IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags anti-Islam policies , donald trump , executive orders , immigration issues , lawsuits

Reply
Old 12th April 2017, 01:04 AM   #1
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
The Sanctuary-Cities Executive Order Is Trump’s Next Legal Train Wreck

This article makes a very persuasive case why the federal government (and certainly not Trump by his own power) can't try to force state and local authorities to help them enforce immigration laws.

Quote:

The lawsuits bear some obvious similarities to the travel-ban litigations we have already seen, yet they also have marked differences. The key parallel is that the order being challenged appears to have been drafted in haste and with astonishingly little input from experts. The difference is that its constitutional flaws appear to be multilayered, fundamental, and unsalvageable. The second travel ban — after substantial revision by competent lawyers — is now defensible as written, and becomes vulnerable only if one considers its overtly anti-Muslim provenance. It may well pass muster before our majority-conservative Supreme Court, now that Judge Neil Gorsuch is officially seated.

The same cannot be said of the sanctuary-cities order, which appears to offend the principles of separation of powers, due process, and interpretations of both the Tenth Amendment (establishing that the federal government only has powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution) and limits on Congress’s spending power that have been mainly championed by conservative justices — including President Trump’s own claimed judicial hero, Antonin Scalia.

...


Finally, the whole design and thrust of the executive order appears calculated to scare and coerce cities and counties into enlisting as ICE’s deputies in Trump’s multifront war on immigrants. Such coercion looks like unconstitutional “commandeering,” and runs afoul of Justice Scalia’s admonition, in a 20-year-old precedent, that federal government may not “impress into its service— … at no cost to itself — the police officers of the 50 states.”
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ain-wreck.html

Last edited by Tony Stark; 12th April 2017 at 01:05 AM.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 08:30 AM   #2
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,788
Simple fix. Send the feds to arrest cops who give sanctuary. It's called "harboring a fugitive" or "aiding and abetting violation of federal immigration laws". Which one would depend on whether the alien is a wanted criminal.
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced idea is indistinguishable from idiocy to those who don't actually understanding the concept.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 10:09 AM   #3
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,814
The courts have ruled time and again the states don't have to enforce federal laws because the feds have no constitutional authority to commandeer states. All the feds can do is dangle money in front of the states to get them to pass laws to help.

And this issue has been dealt with by the courts in detail -- specifically, the only time the executive branch can withhold federal funds is in conjunction with what the law granting the money specifies, and only in ways the law specifically calls out.

Since basically no federal laws lavishing money on states dictate the states may lose money for doing this, it's a non-starter legally. It's even more so given the localities that offer sanctuary state they will do the "minimum legally required to comply", thus protecting themselves even further, as they are not, on the surface anyway, deliberately disobeying any laws.


And now, the punch line. Would that all those slamming their fists down screeching this principle continue to do so in other contexts.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 10:12 AM   #4
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
And now, the punch line. Would that all those slamming their fists down screeching this principle continue to do so in other contexts.
Give me some examples. For the most part, smart incentive structures can take care of this problem, but I can certainly see issues involving Civil Rights where I would want the federal government to put a lot of pressure on localities.

Now, procedurally, that should go through Congress to pass a new law, but I can't come up with a situation off the top of my head that I would approve of that wouldn't be covered by enforcement of the 14th Amendment. Maybe some environmental issues, but they have their own long history of litigation and legislation.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 10:44 AM   #5
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
It's stupid. If worse comes to worse, the cities can officaly repeal the Sanctuary statement, but just give enforcing the immigratation laws the lowest priority.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 11:04 AM   #6
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
Since basically no federal laws lavishing money on states dictate the states may lose money for doing this, it's a non-starter legally.
Do you think Congress is unwilling to enact such laws? They've done it before.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 02:36 PM   #7
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,814
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Do you think Congress is unwilling to enact such laws? They've done it before.

Didn't say that. They would have to pass new laws to make anything Trump wants to do have teeth. They may have the political power to do so, or maybe not. It's kind of early to predict how the next election will go.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 02:41 PM   #8
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,814
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
Give me some examples. For the most part, smart incentive structures can take care of this problem, but I can certainly see issues involving Civil Rights where I would want the federal government to put a lot of pressure on localities.

