It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: vor78
But I guess it IS constitutional for these cities to just ignore federal law?
I don't know what to say anymore, I really don't.
originally posted by: Majic
The solution to lawlessness is not more lawlessness.
originally posted by: Majic
...but if President Trump truly cares about this issue, it's incumbent upon him to find a legal and constitutional way to work things out.
originally posted by: Idreamofme
These Federal judges keep on beating Trump up.
It looks like Trump trying to remove federal funding from sanctuary cities for non-compliance is unconstitutional.
www.buzzfeed.com...
I just don't see how trump is breaking a law for cities breaking the law.
Whole lot of law-breaking going on it seems.
So if he isn't allowed to pull federal funding, how else do you punish cities that refuse to obey immigration or other laws?
It seems that everyone can do whatever they want without fear of repercussions.
originally posted by: Byrd
originally posted by: Majic
...but if President Trump truly cares about this issue, it's incumbent upon him to find a legal and constitutional way to work things out.
You've hit the nail on the head.
Trump is a CEO, and he acts like one. But the governmental equivalent of CEO is "dictator" or "absolute monarch."
originally posted by: Idreamofme
a reply to: seeker1963
Yea that's what I mean. What else is there to do when cities or States go rogue?
Soon there won't be a United States of anything.
originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Idreamofme
This topic is really a moot point because Gorsuch's appointment to the SCOTUS means that Trump's travel ban and crackdown on sanctuary cities are inevitable.
A better, more relevant question would be:
How much longer until Trump succeeds in dismantling sanctuary cities?