Judge blocks sanctuary city funding threat

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/25/politics/sanctuary-cities-injunction/

Maybe this was discussed in the Trumped thread or somewhere else but I was curious how this makes sense and was hoping one or two of the lawyers can chime in.  My understanding as not a lawyer has always been that when the feds have a law in place the states have to abide by it and can't just make their own law to replace it.  On the flip side if the feds don't have a law in place then it's a states right issue and they can handle it as they see fit.  If that's true how is it the states or cities can tell the feds they won't enforce a federal law and get away with it?  I don't know all the details of this, know it's far from settled and this is just one judge (so far) but it seems like the states and cities are being told there's no repercussions for thumbing their nose at the feds.  The judge sites taking away funds as being unconstitutional but isn't it illegal or unconstitutional for the states to not follow the federal laws?       

[Jason]

6 minutes ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/25/politics/sanctuary-cities-injunction/

Maybe this was discussed in the Trumped thread or somewhere else but I was curious how this makes sense and was hoping one or two of the lawyers can chime in.  My understanding as not a lawyer has always been that when the feds have a law in place the states have to abide by it and can't just make their own law to replace it.  On the flip side if the feds don't have a law in place then it's a states right issue and they can handle it as they see fit.  If that's true how is it the states or cities can tell the feds they won't enforce a federal law and get away with it?  I don't know all the details of this, know it's far from settled and this is just one judge (so far) but it seems like the states and cities are being told there's no repercussions for thumbing their nose at the feds.  The judge sites taking away funds as being unconstitutional but isn't it illegal or unconstitutional for the states to not follow the federal laws?       

Biased judges don't always make correct decisions. I'm not sure where it's in the Constitution that the feds must give money to the states for whatever the state wants

[mtangelsfan]

I disagree with the judge but I believe the basic premise is that when the feds take money from residents of said state, there is an expectation that some of the money will be returned to said state.

 

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

4 minutes ago, Jason said:

Biased judges don't always make correct decisions. I'm not sure where it's in the Constitution that the feds must give money to the states for whatever the state wants

I get that and know it's not settled but figured some of the lawyers could chime in as to how this is even possible for the states to tell the feds no.  If you let them do that without repercussions it's saying they're all bark and no bite.

MT - understood but is there anything that says a certain percentage is required to go back to the states?  I wouldn't be surprised if there is but then I'd be curious how that works because it's no secret that certain states are net givers while others are net receivers as far as money sent/received from the feds goes. 

[Thomas]

2 minutes ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

because it's no secret that certain states are net givers while others are net receivers as far as money sent/received from the feds goes. 

And we love you for it. Keep giving California!
Kisses
New Mexico

[mtangelsfan]

4 minutes ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

I get that and know it's not settled but figured some of the lawyers could chime in as to how this is even possible for the states to tell the feds no.  If you let them do that without repercussions it's saying they're all bark and no bite.

MT - understood but is there anything that says a certain percentage is required to go back to the states?  I wouldn't be surprised if there is but then I'd be curious how that works because it's no secret that certain states are net givers while others are net receivers as far as money sent/received from the feds goes. 

yeah, that I don't know.  What I posted was just my guess on how the judge came up with that ruling.  

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

I think it's the least CA can do for all the idiocy it sends east. 

Regardless of who I side with on this I just find it really fascinating because while it's obviously not the same level the issue of states rights and telling the feds they weren't going to follow their laws was at the crux of the Civil War.

[Thomas]

My guess is that it will be found that the Feds can withhold monies specific to the issue in contention.

Example. (Picks random state to be racist..let's say..totally random... Alabama.). If Alabama decides to re-segregate schools..the Feds can withhold educational funds until they stop being so Alabamian. They won't be able to completely block all funding though as a means of coercion.

[mtangelsfan]

I'm glad you didn't use Montana as an example.

[Thomas]

2 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

I'm glad you didn't use Montana as an example.

It's hard to be racist when there are only white people. Really really white people.

[Thomas]

And yeah, my pick was completely random. Any correlation to past events is purely coincidental.

[mtangelsfan]

5 minutes ago, Thomas said:

It's hard to be racist when there are only white people. Really really white people.

You forget that we have a large amount of reservations in this state.  So plenty of opportunity to be quite racist.

[Thomas]

10 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

You forget that we have a large amount of reservations in this state.  So plenty of opportunity to be quite racist.

Looks around office.
/giggles

Your state is 90% white/non-latino. That's astoundingly white these days. Republican wet dreams about the glorious past has more diversity. Granted they're the hired help but still.

[gotbeer]

15 minutes ago, Thomas said:

My guess is that it will be found that the Feds can withhold monies specific to the issue in contention.

Example. (Picks random state to be racist..let's say..totally random... Alabama.). If Alabama decides to re-segregate schools..the Feds can withhold educational funds until they stop being so Alabamian. They won't be able to completely block all funding though as a means of coercion.

