Texas Governor To sign a law that bans sanctuary cities.

[yuna628 9,758]

Is it constitutional to punish local government for something that the federal government should have no control over? Like if New York State were to pass a law allowing it, should the federal government be able to "punish" New York (by withholding funding) purely for that reason?

My knowledge of constitutional law isn't that great so it's an honest question.

Have a read over this analysis. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/26/federalism-the-constitution-and-sanctuary-cities/?utm_term=.bb44a546f63a

Trump has said that he intends to break the resistance of sanctuary cities by cutting off all of their federal funding. The cities might continue resisting even if they do lose some federal funds. But Trump’s threat is not as formidable as it might seem.

Few if any federal grants to state and local governments are conditioned on cooperation with federal deportation efforts. The Supreme Court has long ruled that conditions on federal grants to state and local governments are not enforceable unless they are “unambiguously” stated in the text of the law “so that the States can knowingly decide whether or not to accept those funds.” In ambiguous cases, courts must assume that state and local governments are not required to meet the condition in question. In sum, the Trump administration can’t cut off any federal grants to sanctuary cities unless it can show that those grants were clearly conditioned on cooperation with federal deportation policies.

[...]

UPDATE: It is worth noting that if Congress were to pass a law stripping sanctuary cities of all their federal funding unless they help facilitate federal deportation efforts, it would be unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Obamacare Medicaid expansion in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), which forbids funding conditions so coercive that they amount to a “gun to the head” of a state or local government. While the exact limits of this principle are debatable, denying a state all federal grants for the purpose of compelling cooperation with federal deportation policy surely qualifies, if anything does. At the very least, that would be true for local governments that depend on federal funds for a substantial proportion of their budget.

[MarkPerry 488]

Is it constitutional to punish local government for something that the federal government should have no control over? Like if New York State were to pass a law allowing it, should the federal government be able to "punish" New York (by withholding funding) purely for that reason?

My knowledge of constitutional law isn't that great so it's an honest question.

Yes, they can withhold funds. Just like here in Texas is one reason we have seatbelts laws, if we didn't the Feds were going to withhold highway funds. As I said once you start withholding money, then things start happening.

[bcking 3,157]

Yes, they can withhold funds. Just like here in Texas is one reason we have seatbelts laws, if we didn't the Feds were going to withhold highway funds. As I said once you start withholding money, then things start happening.

What's your take on what Yuna posted?

[MarkPerry 488]

Is it constitutional to punish local government for something that the federal government should have no control over? Like if New York State were to pass a law allowing it, should the federal government be able to "punish" New York (by withholding funding) purely for that reason?

My knowledge of constitutional law isn't that great so it's an honest question.

Found an article when Texas lowered it BAC from .10 to .08 a few years ago. The Feds threatened to withhold funds

http://www.wisecounty.com/themuse/Column39.htm

[bcking 3,157]

Found an article when Texas lowered it BAC from .10 to .08 a few years ago. The Feds threatened to withhold funds

http://www.wisecounty.com/themuse/Column39.htm

From what it said it seemed like they threatened to withhold federal highways funding if laws pertaining to highways in Texas didn't "conform" to the federal recommendations. That seems more reasonable to me. They are both related so the government says "Hey we are helping to support these highways so you need to get in line".

I think just a blanket "withholding all federal funding" for everything would be a lot harder to manage legally. If there are funding that a city/state gets from the government for immigration purposes fine they can change the law to withhold that funding, but not all funding.

[MarkPerry 488]

What's your take on what Yuna posted?

Looks good on paper, in reality Federal Funds will be with held and changes will be made.

[bcking 3,157]

Looks good on paper, in reality Federal Funds will be with held and changes will be made.

I guess we'll just wait and see then

[MarkPerry 488]

I guess we'll just wait and see then

Exactly, I am looking forward to the new administration. It is good times.

[yuna628 9,758]

I guess we'll just wait and see then

We all get to witness a lot of very disappointed people that suddenly will realize things don't quite work the way their leader tells them it will.

[Teddy B 17,252]

We all get to witness a lot of very disappointed people that suddenly will realize things don't quite work the way their leader tells them it will.

While I try to remain optimistic, I have a feeling the reality of it all will be just as you say for the Trump administration, a big disappointment all around.

[MarkPerry 488]

While I try to remain optimistic, I have a feeling the reality of it all will be just as you say for the Trump administration, a big disappointment all around.

I have been on the Trump Train about the second week after he announced his run, I had to do some research and like what I saw. And I watched him in the debates and killed all the GOP guys, I was sold. It's easy for the Trump fans to be excited, We are going to have blast the next few years. I still get a big smile on my face when I know Trump is about to take over.

[Teddy B 17,252]

I have been on the Trump Train about the second week after he announced his run, I had to do some research and like what I saw. And I watched him in the debates and killed all the GOP guys, I was sold. It's easy for the Trump fans to be excited, We are going to have blast the next few years. I still get a big smile on my face when I know Trump is about to take over.

FYI insulting and belittling your opponents in debate isn't considered to be "killing your opponent".

[MarkPerry 488]

FYI insulting and belittling your opponents in debate isn't considered to be "killing your opponent".

It worked out for him didn't it, He had some of them guys so jacked up they still don't know what hit them. He played the game his way, and he made the rules.

[smilesammich 10,727]

FYI insulting and belittling your opponents in debate isn't considered to be "killing your opponent".

now it is; the bar has been lowered considerably..

[eieio 1,594]

I have been on the Trump Train about the second week after he announced his run, I had to do some research and like what I saw. And I watched him in the debates and killed all the GOP guys, I was sold. It's easy for the Trump fans to be excited, We are going to have blast the next few years. I still get a big smile on my face when I know Trump is about to take over.

Yes we are!! All these complete idiots keep ranting and raving how Trump won't be able to accomplish anything and how we will be soooo disappointed, are the same knuckleheads that proclaimed Trump had no chance, this was it, he was done, etc etc.

They still have no clue. In fours years they will still be spouting the same nonsense. It is like they are incapable of learning. I bet they are the same type of people who fall for the "pull my finger" trick , day after day, from the same person.