"California judge" blocks President Trump order withholding funding to sanctuary cities

[AvgGuyIA]

But a judge can find Donald Trump in contempt of court and issue a warrant for his arrest.

Want a genuine Constitutional crisis? There will be one if that happens and Trump does not present himself before the judge. I would love to see that happen. I am dying to know whether Trump would spout off before the judge in the judge's courtroom the way he does when Trump's not in court.

Google "separation of powers".

 

[usmbguest5318]

But a judge can find Donald Trump in contempt of court and issue a warrant for his arrest.

Want a genuine Constitutional crisis? There will be one if that happens and Trump does not present himself before the judge. I would love to see that happen. I am dying to know whether Trump would spout off before the judge in the judge's courtroom the way he does when Trump's not in court.

Google "separation of powers".

You should Google something, and "separation of powers" isn't it.

 

[WEATHER53]

The current law that states "POTUS may not issue an executive order against a city, county or state" is where?
If specifically and not by reference or any other pretzel twisting that law is nowhere then the judge is fishing and there is not to be any fishing, guessing, interpreting or donating 1/4 million to Obama, at all

 

[WEATHER53]

Separation of powers is not conflict of powers. Judiciary overreach from politically appointed judges is very dangerous

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Separation of powers is not conflict of powers. Judiciary overreach from politically appointed judges is very dangerous

It is downright unamerican.

 

[Flopper]

People almost are saying that federal laws are not laws at a state county or city level
Arson is mostly federal statutes
You cannot burn property in San Francisco based on the city ordinances not specifically addressing the prohibition

For it to be a federal offense you must have interstate commerce nexus. Which means that the business must have dealings out of the state of offense. All other will be handled by the local investigators which are tried in state courts. Arson in local businesses, homes, city and and state property are not federal crimes.

 

[Flopper]

Actually the feds do want the locals to get into "arrest the illegal" business and hold them until ICE shows up.

Locals do not have the $$$ for the extra load.

Although there would be extra cost for local police to investigate and arrest undocumented immigrants, that is not the problem. First off, local police departments can detain undocumented immigrants only the time limit specified in habeas corpus legislation, usually 24 or 48 hours. They either have to charge them, which they can't do or release them. Secondly, they do not have the tools they need in the form of state statues and resources needed to do immigration investigations. Also, in many of these communities, the local police would have no community support if they started arresting people for immigration violations. They would loose the trust of the community that they depend on everyday to arrest, charge, and convict those committing really serious crimes, not federal misdemeanors.

Asking the local police to enforce immigration laws makes about as much sense as asking them to enforce Internal Revenue Code.

For about the tenth time, they don't have to investigate. All they have to do is pick up the damn phone and let the feds know they have an illegal.

To know they have an illegal immigrant, either the person has to volunteer that information or police have to investigate. Otherwise local police will be reporting people they suspect of being illegally in the country. Most local law enforcement have far more important duties than assisting ICE find people with immigration status violations which are mostly misdemeanors that carry no punishment.

If the person is a convicted felon and known to be illegally in the country, most sanctuary cities will report the person to ICE before release and will hold the person provided they received a federal warrant within the holding time limit of that state.

Just stop with the bullshit!

You can't even get one fact correct.

Shut up! The ignorance you are spewing is contagious!

I suspect you haven't any idea of the problems your suggested "solution" creates. C'est la vie.

The Executive Branch can't run the Legislative, the legislative can't run the Executive so neither should the Judicial interfere with the Executive branch's constitutional responsibilities.

This ****** judge did not show reason why the government can't withhold Federal funds.

Do the words "judicial review" mean anything to you?

The judicial branch cannot assume the role of the Executive branch. That is what that SF ****** judge is trying to do.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do. Watch and learn when AG Sessions goes to SF and tells them they have 30 days to comply.

Apparently you don't understand what juridical review means. Any federal court can overturn an executive order if the judge believes the order violates the constitution or any existing federal legislation. The judges ruling can only be overturned by a higher court.

The administration is trying to scare sanctuary cities into cooperating with ICE even thou the cities do not have any responsibility to enforce federal laws.

It appears that most sanctuary cities are willing to notify ICE of the release of convicted felons and hold them provided they have a federal warrant. However, that is about the extent of the cooperation.

What ICE wants and will not get is vigorous cooperation by these cities which means collecting citizenship data on everyone they arrest or stop and holding all suspected illegal immigrants for ICE detention.

Purposefully hampering the Federal GOvernment in their attempt to enforce federal lawas, is an attack on this nation, as a whole, and needs to be stopped, and the political movement that supports that is traitorous and needs to be destroyed.

Local police in sanctuary cities are not hampering immigration agents. They are just enforcing local and state laws and leaving the enforcement of federal laws to federal law enforcement which according to our laws is what they are suppose to be doing.

