Senator Kennedy on Who Really Controls the Democrat Party

[task0778]

"Kennedy argues that moderate Democrats are no longer in charge but are being controlled by the radical “Karen” wing of the party."

This is not breaking news. But so far the moderates are getting voted out in many cases, even in blue states. In some purple and swing states, they have a fighting chance but they get primaried if they don't go along with the screamin' meemies. I'm not sure the Democrat Party will ever pull back towards the middle, they'd have to lose a bunch of elections for the money people to tell them to stop effing around.

 

[task0778]

When I am carrying, you expect me to, and these clowns are supposed to be trained. But, no, they don't even follow their own procedures, do not keep situational awareness, and are prone to panic.

I'd say that's reason enough to pull back a little bit on the rhetoric and involve local police to provide more public safety.

 

[White 6]

I don't like it that Good & Pretti were shot .. I think the Pretti shooting was a screw up , I don't think either shooting was murder though .. leaders in Minn should tell their citizens not to physically insert themselves between armed agents and the operations they are carrying out ..

If I was on a jury, no way on murder 1, even in that state. I could easily see Manslaughter 2, under Minnesota law.

 

[yidnar]

If I was on a jury, no way on murder 1, even in that state. I could easily see Manslaughter 2, under Minnesota law.

the investigation will be the judge of any possible wrong doing ..

 

[Doc7505]

I will give you that one. It contributed. Sanctuary cities should automatically lose all Federal Tax funding the moment they vote to officially go against cooperating Government, on holding undocumented for ICE detainers. And, I mean all Federal funding to the city including education grants, Tuition assistance, primnary/secondary education funding, head start, highway and Interstate construction and upkeep, Federal Air Traffic Control, the works. If they actually vote that way, I actually see no reason to give access to the National Power grid, but some may think me harsh.

<~~~~~~~~~~>
Additionally, the Federal Gov't should cut ALL funding to Blue Sanctuary States as well.

 

[White 6]

<~~~~~~~~~~>
Additionally, the Federal Gov't should cut ALL funding to Blue Sanctuary States as well.

It would not hurt my feelings in the slightest. I simply do not feel cities or states have a right to opt out from being a part of government enforcement of valid laws on immigration control of aliens in the country. If not party to the solution they are party to the problem. The power or the purse is a mighty tool. By continuing to subsidize states, when they no longer support the country goals of control of unregistered foreign nationals, they are working against national goals that make sense for a country, so no need to fund, as long as they are not willing to even cooperate with the Federal Government, even if reimbursed when that cooperation, actually has associated monetary costs. If they think the costs savings, outweigh the Federal Funds lost, so be it. But, they need to openly decide, out loud, just as they decided out loud to opt out of responsibility to the country at large.

 

[task0778]

It would not hurt my feelings in the slightest. I simply do not feel cities or states have a right to opt out from being a part of government enforcement of valid laws on immigration control of aliens in the country. If not party to the solution they are party to the problem. The power or the purse is a mighty tool. By continuing to subsidize states, when they no longer support the country goals of control of unregistered foreign nationals, they are working against national goals that make sense for a country, so no need to fund, as long as they are not willing to even cooperate with the Federal Government, even if reimbursed when that cooperation, actually has associated monetary costs. If they think the costs savings, outweigh the Federal Funds lost, so be it. But, they need to openly decide, out loud, just as they decided out loud to opt out of responsibility to the country at large.

Can't argue with the logic, but I wonder if the president has the authority to withhold certain funding to states that refuse to cooperate with federal laws. The courts will decide that, but it could be that Congress has the sole function for spending unless they stipulated somewhere that the President has that authority. Probably not ALL funding but maybe some of it.

 

[White 6]

Can't argue with the logic, but I wonder if the president has the authority to withhold certain funding to states that refuse to cooperate with federal laws. The courts will decide that, but it could be that Congress has the sole function for spending unless they stipulated somewhere that the President has that authority. Probably not ALL funding but maybe some of it.

He packed the Supreme court. They will go along with it.

 

[task0778]

He packed the Supreme court. They will go along with it.

I wouldn't bet on that. The SC has sometimes ruled against Trump if they believe he has crossed the separation of powers line.