Now, procedurally, that should go through Congress to pass a new law, but I can't come up with a situation off the top of my head that I would approve of that wouldn't be covered by enforcement of the 14th Amendment. Maybe some environmental issues, but they have their own long history of litigation and legislation.

The Civil Rights stuff was direct legality, and not threats by withholding money. A close example might be the Carter 1970s law mandating states pass 55 MPH speed limits under threat of loss of highway money. Then people in favor of it, most of whom now probably support sanctuary cities, ran around with raging wood at the joy of twisting the states' arms this way.

Presumably this was spelled out in the law itself, and wasn't an invention of Carter's off the cuff.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

Last edited by Beerina; 12th April 2017 at 02:42 PM.
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 03:18 PM   #9
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Simple fix. Send the feds to arrest cops who give sanctuary. It's called "harboring a fugitive" or "aiding and abetting violation of federal immigration laws". Which one would depend on whether the alien is a wanted criminal.
That's a brilliant idea. I don't know if it's legal, but assuming it is, what could possibly go wrong with armed Federal agents setting out to arrest armed local law enforcement?

The entertainment value would only be increased by the cognitive dissonance in the Oath Keeper types; I could see a whole bunch of heads asplodin'.
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 06:20 PM   #10
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,624
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
It's stupid. If worse comes to worse, the cities can officaly repeal the Sanctuary statement, but just give enforcing the immigratation laws the lowest priority.

I don't think it's only about the law, otherwise they wouldn't be proclaiming themselves "Sanctuary Cities", they'd just do what they want anyways.

No, these people have an agenda. Claiming yourself a Sanctuary City is a statement. I believe that statement is "vote for me next election, I care". If not, I'm at a loss for what good this does anyone.
__________________
Why bother?
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 06:29 PM   #11
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,624
Sanctuary Cities don't even necessarily help the illegals.

I read a story a few days ago about a guy from Mexico who came here illegally 20 years ago, now owns a restaurant, and was recently deported. He avoided going legal because he thought he'd have to go back to Mexico first.

Sanctuary cities want to give safe haven to these people, but this actually hurts them sometimes. The law finally caught up with this guy and he got deported.

Maybe if the laws were enforced he would have come here legally in the first place, or eventually got his green card.

Instead, by ignoring the laws, we enabled this guy to bury himself deeper and deeper until he was finally caught.

ETA:
Yes Trump will probably screw this up.

ETA2:
LOL @ "probably"
__________________
Why bother?

Last edited by mgidm86; 12th April 2017 at 06:38 PM.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 06:30 PM   #12
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
The Civil Rights stuff was direct legality, and not threats by withholding money. A close example might be the Carter 1970s law mandating states pass 55 MPH speed limits under threat of loss of highway money. Then people in favor of it, most of whom now probably support sanctuary cities, ran around with raging wood at the joy of twisting the states' arms this way.

Presumably this was spelled out in the law itself, and wasn't an invention of Carter's off the cuff.
Yeah, I think there are better procedural ways to accomplish goals like that. I get what you're saying - complaining about a process in one context only to support it in another - both parties have indulged in that throughout our nation's history.

I have very little respect for state sovereignty as a value in its own right, but I do think there are superior ways to promote better policy.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 06:50 PM   #13
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
Calling them sanctuary cities is poor marketing, poor framing. They aren't offering sanctuary as a church might offer sanctuary. They merely separate their police forces from ICE and it makes perfect sense.

The pro-deport them all camp thinks somehow undocumented immigrants are safe from ICE like the police would stand in front of ICE coming for the immigrants.