 

[Slashsnake]

I'm not going to comment on whether the judge/panel is right or wrong, should or shouldn't have ruled as s/he/it did, etc. because I haven't read the decision, nor do I know off the top of my head what precedents and so on pertain to the matter, and, frankly, I don't feel like making the effort to find out. I will say, however, that at this rate, we're going to end up with the country being "run" by the judicial rather than by the executive branch.

The country is ran by the legislative branch; i.e: they make the laws and regulations, and then the executive branch signs them in. The executive branch appoints supreme court justices. The executive branch essentially runs the judicial branch. With the current legislative/executive group, the judicial branch can be ignored. What are they going to do? Arrest the president? Won't ever happen.

That piss ant judge can issue a federal injunction. If the president violates the injunction, he will be guilty of criminal intent. The next step would be impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. Unfortunately, Trump is not that dumb.

A federal injunction doesn't effect the president. Violating the constitution isn't a criminal offense. Also, who is going to impeach the president? His congressional republican buddies? Not a chance. Second stupidest thing I've read this year.

 

[Slashsnake]

Suppose we were under attack by North Korea and an ultra liberal judge blocked Trumps ability to wage war.

This is a MUCH more serious national problem than the just the irresponsible actions of a lone judge. They can and will put us ALL at risk over their agendas.

There needs to be some kind of judicial consensus requiring "X" number if judges from "X" number of various states to halt Executive orders that pose no threat to national security and are in fact necessary to ensure national security.

Allowing one idiot on the bench here and there to stop the President from protecting the nation is a serous risk to national security.

Actually it's the Constitution. Perhaps what you want is a "dictator".
May I recommend North Korea.

Funny part is a federal judge in a way is acting like a dictator. There SHOULD be a law stating there needs to be "x%" of judges with the same "vote" to repeal a law or executive order, just like in the executive branch.

 

[Slashsnake]

..But a judge can find Donald Trump in contempt of court and issue a warrant for his arrest.

You do know only the sergeant at arms can arrest the president, right? I don't think the legislative branch gives a shit about a democratic minded judge and their orders going against Trump.

 

[Correll]

Actually the feds do want the locals to get into "arrest the illegal" business and hold them until ICE shows up.

Locals do not have the $$$ for the extra load.

Although there would be extra cost for local police to investigate and arrest undocumented immigrants, that is not the problem. First off, local police departments can detain undocumented immigrants only the time limit specified in habeas corpus legislation, usually 24 or 48 hours. They either have to charge them, which they can't do or release them. Secondly, they do not have the tools they need in the form of state statues and resources needed to do immigration investigations. Also, in many of these communities, the local police would have no community support if they started arresting people for immigration violations. They would loose the trust of the community that they depend on everyday to arrest, charge, and convict those committing really serious crimes, not federal misdemeanors.

Asking the local police to enforce immigration laws makes about as much sense as asking them to enforce Internal Revenue Code.

For about the tenth time, they don't have to investigate. All they have to do is pick up the damn phone and let the feds know they have an illegal.

To know they have an illegal immigrant, either the person has to volunteer that information or police have to investigate. Otherwise local police will be reporting people they suspect of being illegally in the country. Most local law enforcement have far more important duties than assisting ICE find people with immigration status violations which are mostly misdemeanors that carry no punishment.

If the person is a convicted felon and known to be illegally in the country, most sanctuary cities will report the person to ICE before release and will hold the person provided they received a federal warrant within the holding time limit of that state.

Just stop with the bullshit!

You can't even get one fact correct.

Shut up! The ignorance you are spewing is contagious!

The Executive Branch can't run the Legislative, the legislative can't run the Executive so neither should the Judicial interfere with the Executive branch's constitutional responsibilities.

This ****** judge did not show reason why the government can't withhold Federal funds.

Do the words "judicial review" mean anything to you?

The judicial branch cannot assume the role of the Executive branch. That is what that SF ****** judge is trying to do.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do. Watch and learn when AG Sessions goes to SF and tells them they have 30 days to comply.

Apparently you don't understand what juridical review means. Any federal court can overturn an executive order if the judge believes the order violates the constitution or any existing federal legislation. The judges ruling can only be overturned by a higher court.

The administration is trying to scare sanctuary cities into cooperating with ICE even thou the cities do not have any responsibility to enforce federal laws.

It appears that most sanctuary cities are willing to notify ICE of the release of convicted felons and hold them provided they have a federal warrant. However, that is about the extent of the cooperation.

What ICE wants and will not get is vigorous cooperation by these cities which means collecting citizenship data on everyone they arrest or stop and holding all suspected illegal immigrants for ICE detention.

Purposefully hampering the Federal GOvernment in their attempt to enforce federal lawas, is an attack on this nation, as a whole, and needs to be stopped, and the political movement that supports that is traitorous and needs to be destroyed.

Local police in sanctuary cities are not hampering immigration agents. They are just enforcing local and state laws and leaving the enforcement of federal laws to federal law enforcement which according to our laws is what they are suppose to be doing.

Bullshit.