 

[White 6]

I wouldn't bet on that. The SC has sometimes ruled against Trump if they believe he has crossed the separation of powers line.

You are in Florida, supposedly. You guys are like Tennessee, in that your legislature passed a law against sanctuary cities. What do you think? Worth a shot or not?
I think it should be written into the CR funding.

 

[task0778]

You are in Florida, supposedly. You guys are like Tennessee, in that your legislature passed a law against sanctuary cities. What do you think? Worth a shot or not?
I think it should be written into the CR funding.

Yeah, I live in Florida now. Worth a shot if the state legislatures want to change their own laws then I think that's fine. As yet I do not know of any federal law that says they can't do that and it's doubtful that will ever happen at the federal level given the current political climate. The question then becomes what can the federal gov't do in retaliation for the states if they won't cooperate with federal authorities. I guess that is still open to debate until the Courts issue rulings on it.

If something is written into the CR funding, will it survive passage in Congress? I'm not sure the GOP could pass that even if they only need 51 votes (reconciliation).

 

[White 6]

Yeah, I live in Florida now. Worth a shot if the state legislatures want to change their own laws then I think that's fine. As yet I do not know of any federal law that says they can't do that and it's doubtful that will ever happen at the federal level given the current political climate. The question then becomes what can the federal gov't do in retaliation for the states if they won't cooperate with federal authorities. I guess that is still open to debate until the Courts issue rulings on it.

If something is written into the CR funding, will it survive passage in Congress? I'm not sure the GOP could pass that even if they only need 51 votes (reconciliation).

A careful, conservative metered opinion. Thank you.

 

[task0778]

A careful, conservative metered opinion. Thank you.

JMO, but I don't think the SC will allow Trump to deny all funding to any states that has sanctuary cities. Not sure how the funding will be reduced however, without Congress' approval, it should be them and no one else that makes that call. So, what happens in the meantime if they don't act? Don't know, I guess we'll find out sooner or later. Do the states know how much of their funding goes to the illegals? And is that determination accurate? What a hairball.

 

[White 6]

JMO, but I don't think the SC will allow Trump to deny all funding to any states that has sanctuary cities. Not sure how the funding will be reduced however, without Congress' approval, it should be them and no one else that makes that call. So, what happens in the meantime if they don't act? Don't know, I guess we'll find out sooner or later. Do the states know how much of their funding goes to the illegals? And is that determination accurate? What a hairball.

I don't even know how much funding goes to illegals. Do you? I thought they had gotten a handle on that, but maybe not. I read the total could be as much a $182 Billion annually, but even that number includes state money.

 

[task0778]

I don't even know how much funding goes to illegals. Do you? I thought they had gotten a handle on that, but maybe not. I read the total could be as much a $182 Billion annually, but even that number includes state money.

I got no idea. And I don't know how trustworthy the number of illegals living in some states is either. So, how could anyone come up with a reasonable estimate of total funding that goes to illegals? Maybe since we're talking about law enforcement, maybe the federal gov't could stop funding for LE in states with sanctuary cities. If you don't want federal help, fine but you don't get LE funding if that is the case. It shouldn't be a decision for the Executive though, that oughta be out of his lane.

 

[White 6]

I got no idea. And I don't know how trustworthy the number of illegals living in some states is either. So, how could anyone come up with a reasonable estimate of total funding that goes to illegals? Maybe since we're talking about law enforcement, maybe the federal gov't could stop funding for LE in states with sanctuary cities. If you don't want federal help, fine but you don't get LE funding if that is the case. It shouldn't be a decision for the Executive though, that oughta be out of his lane.

Probably might be like, you mentioned for the other holds on funding, subject to Supreme Court, but I would be game. I can understand citizens having the right to think as they please, but if purely anti-American at the elected government level of city or state government, I see no obligation to see my tax dollars funding states and cities, that clearly do not support the United States. Self fund may be the way for them to go.

 

[task0778]

Probably might be like, you mentioned for the other holds on funding, subject to Supreme Court, but I would be game. I can understand citizens having the right to think as they please, but if purely anti-American at the elected government level of city or state government, I see no obligation to see my tax dollars funding states and cities, that clearly do not support the United States. Self fund may be the way for them to go.

