Trump losing Sanctuary City battle?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Immigration is a federal responsibility. Check the 9th and 10th amendments.

Then perhaps the feds should go to those cities and enforce it themselves.

A simpler solution would be to arrest the lawmakers of sanctuary cities and charge them with aiding and abetting in commission of multiple felonies, harboring fugitives, and accessories after the fact. Then they can cool their heels in federal lockup until their cases come to trial, which will probably be after the next elections.

a reply to: MOMof3

As long as President Trump acts within the law, his actions are valid.

Any actions outside the law would be invalid, and ruling against such actions is precisely what judges should do.

originally posted by: Majic
Pitch And Yaw

a reply to: Indigo5

Actually, on further analysis, the executive order "first pitch" may not be as wild as Judge Orrick suggests, and may ultimately prevail on appeal given its language. Specifically, in the case of grants whose provisions explicitly stipulate federal cooperation as a requirement, the administration's position is well-supported by established precedent. We'll see.

Justice John Roberts wholey disagreed with that position in his Obamacare ruling on conditional Medicaid expansion..

I am out of time today...but it's a 10th amendment issue...I will search up his exact ruling and language when I have more time.

In short..the Fed can not use funding as a weapon.

a reply to: Indigo5

If you're referring to NFIB v. Sebelius, since the principles behind the severance of the Medicaid expansion didn't in themselves necessarily constitute a holding of the court, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that funding stipulations requiring cooperation would necessarily be struck down, particularly in the case of law enforcement-related grants.

They might well be, but with the lack of an official opinion on the specifics, any such proscription would have to be litigated, and President Trump, in his usual stentorian manner, has vowed to do just that.

For whatever it's worth, I would love to see federal power to coerce and infringe upon the sovereignty of states defanged, and the absurd elasticity afforded by the Necessary and Proper Clause de-elasticized, but does anyone ever ask me?

No, they never ask me.

a reply to: Majic

No, they never ask me.

I feel your pain. You could have all the answers to their problems, but they just can't do something as simple as ask you. They can tell you all you have to do is ask, but sometimes they need to take their own advice and, ask.

Nothing more than a liberal activist judge, an Obama bundler appointee. This won't stand for long. When the new fiscal year and budget appropriations happen, sanctuary cities will be in deep trouble. They are safe until October, after that, they're probably screwed, which is good for American citizens.

a reply to: Majic

Thanks fro that link

Justices Roberts, Breyer, and Kagan concluded that punishing states for failure to comply in the Medicaid expansion by withholding existing Medicaid funding (42 U.S.C. §1396c) is unconstitutional

...

that portion of the Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution by threatening existing Medicaid funding. Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate according to its instructions. Congress may offer the States grants and require the States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer

You can substitute immigration enforcement for parts there and start to understand what I am getting at.

FUTURE state grants and funding can be tethered to enforcement...but not current grants and funding that the state has accepted and relies upon.

Congress would need to legislate and attach conditions to future grants and funding..

Trumps EO though stripping current funding?...It goes nowhere in SCOTUS...its unconstitutional.

a reply to: Indigo5

I think we're on the same page: the law has to provide for it. Ironically, the executive order contains that precise wording, which is why it's possible the injunction will be lifted upon appeal. There may be other snags aside from that, however, so nothing's guaranteed.

But that's why we have several layers of judicial review available, and we are all much better off for it.