Seattle sues Trump administration over ‘sanctuary cities’ order

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...s-trump-administration-over-sanctuary-cities/

Ah, the 10th amendment that Conservatives love to cite. In truth, the 10th amendment is really weak and does not limit the federal government very much. However, one of the limits supplied by the 10th amendment is that it does prevent the Federal Government from forcing the States to enact federal law. Now, the question remains whether withholding federal funds as a threat to force these localities to cooperate with federal law will qualify.

Perhaps someone would be willing to find the types of funds that the Federal Government is threatening to withhold - that might help answer this question.

 

Sessions intends to withold DOJ funds dispersed to local law enforcement. Nothing can stop him.

 

Why doesn't the 10th amendment stop him from coercing the States to enforce a federal law?

 

No coercing. Sessions can assign those funds at his discretion. Courts do not control federal spending.

 

court can always point to intent.
withholding funds can cause irreparable damage to muslims.

 

Good luck with that.

 

Sessions explicitly made it clear that he is directing those funds based on the State's willingness to enforce a federal law. How is that not a violation of the 10th amendment?

 

You're going to have to figure it out. It might be difficult to accept, but Sessions can, and will disperse those funds any way he likes. He may provide addition resources to ICE in sanctuaries instead.

 

I think there are two points that can be made:
1) Are they forcing them to enact federal law? Or are they gaining some benefits (funding) if they assist.
2) Actively blocking, not reporting, or harboring may be regarded as a felony and therefore encouraging "sanctuary" in any way or inhibiting Federal agents to act appropriately is an offense in itself.

 

It worked nicely with travel ban, why should not it work this time.
Judges are politically charged and they can do whatever they want.

 

He can, unless his decision dictated by intent to discriminate.
Judges will find bad intent in anything even remotely related to Trump.

 

Except write gubmint checks.

 

Well the 9th circuit seems to have a lot of free time ... maybe they should be spending that time authoring Californias declaration of independence ... or Mexifornias constitution ...

 

I'm hoping he was being sarcastic.

 

I think the courts are going to have to figure that out rather than listen to your naked assertion to the contrary.

 

Two -pronged question - why do Liberals love Illegal Aliens so much and since they do, why not invite more of them in?

 

As to your first point, I don't know that the distinction is sufficient. I seem to recall (but would need to confirm) that the Supreme Court ruled in the Obamacare lawsuit that the threat of withholding financial funding when it came to the States expanding Medicaid was too much of a stick and thus was a violation of the 10th amendment.

After reviewing, it appears that there was no clear holding as to this point, but essentially I was correct in noting that the threat of withholding Medicaid funding unless the States expanded Medicaid was deemed too much of a stick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natio...s#Issues_supported_by_a_majority_of_the_Court

There is almost no chance that such an argument would work. First, a criminal liability could only apply to a specific defendant and not to the State/City as a whole based on the policy. And Second, if the States/Cities were already liable for a felony, then previous administrations (or this one) would have pursued such.

 

I know this is going to fall on deaf ears, but I'm going to try anyways.

When you review a facially neutral law for discrimination, you review for both a discriminatory intent and a discriminatory effect. The travel ban was passed with a discriminatory intent that can be actively and easily gleaned from a host of contemporaneous statements made by Donald Trump and his associates. That is partially why the travel ban was struck down.

 

Refusing to actively denigrate is not the same as loving.

 

Tell that to Arizona who lost in court trying to ignore federal law.

 

Arizona was the exact opposite of this situation. Arizona tried to pass a law that effectively codified federal immigration law and allowed the State to enforce the federal immigration law. The Federal Government came in and claimed exclusive purview over immigration.

The current situation is, like I said, the opposite in that we have the Federal Government effectively dictating that the States must enforce federal immigration law.

 

Lock these criminals up.

 

They love them for their votes and destruction of the US, once they destroy the US they can rebuild with their communist agenda and they are inviting them in just not legally.

 

So the first one is that the federal government has exclusive purview over immigration and the second it doesn't? Must be that liberal logic again.

 

Exclusive purview to enforce immigration law does not equate to the right to force States to enforce federal immigration law.

Or to put it another way.

The Federal Government can stop the States from enforcing Federal law on their own, but the Federal Government can not force the States to enforce Federal law.