Is Trump becoming a Lefty?

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Haven't read the article, have you? The bill on the governor's desk prohibits the federales from commandeering our gendarmes to do their jobs.

States rights, baby.

Sure I did. I suspect you did too, but apparently you didn't understand what you read, or your concept of the interaction between the states and the Federal gov't is fatally flawed. There's nothing in the concept of "state's rights" that holds state law as superior to federal law, thus your "states rights" comments is absurd on its face.

But I wonder....

If this bill becomes law, the next time there's a crime, God forbid a violent crime, committed in Cali by an illegal immigrant, and it is revealed that the crime could have been prevented if there had been cooperation between federal and state law enforcement, how will the average Californian react? Will they be comforted by the idea that their legislature and governor "stuck it to Trump and Sessions, so the end (the violent crime) justifies the means? Will you be cackling about the fact that the violent crime is secondary to the primacy of "states rights"? I doubt it.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Sure I did. I suspect you did too, but apparently you didn't understand what you read, or your concept of the interaction between the states and the Federal gov't is fatally flawed. There's nothing in the concept of "state's rights" that holds state law as superior to federal law, thus your "states rights" comments is absurd on its face.

Other than the 10th Amendment, of course.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Scalia was adamant about this very point:

Trump insists that he can force states and cities to participate in his plan to deport undocumented immigrants. But this ignores the 10th Amendment, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted to prevent the federal government from “commandeering” state and local governments by requiring them to enforce federal mandates.

For example, in Printz v. United States, in 1997, the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the federal Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that sought to require local officers to help enforce federal gun-control laws, including by conducting background checks. In an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court held that the act violated principles of federalism and the 10th Amendment for Congress by compelling state and local governments to comply with a federal mandate. Under the anti-commandeering principle, the federal government can no more require state and local governments to help it carry out mass deportations than it can require local officers to investigate and enforce federal gun laws.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...48d_story.html

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Other than the 10th Amendment, of course.

I'm not talking about the 10th Amendment. I'm talking about the Supremacy Clause. What California is doing is not granting non-citizens special status under state law. However, the Cali law is inconsistent with Federal law and the historical cooperation between Federal and State law enforcement agencies to enforce Federal law. The question, then, is whether states are bound to enforce enforce Federal law, or can they elect not of enforce Federal law. Or, more specifically, can a state impede federal authorities from enforcing their own law if the state deems the law to be unconstitutional.

This is not a new argument. In fact, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, in which Thomas Jefferson and James Madison asserted a state’s right to nullify the Alien and Sedition Acts, is a great example of how far back this very argument goes. But, while supporting the Resolutions, Madison was careful to point out that the Resolutions were not binding unless specific and appropriate action were taken by a collective action of the states to nullify the law, and that a single state could not take action that was contrary to Federal law. In fact, other states did not support these resolutions. Some detail here: https://founders.archives.gov/docume.../99-02-02-3190

You've also got Marbury v. Madison, where the SCOTUS Chief Justice wrote: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Therefore, if a state or collection of states disagrees with a Federal law, they must seek judicial remedy. But they cannot choose to act in a way contrary to enforcement of the law.

Just ask Scott Pruitt, current EPA director and prior AG of Oklahoma, who took on Obamacare in Oklahoma. Priutt filed suit and ultimately lost a SCOTUS decision by a 6 - 3 vote. If that vote had gone the other way, there would be no Obamacare in Oklahoma.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I'm not talking about the 10th Amendment. I'm talking about the Supremacy Clause. What California is doing is not granting non-citizens special status under state law...

The issue is whether the Federal government can compel California to use state resources to enforce Federal law. They can't, per the Scalia opinion I cited, nor per the recent ruling in Federal court:

A federal judge on Friday blocked the Justice Department from withholding grant funds from places that do not provide immigration authorities access to local jails or give advance notice when suspected illegal immigrants are to be released — dealing a major blow to the Trump administration’s vowed crackdown on sanctuary cities.

U.S. District Judge Harry D. Leinenweber in Illinois wrote in a 41-page opinion that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had probably exceeded his lawful authority when he imposed new conditions on particular law enforcement grants, requiring recipients to give immigration authorities access to jails and notice when suspected illegal immigrants are to be released.

The judge blocked Sessions from implementing the conditions not just on the city of Chicago — which had sued over the matter — but also across the nation, writing that there was “no reason to think that the legal issues present in this case are restricted to Chicago or that the statutory authority given to the Attorney General would differ in another jurisdiction.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...152_story.html

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The issue is whether the Federal government can compel California to use state resources to enforce Federal law. They can't, per the Scalia opinion I cited, nor per the recent ruling in Federal court:

A federal judge on Friday blocked the Justice Department from withholding grant funds from places that do not provide immigration authorities access to local jails or give advance notice when suspected illegal immigrants are to be released — dealing a major blow to the Trump administration’s vowed crackdown on sanctuary cities.

U.S. District Judge Harry D. Leinenweber in Illinois wrote in a 41-page opinion that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had probably exceeded his lawful authority when he imposed new conditions on particular law enforcement grants, requiring recipients to give immigration authorities access to jails and notice when suspected illegal immigrants are to be released.

The judge blocked Sessions from implementing the conditions not just on the city of Chicago — which had sued over the matter — but also across the nation, writing that there was “no reason to think that the legal issues present in this case are restricted to Chicago or that the statutory authority given to the Attorney General would differ in another jurisdiction.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...152_story.html

No, sorry. This is apples and oranges. SCOTUS telling the Feds that they can't withhold Federal funds has nothing to do with a state's decision-making or legislation about choosing not to support the enforcement federal law. The SCOTUS decision you cite was binding on the Executive branch of the Federal government, not a state. In order to determine whether a state can act in a way that may be inconsistent with Federal law - in this case determining whether the proposed Cali law would be "trumped" by Federal law - would need to be adjudicated separately.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by whell

Sure I did. I suspect you did too, but apparently you didn't understand what you read, or your concept of the interaction between the states and the Federal gov't is fatally flawed. There's nothing in the concept of "state's rights" that holds state law as superior to federal law, thus your "states rights" comments is absurd on its face.

But I wonder....

If this bill becomes law, the next time there's a crime, God forbid a violent crime, committed in Cali by an illegal immigrant, and it is revealed that the crime could have been prevented if there had been cooperation between federal and state law enforcement, how will the average Californian react? Will they be comforted by the idea that their legislature and governor "stuck it to Trump and Sessions, so the end (the violent crime) justifies the means? Will you be cackling about the fact that the violent crime is secondary to the primacy of "states rights"? I doubt it.

If only they'd sent Charles Manson back to where he came from and built a wall, but no. And here we are with all the immigrants committing all the serious crime.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

If only they'd sent Charles Manson back to where he came from and built a wall, but no. And here we are with all the immigrants committing all the serious crime.

What are you talking about? Manson was born in Ohio.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by whell

What are you talking about? Manson was born in Ohio.

You really don't get sarcasm, do you? Not surprising, you're a Trumpie, after all.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

You really don't get sarcasm, do you? Not surprising, you're a Trumpie, after all.

I get well crafted, well executed sarcasm just fine.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by whell

I get well crafted, well executed sarcasm just fine.

The point is that we provide most of our crime as citizens, immigration is responsible for a fraction. Home grown solutions like youth mentoring is a far more cost approach than building something fixed and costly, and not that effective.