Berkeley.

“Like most things Trump tweets, the threat to pull funding from Berkeley is more bluster than fact,” said Ben Miller, senior director for postsecondary education at the Center for American Progress, a centrist think tank, and a former policy advisor in the U.S. Department of Education.’

Could Trump yank UC Berkeley funding over Yiannopoulos incident?

As is the case with other rights, the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are not ‘absolute,’ they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government consistent with free speech jurisprudence, such as time, place, and manner restrictions having no bearing on content.

Restrictions on speech out of concern for public safety are perfectly Constitutional, as they don’t seek to preempt the message the speaker seeks to express.

Trump’s empty threat is as ignorant as it is ridiculous, completely devoid of merit or justification.

Given the fact that the school has violated no free speech rights, there would be no legal grounds for excluding Berkeley from receiving Federal funds.

Trump has a herd of lawyers who advise him plus the Justice Department as a backup and Jones calls him idiot and ignorant of the law.Think tanks and law professors should run for Congress if they're so almighty smart instead of preaching law in their coffee and food stained suits and ties.

 

[BULLDOG]

‘Trump issued a threat over Twitter on Thursday, suggesting that he would pull federal funding from the world-renowned university after it canceled a speech by polarizing Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos.
[…]
Despite the veiled threat, education experts said Mr. Trump would face serious legal obstacles pulling federal funding from UC Berkeley. First, the bulk of the federal monies for universities are earmarked for student loans and grants under Title IV. The law requires institutions to meet certain conditions, mostly involving educational standards, and the president’s questionable assertion that the school violated free speech rights likely wouldn’t offer sufficient legal pretext for excluding Berkeley.

“Like most things Trump tweets, the threat to pull funding from Berkeley is more bluster than fact,” said Ben Miller, senior director for postsecondary education at the Center for American Progress, a centrist think tank, and a former policy advisor in the U.S. Department of Education.’

Could Trump yank UC Berkeley funding over Yiannopoulos incident?

As is the case with other rights, the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are not ‘absolute,’ they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government consistent with free speech jurisprudence, such as time, place, and manner restrictions having no bearing on content.

Restrictions on speech out of concern for public safety are perfectly Constitutional, as they don’t seek to preempt the message the speaker seeks to express.

Trump’s empty threat is as ignorant as it is ridiculous, completely devoid of merit or justification.

Given the fact that the school has violated no free speech rights, there would be no legal grounds for excluding Berkeley from receiving Federal funds.

Trump has a herd of lawyers who advise him plus the Justice Department as a backup and Jones calls him idiot and ignorant of the law.Think tanks and law professors should run for Congress if they're so almighty smart instead of preaching law in their coffee and food stained suits and ties.

Sure he has all those people, but when has he shown any indication he would listen to any of them? We know there had to be people telling him that making such a big deal about how many people attended his inauguration would be stupid, but did he listen?

 

[Lilah]

‘Trump issued a threat over Twitter on Thursday, suggesting that he would pull federal funding from the world-renowned university after it canceled a speech by polarizing Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos.
[…]
Despite the veiled threat, education experts said Mr. Trump would face serious legal obstacles pulling federal funding from UC Berkeley. First, the bulk of the federal monies for universities are earmarked for student loans and grants under Title IV. The law requires institutions to meet certain conditions, mostly involving educational standards, and the president’s questionable assertion that the school violated free speech rights likely wouldn’t offer sufficient legal pretext for excluding Berkeley.

“Like most things Trump tweets, the threat to pull funding from Berkeley is more bluster than fact,” said Ben Miller, senior director for postsecondary education at the Center for American Progress, a centrist think tank, and a former policy advisor in the U.S. Department of Education.’

Could Trump yank UC Berkeley funding over Yiannopoulos incident?

As is the case with other rights, the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are not ‘absolute,’ they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government consistent with free speech jurisprudence, such as time, place, and manner restrictions having no bearing on content.

Restrictions on speech out of concern for public safety are perfectly Constitutional, as they don’t seek to preempt the message the speaker seeks to express.

Trump’s empty threat is as ignorant as it is ridiculous, completely devoid of merit or justification.

Given the fact that the school has violated no free speech rights, there would be no legal grounds for excluding Berkeley from receiving Federal funds.

"Restrictions on speech out of concern for public safety are perfectly Constitutional, as they don’t seek to preempt the message the speaker seeks to express."

Is this a joke?

Not a joke, but it is funny that RWNJs don't understand that particular fact,

So, the authority is being given to the extremists?

 

[Anathema]

Given the fact that the school has violated no free speech rights, there would be no legal grounds for excluding Berkeley from receiving Federal funds.

Yes there would.... by removing ALL Federal funding from ALL colleges and universities.

 

[mean gene]

"Restrictions on speech out of concern for public safety are perfectly Constitutional, as they don’t seek to preempt the message the speaker seeks to express."

Is this a joke?

Unless there is an "imminent danger" of the speech causing public unrest (riot) the 1st amendment protects such speech.

Ex: The KKK march in Skokie Illinois.

 

[Iceweasel]

‘
Given the fact that the school has violated no free speech rights, there would be no legal grounds for excluding Berkeley from receiving Federal funds.

Where in the Constitution does it say we should be forced to fund private universities?

 

[mean gene]

Trump has a herd of lawyers who advise him plus the Justice Department as a backup and Jones calls him idiot and ignorant of the law.Think tanks and law professors should run for Congress if they're so almighty smart instead of preaching law in their coffee and food stained suits and ties.

Trump may have a heard of lawyers, but they didn't do him any good in the Trump university case. The bottom line is you have to have the law on your side, and knowing the law is step 1.

 

[mean gene]

Where in the Constitution does it say we should be forced to fund private universities?

The federal government often obligates itself to funding things it doesn't like, because the laws or constitution demand it not discriminate. The "privileges and immunities" are equal for all states.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

The federal government often obligates itself to funding things it doesn't like, because the laws or constitution demand it not discriminate. The "privileges and immunities" are equal for all states.

Refusing to fund any and all is equally non-discriminating.

 

[Iceweasel]

Where in the Constitution does it say we should be forced to fund private universities?

The federal government often obligates itself to funding things it doesn't like, because the laws or constitution demand it not discriminate. The "privileges and immunities" are equal for all states.

Does not compute. The feds spend money in one state so they have to in every state? Sorta didn't answer the question there anyway.

 

[mean gene]

Refusing to fund any and all is equally non-discriminating.

That would be legal. What they can't do is to cherrypick who gets funded, and/or who does not get funded.

Title 20 of the United States Code outlines the role of education in the United States Code.

 

[mean gene]

Does not compute. The feds spend money in one state so they have to in every state? Sorta didn't answer the question there anyway.

Congress can spend money any way they want. They can spend 90% of the funds in Texas and 0% in New York, as long as that's the law they passed.

But many general educational laws aren't based on which state receives the money, but on the category of institution, independent of its location. So a school in New York would get the same funding as one in Texas, based on what it is, not where it is.