Judge blocks part of Trump's sanctuary cities executive order

[smilesammich 10,727]

16 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

 

part in bold is where trump's trouble is.

[CaliCat 3,957]

1 minute ago, smilesammich said:

part in bold is where trump's trouble is.

 

The trouble really seems to be reading and comprehension. Let's try a different approach and hear it from Scalia himself:

 

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1996/95-1478

 

 

Facts of the case

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Bill) required "local chief law enforcement officers" (CLEOs) to perform background-checks on prospective handgun purchasers, until such time as the Attorney General establishes a federal system for this purpose. County sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack, separately challenged the constitutionality of this interim provision of the Brady Bill on behalf of CLEOs in Montana and Arizona respectively. In both cases District Courts found the background-checks unconstitutional, but ruled that since this requirement was severable from the rest of the Brady Bill a voluntary background-check system could remain. On appeal from the Ninth Circuit's ruling that the interim background-check provisions were constitutional, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and consolidated the two cases deciding this one along with Mack v. United States.

Question

Using the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I as justification, can Congress temporarily require state CLEOs to regulate handgun purchases by performing those duties called for by the Brady Bill's handgun applicant background-checks?

Conclusion

No. The Court constructed its opinion on the old principle that state legislatures are not subject to federal direction. The Court explained that while Congress may require the federal government to regulate commerce directly, in this case by performing background-checks on applicants for handgun ownership, the Necessary and Proper Clause does not empower it to compel state CLEOs to fulfill its federal tasks for it - even temporarily. The Court added that the Brady Bill could not require CLEOs to perform the related tasks of disposing of handgun-application forms or notifying certain applicants of the reasons for their refusal in writing, since the Brady Bill reserved such duties only for those CLEO's who voluntarily accepted them.

 

5–4 DECISION FOR PRINTZ 
MAJORITY OPINION BY ANTONIN SCALIA

[IAMX 3,055]

So what's the relevance of the commerce clause discussion to immigration? It has nothing to do whatsoever with either the federal governments authority to withhold funding to sanctuary cities/states. It's not a matter of commerce. This is a "power of the purse" issue. There's no ambiguity that the states have no power over the federal government when it comes to federal funds. That authority is explicitly given to the federal government and federal government alone. So they're fighting a losing battle.

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

The trouble really seems to be reading and comprehension. Let's try a different approach and hear it from Scalia himself:

 

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1996/95-1478

 

 

Facts of the case

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Bill) required "local chief law enforcement officers" (CLEOs) to perform background-checks on prospective handgun purchasers, until such time as the Attorney General establishes a federal system for this purpose. County sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack, separately challenged the constitutionality of this interim provision of the Brady Bill on behalf of CLEOs in Montana and Arizona respectively. In both cases District Courts found the background-checks unconstitutional, but ruled that since this requirement was severable from the rest of the Brady Bill a voluntary background-check system could remain. On appeal from the Ninth Circuit's ruling that the interim background-check provisions were constitutional, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and consolidated the two cases deciding this one along with Mack v. United States.

Question

Using the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I as justification, can Congress temporarily require state CLEOs to regulate handgun purchases by performing those duties called for by the Brady Bill's handgun applicant background-checks?

Conclusion

No. The Court constructed its opinion on the old principle that state legislatures are not subject to federal direction. The Court explained that while Congress may require the federal government to regulate commerce directly, in this case by performing background-checks on applicants for handgun ownership, the Necessary and Proper Clause does not empower it to compel state CLEOs to fulfill its federal tasks for it - even temporarily. The Court added that the Brady Bill could not require CLEOs to perform the related tasks of disposing of handgun-application forms or notifying certain applicants of the reasons for their refusal in writing, since the Brady Bill reserved such duties only for those CLEO's who voluntarily accepted them.

 

5–4 DECISION FOR PRINTZ 
MAJORITY OPINION BY ANTONIN SCALIA

i wonder if trump even has anyone not in his inner circle of 'yes' men  family look at these eo's before he scribbles his hancock on them..