 

this was my thought also.  The monies that are being denied to these states are for law enforcement that will not enforce federal law. 

Of course it will be interesting if Trump decides to double down, and say we won't be paying for illegals education and health care. 

 

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

10 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

 

this was my thought also.  The monies that are being denied to these states are for law enforcement that will not enforce federal law. 

Of course it will be interesting if Trump decides to double down, and say we won't be paying for illegals education and health care. 

 

The voters of CA tried this with prop 187 in 1994 and it was declared unconstitutional.  That said a quick search says it was found unconstitutional because they argued that it was the feds responsibility to regulate immigration and not the states so if Trump tried it then things would get real interesting.   

[AngelsLakersFan]

1 hour ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/25/politics/sanctuary-cities-injunction/

Maybe this was discussed in the Trumped thread or somewhere else but I was curious how this makes sense and was hoping one or two of the lawyers can chime in.  My understanding as not a lawyer has always been that when the feds have a law in place the states have to abide by it and can't just make their own law to replace it.  On the flip side if the feds don't have a law in place then it's a states right issue and they can handle it as they see fit.  If that's true how is it the states or cities can tell the feds they won't enforce a federal law and get away with it?  I don't know all the details of this, know it's far from settled and this is just one judge (so far) but it seems like the states and cities are being told there's no repercussions for thumbing their nose at the feds.  The judge sites taking away funds as being unconstitutional but isn't it illegal or unconstitutional for the states to not follow the federal laws?       

My understanding of the issue as a non-lawyer is that the feds can only withhold funds that are directly related to the laws being broken by the states. So if CA doesn't want to deport illegals then the feds can withholds funds associated with deportation / law enforcement. That doesn't open the door for them to withhold any funds they want. As for the issue of recourse for the feds, I'm not sure, last time this happened the feds just burned down the south.

[AngelsLakersFan]

48 minutes ago, Thomas said:

My guess is that it will be found that the Feds can withhold monies specific to the issue in contention.

Example. (Picks random state to be racist..let's say..totally random... Alabama.). If Alabama decides to re-segregate schools..the Feds can withhold educational funds until they stop being so Alabamian. They won't be able to completely block all funding though as a means of coercion.

Ah yes, of course someone already said it.

[mtangelsfan]

35 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Looks around office.
/giggles

Your state is 90% white/non-latino. That's astoundingly white these days. Republican wet dreams about the glorious past has more diversity. Granted they're the hired help but still.

I wasn't comparing Thomas.  Just noting that this state has plenty of opportunity to show its ugly side.

[Blarg]

1 hour ago, mtangelsfan said:

I'm glad you didn't use Montana as an example.

Montana was threatened with losing all highway funds if they didn't comply to the National 55mph speed limit and having the legal drinking age of 18. The state ended up complying.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

22 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

My understanding of the issue as a non-lawyer is that the feds can only without funds that are directly related to the laws being broken by the states. So if CA doesn't want to deport illegals then the feds can withholds funds associated with deportation / law enforcement. That doesn't open the door for them to withhold any funds they want. As for the issue of recourse for the feds, I'm not sure, last time this happened the feds just burned down the south.

Makes sense but then theoretically states could pick and choose what federal laws they want to follow and subsidize those they don't with state tax revenue.  Obviously that wouldn't be wise but it just seems like a way to circumvent federal laws which are supposed to be above that of the states.    

[Make Angels Great Again]

I always understood it as the feds are limited to the powers granted to them by the constitution. On the flip side does it say anywhere in the constitution they have to give the states money? If not I don't see why they are not allowed to pull back funds as they see fit.

[Thomas]

1 minute ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

I always understood it as the feds are limited to the powers granted to them by the constitution. On the flip side does it say anywhere in the constitution they have to give the states money? If not I don't see why they are not allowed to pull back funds as they see fit.

Do you see anywhere where they are able to mandate that these funds both go to them and then are redistributed by them as they see fit? In theory the federal government's abilities should explicitly stop at what powers they are given. Though that ship has long since sailed.

[Thomas]

10 minutes ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

Makes sense but then theoretically states could pick and choose what federal laws they want to follow and subsidize those they don't with state tax revenue.  Obviously that wouldn't be wise but it just seems like a way to circumvent federal laws which are supposed to be above that of the states.    

Didn't some states do that with ACA?

[Jay]

state's rights!

 

[Tank]

"Faced with the law, the Trump administration was force to back down," San Francisco city attorney Dennis Herrera said in a statement. "This is why we have courts -- to halt the overreach of a president and an attorney general who either don't understand the Constitution or choose to ignore it."

what an ignorant thing to say. isn't it equally an overreach for states to just thumb their nose at federal law about which laws they will or won't enforce, like illegal immigration? has this attorney ever studied about compliance with the constitution, even on things he may not agree with?

and i'm with you on this, cat. i'm not sure how a state can choose which federal laws to follow/ignore. it's why i think we're eventually headed for a supreme court showdown of sorts about states legalizing marijuana.