No, the cities just want undocumented immigrants to be free to call for police assistance without fear of being deported. That makes us all safer.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2017, 12:32 AM   #14
Civet
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,657
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
It's stupid. If worse comes to worse, the cities can officaly repeal the Sanctuary statement, but just give enforcing the immigratation laws the lowest priority.
That would probably work really well in some places. Don't think it would fly in LA or San Francisco. Supporters of sanctuary city policies here don't just to prevent local cops from being roped into doing ICE's job, they also want cops to be prevented from being able to make immigration-related inquiries of suspects even when the local cops might want to.
Anecdotally (so take it for what it's worth) I've been told that a lot of LAPD officers generally support the idea of not getting mixed up in immigration issues but absolutely love being able to team up with ICE to after gangbangers.
Civet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 10:02 PM   #15
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
This article makes a very persuasive case why the federal government (and certainly not Trump by his own power) can't try to force state and local authorities to help them enforce immigration laws.



http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ain-wreck.html
At least when he is writing up idiot ideas for executive orders he can't be doing stuff that might well be far worse!!!!!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 05:29 PM   #16
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
So Trump's Sanctuary City EO was blocked by the courts. What a shocker.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/25/politi...es-injunction/
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 05:34 PM   #17
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
So Trump's Sanctuary City EO was blocked by the courts. What a shocker.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/25/politi...es-injunction/
Yes it is quite a shocker. Not a shocker that a leftist POS judge once again blocked it.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 05:37 PM   #18
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Yes it is quite a shocker. Not a shocker that a leftist POS judge once again blocked it.
Your Fuhrer can get **********.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 06:09 PM   #19
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,398
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
So Trump's Sanctuary City EO was blocked by the courts. What a shocker.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/25/politi...es-injunction/
Comments on Twitter are hilarious. "Who runs this country? The judges or the President?"

and

"Since when can judges make laws?"

(love that in response to an executive order)
__________________
Gunter Haas, the 'leading British expert,' was a graphologist who advised couples, based on their handwriting characteristics, if they were compatible for marriage. I would submit that couples idiotic enough to do this are probably quite suitable for each other. It's nice when stupid people find love. - Ludovic Kennedy
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 06:25 PM   #20
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 19,246
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Yes it is quite a shocker. Not a shocker that a leftist POS judge once again blocked it.
But the right has all the power now. How can this happen?
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.
Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon
Spindrift is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 06:53 PM   #21
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
All of this winning, I wonder if Trump and his supporters are tired of it yet.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 07:06 PM   #22
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Your Fuhrer can get **********.
Lol
Yes, he's quite happy with what he is *******.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 07:07 PM   #23
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by Spindrift View Post
But the right has all the power now. How can this happen?
Because leftists are corrupt and need to be uprooted from government. It will get rectified.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 07:14 PM   #24
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Because leftists are corrupt and need to be uprooted from government. It will get rectified.
So basically a Republican president can issue whatever executive order he wants and if a "leftist" judge blocks it is evidence of corruption.

And you pretend you're not an authoritarian.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 07:26 PM   #25
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Yes it is quite a shocker. Not a shocker that a leftist POS judge once again blocked it.
How much winning can you possibly take? This is out of control!
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 08:02 PM   #26
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
So basically a Republican president can issue whatever executive order he wants and if a "leftist" judge blocks it is evidence of corruption.

And you pretend you're not an authoritarian.
Do you just throw these stupid statements without thinking?

There is precedent for the federal government putting stipulations on money given, simple stuff here folks. This will be overturned.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 08:46 PM   #27
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
Once again the judge used Trump's own words (or in this case whoever wrote the order) as the reason for blocking the order.

Of course Trump talking out of both sides of his mouth isn't helping him.

Reuters
Quote:
The Justice Department said the counties had taken an overly broad interpretation of the president's order, which it said would affect only Justice Department and Homeland Security funds, a fraction of the grant money received by the counties.

In his ruling, Orrick said the language of the order made it clear it sought to withhold funds beyond law enforcement.

"And if there was doubt about the scope of the Order, the President and Attorney General have erased it with their public comments,
" Orrick wrote.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 09:07 PM   #28
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Do you just throw these stupid statements without thinking?

There is precedent for the federal government putting stipulations on money given, simple stuff here folks. This will be overturned.
Wanna bet?
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 09:59 PM   #29
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,488
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
This article makes a very persuasive case why the federal government (and certainly not Trump by his own power) can't try to force state and local authorities to help them enforce immigration laws.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ain-wreck.html

Coming up on 100 days and Trump just can't seem to get his act together.