Oregon judge faces scrutiny for allegedly helping illegal immigrant escape ICE


And don't try to call this an isolated incident. The words of the Left on this issue, show that they are not about minding their own business, but about siding with the illegals against America.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

He won't lose on the Sanctuary Cities issue in withholding money.

I don't think so. The federal government is trying to punish sanctuary cities without proving in court that what they are doing is unlawful or unconstitutional.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He won't lose on the Sanctuary Cities issue in withholding money.

I don't think so. The federal government is trying to punish sanctuary cities without proving in court that what they are doing is unlawful or unconstitutional.

He has every right to do, is the point, and SCOTUS likely will uphold Trump.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

He won't lose on the Sanctuary Cities issue in withholding money.

I don't think so. The federal government is trying to punish sanctuary cities without proving in court that what they are doing is unlawful or unconstitutional.

He has every right to do, is the point, and SCOTUS likely will uphold Trump.

It is only creating a lot of conflict between governments, and as you see, this will be a major conflict further dividing our nation and over what?

They are here illegally. We have to live with that and have life go on as normally as possible.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, I don't agree with his EO, quickhitCurepon, just that I think he has the legal power to do it.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

As I understand it, how ever, the money Trump and Sessions are wanting to with hold is not funding it is an annual reward to cities for their cooperation with federal authorities to re-imburse the costs of that compliance.

Link?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

AG Sessions Makes Surprise Sanctuary City Announcement; Vows To Withhold Funding | Zero Hedge

"Today, I'm urging states and local jurisdictions to comply with these federal laws. Moreover, the Department of Justice will require that jurisdictions seeking or applying for DOJ grants to certify compliance with 1373 as a condition for receiving those awards."

"This policy is entirely consistent with the DOJ's Office of Justice Programs guidance that was issued just last summer under the previous administration."

"This guidance requires jurisdictions to comply and certify compliance with Section 1373 in order to be eligible for OJP grants. It also made clear that failure to remedy violations could result in withholding grants, termination of grants and disbarment or ineligibility for future grants."

"The DOJ will also take all lawful steps to claw back any fines awarded to a jurisdiction that willfully violates Section 1373."​

https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...oj-move-toward-showdown-with-sanctuary-cities

The Justice Department sent letters to nine jurisdictions, often called "sanctuary cities," escalating warnings that federal law enforcement grants could be withheld if the areas don't prove by the end of June that they are abiding by a portion of federal law, referred to as Section 1373, that mandates local cooperation with federal officials on information about a person's immigration status....

The agency said the jurisdictions which received the letters had been singled out in a May 2016 report by the Justice Department Office of the Inspector General as having statutes that could conflict with federal law, adding that "many of these jurisdictions are also crumbling under the weight of illegal immigration and violent crime."

"The letters remind the recipient jurisdictions that, as a condition for receiving certain financial year 2016 funding from the Department of Justice, each of these jurisdictions agreed to provide documentation and an opinion from legal counsel validating that they are in compliance with Section 1373," the agency said in a statement. "The Department of Justice expects each of these jurisdictions to comply with this grant condition and to submit all documentation to the Office of Justice Programs by June 30, 2017, the deadline imposed by the grant agreement."​

These are conditional grants based on compliance with federal l aw. It is not general funding.

How many ways does it have to be assplained to you?

Post a link to prove your point. I did.

Wow talk about Google Fu challenged, it is in post 294, Grass Hopper.

I don't see where it says that but talks about grants in general. Specify exactly where it says that.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Suppose we were under attack by North Korea and an ultra liberal judge blocked Trumps ability to wage war.

This is a MUCH more serious national problem than the just the irresponsible actions of a lone judge. They can and will put us ALL at risk over their agendas.

There needs to be some kind of judicial consensus requiring "X" number if judges from "X" number of various states to halt Executive orders that pose no threat to national security and are in fact necessary to ensure national security.

Allowing one idiot on the bench here and there to stop the President from protecting the nation is a serous risk to national security.

Under attack by N Korea? Oh brother. Just what do you believe would happen? Hint: Google comparative size of world militaries.

The whole point of the system is to stop partisan decisions and favoritism.

The real reason you RWNJs are whining is that the ***** grabber is only the prez. You and he believe he's and orange god who should not have to abide by the law.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

What would happen? Libtards would celebrate N. Korea and blame Trump like the ***** retards they are.

 

[WEATHER53]

He won't lose on the Sanctuary Cities issue in withholding money.

I don't think so. The federal government is trying to punish sanctuary cities without proving in court that what they are doing is unlawful or unconstitutional.

It's unlawful as the law violators are being assisted and hidden
Jesus

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

He won't lose on the Sanctuary Cities issue in withholding money.

I don't think so. The federal government is trying to punish sanctuary cities without proving in court that what they are doing is unlawful or unconstitutional.

It's unlawful as the law violators are being assisted and hidden
Jesus

There needs to be a law decided by the courts and appeal process stating sanctuary cities are illegal until then the president or anyone else cannot categorically declare it illegal.

It will drive illegals underground and create a much more dangerous situation without significantly changing how many illegals we have.