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, IAMX said:

So what's the relevance of the commerce clause discussion to immigration? It has nothing to do whatsoever with either the federal governments authority to withhold funding to sanctuary cities/states. It's not a matter of commerce. This is a "power of the purse" issue. There's no ambiguity that the states have no power over the federal government when it comes to federal funds. That authority is explicitly given to the federal government and federal government alone. So they're fighting a losing battle.

seems like federal government bullying to me.

 

[CaliCat 3,957]

1 minute ago, smilesammich said:

seems like federal government bullying to me.

 

 

It all boils down to the so-called president unfamiliarity with the job, and disrespect for the constitution. It's all the more hypocritical, because that's what the MDRs claimed to be the case with Obama, so it's entertaining to see them twisted like little pretzels trying to go back on their words. I'd say good for the writers at SNL, it makes their jobs that much easier. 

 

[IAMX 3,055]

1 minute ago, CaliCat said:

 

It all boils down to the so-called president unfamiliarity with the job, and disrespect for the constitution. It's all the more hypocritical, because that's what the MDRs claimed to be the case with Obama, so it's entertaining to see them twisted like little pretzels trying to go back on their words. I'd say good for the writers at SNL, it makes their jobs that much easier. 

 

Obviously you have no idea what you're arguing.  This is a massive tantrum with zero knowledge.

 

If one wants unfamiliarity with the job and Constitution, how about Obamacare? The federal government tried to impose federal standards of healthcare onto states with regard to coercing them on how to run their own healthcare systems. Since the healthcare issue is not one where the federal government has the sole authority, that is what is coercive. The situation with immigration is entirely different, because the states and local jurisdictions have absolutely zero authority over immigration matters. For those who actually know what they're talking about, this matter is an extremely simple one, and those on the left, while trying to successfully give state and local governments the ability to flout immigration laws, will find themselves with a big fat F, for failure. This imagination that they can twist and construe the Constitution to mean whatever they want won't bear any results when it comes to a SCOTUS ruling. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

9 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Obviously you have no idea what you're arguing.  This is a massive tantrum with zero knowledge.

 

If one wants unfamiliarity with the job and Constitution, how about Obamacare? The federal government tried to impose federal standards of healthcare onto states with regard to coercing them on how to run their own healthcare systems. Since the healthcare issue is not one where the federal government has the sole authority, that is what is coercive. The situation with immigration is entirely different, because the states and local jurisdictions have absolutely zero authority over immigration matters. For those who actually know what they're talking about, this matter is an extremely simple one, and those on the left, while trying to successfully give state and local governments the ability to flout immigration laws, will find themselves with a big fat F, for failure. This imagination that they can twist and construe the Constitution to mean whatever they want won't bear any results when it comes to a SCOTUS ruling. 

i think you're supposed to use a : instead of . when announcing your massive tantrum. lol

[CaliCat 3,957]

17 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

i think you're supposed to use a : instead of . when announcing your massive tantrum. lol

 

Time and place are also fundamental.

 

In this case, the most appropriate place for a hissy fit is shown below, otherwise it's just one arguing with oneself. It's good entertainment, but not very productive. LOL.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, Eric-Pris said:

if the shoe fits...

 

 

 

[CaliCat 3,957]

1 minute ago, smilesammich said:

i just think its great that there are still americans who blame liberals for trump being ineffective, when progressive liberals control nothing. not the house, not the senate. not even the democratic party. good stuff.

 

Consider the alternative: They'd have to recognize that after all these years complaining about Obama, they voted for a con artist who is ten times worse. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

8 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

Consider the alternative: They'd have to recognize that after all these years complaining about Obama, they voted for a con artist who is ten times worse. 

and ten times is such a conservative estimate..

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

I am identifying as a the L word today. Just for the record using said L word once got me suspended. 

[TBoneTX 47,491]

7 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Just for the record using said L word once got me suspended. 

This is why 7 posts were removed, along with 3 off-topic posts.  That word is a no-no.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

9 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I am identifying as a the L word today. Just for the record using said L word once got me suspended. 

Libural is a a ban word?