Quote:
Federal court rules against Trump’s executive order targeting sanctuary cities

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a7dd9a16f0a0
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 11:52 PM   #30
Polaris
Penultimate Amazing
 
Polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,396
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Lol
Yes, he's quite happy with what he is *******.
If he's happy with it, why the need to make it great again?

Or if you mean Melania...evidence she actually has sex with that 270 lbs of chewed gum?
__________________
"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

"Let your ears hear this beautiful song that's hiding underneath the sound," Ed Kowalczyk.
Polaris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 07:34 AM   #31
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Do you just throw these stupid statements without thinking?

There is precedent for the federal government putting stipulations on money given, simple stuff here folks. This will be overturned.
The fun part with these posts is in asking you people for an example.

So...

evidence?
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 07:40 AM   #32
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Once again the judge used Trump's own words (or in this case whoever wrote the order) as the reason for blocking the order.

Of course Trump talking out of both sides of his mouth isn't helping him.

Reuters
And look at what the dumbass in chief did today (at 5:20am, no less):

Quote:
First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities-both ridiculous rulings. See you in the Supreme Court!
He called it a "ban" again. Hahaha.

I mean, he's so amazingly stupid. Anyone who even considered casting a vote for this monumentally inept boob....
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 07:43 AM   #33
BobTheCoward
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
The fun part with these posts is in asking you people for an example.

So...

evidence?
Highway funding tied to drinking age. The principle upheld in South Dakota v dole.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 07:45 AM   #34
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Highway funding tied to drinking age. The principle upheld in South Dakota v dole.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole
Key portion:

Quote:
South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987)[1], was a case in which the United States Supreme Court considered the limitations the Constitution places on the authority of the United States Congress when it uses its authority to influence the individual states in areas of authority normally reserved to the states.
Court in the Sanctuary Cities case ruled that the president doesn't have that power, Congress does.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 07:46 AM   #35
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Yes it is quite a shocker. Not a shocker that a leftist POS judge once again blocked it.
If only there were only conservatives, right? That way, nothing would ever change and those uppity ******* would go back to picking cotton while the fags would stop buying wedding cake and pregnant women would pay dearly for daring to have sex. Meanwhile those towel heads would all be sent back to their country or run into the ocean, the rich would pay no taxes at all, and America would be a glorious white nation.

A man can dream.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 07:47 AM   #36
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Because leftists are corrupt and need to be uprooted from government. It will get rectified.
So the right does not, in fact, have all the power?

Good to know. After the election you were practically dancing on the left's grave, and now you're complaining that they're casually blocking the right's bills and EOs. So which is it?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 07:48 AM   #37
BobTheCoward
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
Key portion:



Court in the Sanctuary Cities case ruled that the president doesn't have that power, Congress does.
The post noahfence objected to in logger's post said "the federal government." Noahfence asked for evidence only of the claim "There is precedent for the federal government putting stipulations on money given."
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 07:50 AM   #38
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
The post noahfence objected to in logger's post said "the federal government." Noahfence asked for evidence only of the claim "There is precedent for the federal government putting stipulations on money given."
Fair. Just pointing out that the ruling cited doesn't apply to the case at hand, even it was an adequate response to their debate.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 07:53 AM   #39
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
If only there were only conservatives, right?
Right!
Quote:
That way, nothing would ever change and those uppity ******* would go back to picking cotton while the fags would stop buying wedding cake and pregnant women would pay dearly for daring to have sex. Meanwhile those towel heads would all be sent back to their country or run into the ocean, the rich would pay no taxes at all, and America would be a glorious white nation.

A man can dream.
It's interesting that you post something like this, you really think I believe this don't you? Even though I have your whole rant in my family, blacks, gays and 1 Arab. This is why you leftists aren't to be compromised with, worked with or admired. You're to be defeated, because no one can work with people who are this extreme.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 07:53 AM   #40
BobTheCoward
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
Fair. Just pointing out that the ruling cited doesn't apply to the case at hand, even it was an adequate response to their debate.
I really appreciate it because I actually didn't follow this injunction. Do we know if the city seeking the injunction brought up this point? Did the attorneys for the feds say anything on this point?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:01 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.