SavannahMann
Platinum Member
- Nov 16, 2016
- 14,540
- 6,820
- 365
First the link. I've got to type that it's a link because if this thread goes to page two, there will be someone who demands to know where I got the information.
DoJ scores a court win over sanctuary city grant policies - Hot Air
Next the commentary. That's where I put my opinion in.
From what I understand, Richmond California was the first to file the lawsuit seeking to have the courts issue an injunction that the Federal Government can not withhold Grants. The court dismissed the case without any real consideration on the Consttutionality, but because the funds have not been withheld yet, Richmond can't show any harm, or damages. So they don't have standing in the suit.
Before you get too far into the celebration or gnashing of teeth depending on your view of the subject, remember Standing was the deciding factor in the Prop 8 Supreme Court decision. The Plantiff's did not have Standing by law to speak for California. They may have had the best argument in the world. It might have been 100% true and accurate, and even right in line with the Constitution. But they did not have the right to sue, it was up to the Attorney General of California to do it, or delegate it, and he would do neither.
So the question of if the Trump Admin can withhold grant money has not been decided yet. Personally, I believe they can. A grant is a gift. You can't demand a gift, unless your title is Godfather, and your last name is Corleone. You certainly can't claim that the Constitution requires you to get this gift. But I don't predict what the Court will do, they've found weaker arguments to be exactly what the Founders intended.
DoJ scores a court win over sanctuary city grant policies - Hot Air
Next the commentary. That's where I put my opinion in.
From what I understand, Richmond California was the first to file the lawsuit seeking to have the courts issue an injunction that the Federal Government can not withhold Grants. The court dismissed the case without any real consideration on the Consttutionality, but because the funds have not been withheld yet, Richmond can't show any harm, or damages. So they don't have standing in the suit.
Before you get too far into the celebration or gnashing of teeth depending on your view of the subject, remember Standing was the deciding factor in the Prop 8 Supreme Court decision. The Plantiff's did not have Standing by law to speak for California. They may have had the best argument in the world. It might have been 100% true and accurate, and even right in line with the Constitution. But they did not have the right to sue, it was up to the Attorney General of California to do it, or delegate it, and he would do neither.
So the question of if the Trump Admin can withhold grant money has not been decided yet. Personally, I believe they can. A grant is a gift. You can't demand a gift, unless your title is Godfather, and your last name is Corleone. You certainly can't claim that the Constitution requires you to get this gift. But I don't predict what the Court will do, they've found weaker arguments to be exactly what the Founders intended.