So when has it become a law that the government give out grants? Grants are intended to help a particular entity but are not mandatory. To put it into words that people can understand, a church asks for tithes but no one is forced to give them. No constitutional law requires it so the judge saying that it broke constitutional law is a bunch of crapola.

Do it Sessions!

(04-26-2017 05:05 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 02:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 02:04 PM)shere khan Wrote:  So states dont have to enforce federal law? Got it.

Watch how fast the left will lose its mind the first time a state ignores a federal environmental law.

Really funny watching the left go state's rights.

You rarely have state police enforcing federal environmental laws.

Have to back up, it seems that under Dole, the Feds can condition new money on a state taking steps. But under the decision on the funding of the ACA, the feds cannot take away already granted funds, as this would be 'coercive' of the Feds to make the state enforce law.

So: if the monies are already voted on --- can't withhold due to new conditions of enforcing Federal law (using the axe). If new monies are voted, you can make conditions (the cherry).

And, Printz is still good law that you cannot "commandeer" a local police force to enforce Federal laws. But the local force can volunteer to enforce (but, apparently in immigration matters this runs afoul of the Sheriff Joe / Arizona statute case about 6 years ago.)

Asking for nothing more than information takes the Trump administration out of Printz. But I think it will run afoul of the ACA/Medicare ruling issued not too long ago because it is conditioning monies already granted.

I generally concur. If legislation was passed through Congress and signed by the President (whoever it was at the time) granting monies to states/cities, then the President can not unilaterally withhold those funds; UNLESS, the legislation specifically gave the President the authority to make such decisions. Since I doubt the latter, the decision was probably correct.

Why do you doubt the latter?

Most legislation for programs authorizes the executive branch to administer it.

Most programs don't have specific amounts to disburse to specific recipients and instead have criteria that the executive branch will use to make those administrative decisions.

The courts have traditionally granted wide leeway in administrative decision-making (too wide even).

(04-26-2017 01:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 01:10 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  The wuestion [sic] isn't breaking the law. It is whether they still get Federal money that has requirements attached...if they willfully ignore the requirements.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

But it won't fly if the requirements are that states enforce federal laws, which is really what they're saying. That's the crux of the issue, and I doubt it will pass Constitutional muster.

Do your years and years of legal expertise tell you this? I mean you are a lawyer, right?

(04-26-2017 02:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Add a little bit of resource to existing border security and start cracking down on employers who hire illegals. You won't need a wall then.

I'm 100% in agreement with this. See, sometimes we can agree on something.