California judge blocks Trump order on sanctuary city money

>archive.is/C2SF5

Let's take a guess at which President appointed him, shall we?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.is/C2SF5
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

how the hell does this work?
>Break the law with sanctuary cities
>Block laws that punish you for breaking laws

ok

Dick Cheney

Is Dick Cheney a nigger born in Kenya to a coalburner?

THAT

FUCKING

NIGGER

This is a win for people who believe in smaller government.

The judge cited the Supreme court ruling against Obamacare. It was unconstitutional for the federal government to withhold funds from states that refused the public option, and this is the same fight.

No. He actually has the right to do this. No one is forcing anyone to buy something. We are asking them to enforce the fucking laws or else.

STOP IT, STOP POSTING FACTS

why

The reasoning for the decision, which literally a first year law student could have reached.

The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the President, so the Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds. Further, the Tenth Amendment requires that conditions on federal funds be unambiguous and timely made; that they bear some relation to the funds at issue; and that the total financial incentive not be coercive. Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves.

executive orders are not laws.
There is no federal law tying funds to compliance with federal immigration law.
If there was the case would have gone differently.
This is why executive orders are a stupid way to govern.

You have to buy car insurance in most states that is not the issue at hand.

The executive can't use funding as it's "Or else" because that is up to congress. Just like Obama couldn't use funding as his: Accept the public option in your healthcare exchanges "OR ELSE"

And I just want to point out they are still enforcing the laws. I don't think you're familiar with how sanctuary cities work. ICE can still come into any sanctuary city and do whatever they want, and local police cant stop them.

What?

This decision is actually Constitutionaly proper.

This was always going to be tricky.

The constitutional precedent is that you can not change the conditions for ongoing grant money to increase the obligations. At all. That would be coercive dependence.

Now he can refuse any new contracts between the federal government and the state/localities unless they agree to a new condition, but he can't impose an old condition.

Judges blocking the moratorium were activists but even the most conservative of federal judges would have ruled the same.

>but they are breaking the law

Even if this was illegal (it isn't per se), this is irrelevant. If it was, the proper course isn't self help but suing the cities.

if congress had approved the funds on condition that certain rules are followed then the order would have been upheld. This was like the GG put conditions the parliament did not.

Ah okay. your gubmint is strange.

why is it then that the fed can withhold infrastructure funding for roads, bridges, etc. in order to enforce the 21+ drinking laws? Is this also unconstitutional? Also, why doesn't Trump bring this shit to Congress? The US is just going to have a never ending cycle of presidents trying to ram through their executive orders and having them undone by the next guy. Nothing will change. I think this is a sign that the democracy is finished. People are too divided.

jeff sessions should stick a banana up this guys ass like that island faggot.

But thats not what the Judge said. he said anything that didnt have to do directly with Immigration enforcement, Trump could not refuse to fund.

e.g. $$$ for Humvees and Body Armor for local Police in San Francisco. He's trying to say Trump CANT not fund shit like that

I can't speak as to the reasoning behind the witholding of those funds. I just wanted to make available the judge's reasoning. I'm not a judge or a lawyer, but the 10th amendment is pretty unambiguous on this particular issue. If you have a problem with the enforcement of the federal drinking age, I'd recommend that you contact your respective representatives.

Likewise, the national government has also relied on the states to administer some federal policies, a practice called fiscal federalism. The term grants-in-aid refers to the federal government giving money to the states for a particular purpose. There are two general types of grants-in-aid:

Block grants: Money given for a fairly broad purpose with few strings attached.
Categorical grants: Money given for a specific purpose that comes with restrictions concerning how the money should be spent.

Basically they give the states money to abide to specific conditions. Whereas in Trumps case, it is an executive order, not a law, and therefor can be easily overturned by our congress. This is all part of the balance of power, so that the president cannot become a tyrant.

>If there was the case would have gone differently.
0/10

This. And not just State governments, but local governments as well. Thats what these big cities are very afraid of losing - those huge federal Block grants.

I wonder if Trump is stirring up all this so that it can be brought before the Supreme Court & get decided upon.

>executive orders are not laws.
Immigration law isn't an executive order, faggot.

...

>archive.is/C2SF5
So sanctuary cities and states, choose to obey laws that they like, and disobey laws they don't like. Thats like what the south did with the slaves.

Its gonna be a tough fight. The left has had free reign for too long. We need Trump2020, and Pence 2024 to fully realign the United States.

Can someone throughly explain to me how these random judges have more power than the president?

>President wants to do something unconstitutional
>The legislative branch tells him no
It's simple really. Do you not know how our government works?

>judge
>legislative

It is their job to keep the president in check, fuck them, right?

I wonder how many spics these bay area faggots have to deal with regularly
try living in a hispanic majority county

How soon before all of the Obama appointees die from bullet-allergies?

How is it a win for small government? Get nuked you worst Korea.

Wew lad

"Sanctuary city" makes it sound like they're actively sheltering people who have been proven to have entered illegally.

In fact what they're doing is refusing to help with local police forces or hold these people in local jails if the federal government arrests "suspected" illegals without first getting a warrant.

As they should. You can't barge into someone's house and arrest them on the "suspicion" that they might be here illegally. If you can prove it, get a warrant.

Let me say that again for all the natsocs here:

GET

A

WARRANT

What was that chit with Obongo and the transgendered shitters.
Where were the faggot judges?

Blocking federal funding was, though.

Incidentally that's not supposed to be an executive order either, funding is controlled by congress. Executive authority is out of control, it has been for decades and it's only getting fucking WORSE REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

give trump time to fully take over

Lol Drumpftard !!
No wall
No deportations
Amnesty
Funding for sanctuary
No travel ban
No healthcare
No tax reform

Winning.

Except there are plenty of cases of sanctuary cities holding illegals who have been deported multiple times. Hell, the guywho shot Kate Steinle was literally captured at the border,then SF requested his extradition on a drug charge, and then when they got him they dropped the charges and ignored the ICE detainer.