I will say this, immigration into the US is IMHO a function of the federal gov't, not the states and I believe the states should support the policies decided at the federal level. Refusal to do so really shouldn't be permissible, we have a judicial system for deciding what is legal and constitutional and what isn't. It shouldn't be a prerogative for any state or local official to determine what federal laws are to be obeyed and what aren't, much less ordinary citizens. That is the 1st step to anarchy, challenge every law you don't agree with and support the politicians that favor a different policy. But when push comes to shove, local LE should be there to prevent any obstruction of justice and subsequent injury or loss of life. What happened in Minneapolis should not have happened and a number of different actors share some culpability IMHO.

Further, sanctuary cities are a slap in the face to the federal gov't. It isn't right to arbitrarily choose which laws are to be obeyed and which aren't at any level of gov't. Sadly we are seeing politics invade our system of justice, which is not the way to go. If there isn't already a constitutional challenge to their existence, there should be.

 

[White 6]

I will say this, immigration into the US is IMHO a function of the federal gov't, not the states and I believe the states should support the policies decided at the federal level. Refusal to do so really shouldn't be permissible, we have a judicial system for deciding what is legal and constitutional and what isn't. It shouldn't be a prerogative for any state or local official to determine what federal laws are to be obeyed and what aren't, much less ordinary citizens. That is the 1st step to anarchy, challenge every law you don't agree with and support the politicians that favor a different policy. But when push comes to shove, local LE should be there to prevent any obstruction of justice and subsequent injury or loss of life. What happened in Minneapolis should not have happened and a number of different actors share some culpability IMHO.

Further, sanctuary cities are a slap in the face to the federal gov't. It isn't right to arbitrarily choose which laws are to be obeyed and which aren't at any level of gov't. Sadly we are seeing politics invade our system of justice, which is not the way to go. If there isn't already a constitutional challenge to their existence, there should be.

I think this is what you are talking about, as I searched on Constitutional challenges in the Supreme Court to Sanctuary cities.
Yes, there have been constitutional challenges to sanctuary cities, including cases that reached the Supreme Court, but many were dismissed or not pursued further by the Biden administration. The legal battles often focus on whether the federal government can penalize states and localities for not enforcing federal immigration laws. Wikipedia State Court Report

 

[task0778]

The legal battles often focus on whether the federal government can penalize states and localities for not enforcing federal immigration laws.

And here is where the debate begins. We know that the 10th Amendment is supposed to limit the power of the federal gov't to issues it is designed to deal with and leave the rest to the states to decide what to do about whatever it is. We shouldn't have the president determining the appropriate state legislation for handling a specific function that isn't in a federal jurisdiction, in effect forcing or coercing them into the actions he/she prefers. And using federal funding is a way to do that, which shouldn't have to happen and ought to be prevented. BUT - immigration appears to be a federal gov't function that the states should play no role in, yet that's what some states are doing, mostly for political purposes. And that is shameful IMHO, particularly when the citizenry's safety is risked. Yet there is no law that says they have to assist federal agents and no penalty if they don't. Which I think is a step towards lawless anarchy and a line that should not be crossed.

Are we a nation of laws or a nation of men? In Minnesota and some other places there is some question of that. And the fact that the Biden administration didn't pursue the immigration issue kinda makes me think the Left knows they ain't doing the right thing.

 

[yidnar]

You sound as crazy as the Dems. Senator Kennedy was much better than you, and without all your BS.
But, at the moment, I suspect the Democrats are interested in assurances that ICE and Border Patrol under DHS will stop shooting American, simply because they can, when they do not have to, as long as it is in a Democrat run city or state.

Make no mistake about it, DHS will be funded. Neither ICE or CPB will be abolished, as those are not serious goals, by serious people. But, though I am not a Democrat, I believe there should be concrete agreements, on how this department goes about it's job. Even if the President sends you there, decked out for combat, you can't just nonchalantly kill Americans or anybody else, simply because they do not matter, since you don't like being filmed or even harassed, or are in a city with a Democrat mayor or governor, where Trump lost votes, and expect easy peasy funding from Congress.

fed agents didnt nonchalantly kill anyone .. all deaths occurred while your comrades were physically fighting agents .. its sad that they lost their lives .. your dear leaders should instruct you comrades not to fight federal agents doing their job .