Is Trump becoming a Lefty?

[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 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 Rajoo

Also UC Berkeley and UCLA were both voted as the best public university in the US.

Along with UVa, another place Trump's Nazi brethren invaded.

[bobabode]

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.

As usual you ignored the point I made and went for the quip about states rights. You really are a dishonest debater when it comes right down to it, Mike. Color me unsurprised that you continue to be full of shit.

[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

[Rajoo]

All talk and inept/incompetent is what the Trump-Sessions team is all about.

Mostly deportations have remained lower than in past years under the Obama administration. From January to June, Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported 61,370 criminals, down from 70,603 during the same period last year.

So instead of focusing their efforts to carry out their own responsibility, they would rather criticize states for something they are not doing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.849174f24886

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

As usual you ignored the point I made and went for the quip about states rights. You really are a dishonest debater when it comes right down to it, Mike. Color me unsurprised that you continue to be full of shit.

Could say the same about you, of course. You started with a false premise, that I didn't read the article, made a second statement based demagoguery, that the proposed law will not allow the Feds to "commandeer" Cali law enforcement (which is BS since the law would actually forbid Cali law enforcement from cooperating with the Feds) and continue to beat that same straw dogs.

But hey, whatever makes you happy, Bob...

[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.

[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.

[Pio1980]

No shit. So build a wall around Ohio?