"California judge" blocks President Trump order withholding funding to sanctuary cities

[JakeStarkey]

If the money has been authorize, ABS, yes, a President can withhold funds. Nixon did so during his administration.

Did he do it with an EO? If so, link please.

Run along if you are not posting evidence yourself. Yes, he withheld the funds.

 

[Aries]

Are you people really trying to say that federal laws do not "tricke down". Of course they do. State and local police agencies may not have to be the enforcement entity but neither can they turn a blind eye

The judge essentially said that Trump cannot make up new laws, and of course he cannot.

All he intends to do is enforce EXISTING law that has not been enforced for years.

Thats not the only hurdle trumpty dumpty has with this overreach. Check out the 10th amendment of our constitution, its a good read.

 

[WEATHER53]

The overreach is the incredible emotion based pretzel twisting to find ways for illegals to continue to be illegal And encourage more to come

The U.S. judicial system should not have the power to condone and encourage illegals nor any illegal act

 

[JusticeHammer]

Like I said before. Trump cannot withhold federal money from state and local governments with an EO, it HAS to be done by Congress, because if it involves money, Congress has to pass a bill to authorize spending.

Same thing with the border wall.

Did obuthole get approval for the 221 million he sent to the palastinians? Go Trump, withhold the funds.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If the money has been authorize, ABS, yes, a President can withhold funds. Nixon did so during his administration.

Did he do it with an EO? If so, link please.

Run along if you are not posting evidence yourself. Yes, he withheld the funds.

Fine. I looked it up, and yeah, Nixon did have that authority, but because he abused it, it was taken away. Nixon was the LAST president to have that power.

Impoundment is an act by a President of the United States of not spending money that has been appropriated by the U.S. Congress. Thomas Jefferson was the first president to exercise the power of impoundment in 1801. The power was available to all presidents up to and including Richard Nixon, and was regarded as a power inherent to the office. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed in response to perceived abuse of the power under President Nixon. Title X of the act, and its interpretation under Train v. City of New York, essentially removed the power. The president's ability to indefinitely reject congressionally approved spending was thus removed.[1]

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provides that the president may propose rescission of specific funds, but that rescission must be approved by both the House of Representatives and Senate within 45 days. In effect, the requirement removed the impoundment power, since Congress is not required to vote on the rescission and, in fact, has ignored the vast majority of presidential requests.[2]

Forty-three states in the U.S. give their governors authority not to spend money allocated by the state legislature. The states which deny their governor the authority are Indiana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Vermont.[3] The Mayor of Washington, D.C. also has the impoundment power.[4]

Impoundment of appropriated funds - Wikipedia

So, while you are technically correct that Nixon was able to do it, he was also the last president to have that power.

Trump doesn't have that authority because of the act that was passed in 1974. Trump has no authority to withhold funds from state and local governments without Congressional approval for more than 45 days, so no, he can't cut funding with an EO.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Once funding is authorized it cannot be withheld. There is nothing compelling funding to be authorized either. Just don't authorize the funds.

Sanctuary cities aren't asked to investigate or detain anyone. They are asked to hold criminals they already have in custody for which valid immigration holds have been issued. Or, at least inform immigration that an in custody is here illegally. This isn't demanding too big a stretch, or maybe it is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The overreach is the incredible emotion based pretzel twisting to find ways for illegals to continue to be illegal And encourage more to come

The U.S. judicial system should not have the power to condone and encourage illegals nor any illegal act

The Judicial system has the power to make sure everyone, including the Pres, follows the law. Understand now, cheech?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Once funding is authorized it cannot be withheld. There is nothing compelling funding to be authorized either. Just don't authorize the funds.

Sanctuary cities aren't asked to investigate or detain anyone. They are asked to hold criminals they already have in custody for which valid immigration holds have been issued. Or, at least inform immigration that an in custody is here illegally. This isn't demanding too big a stretch, or maybe it is.

That's what the Courts will have to figure out.

 

[WEATHER53]

The overreach is the incredible emotion based pretzel twisting to find ways for illegals to continue to be illegal And encourage more to come

The U.S. judicial system should not have the power to condone and encourage illegals nor any illegal act

The Judicial system has the power to make sure everyone, including the Pres, follows the law. Understand now, cheech?

He is following his prescribed powers but it's not too hard to find a bought and paid for judge who will impose his "interpretation" and thus should be ignored
When the 9th circuit repeatedly intervenes with their interpretation then something is badly wrong and should be ignored
I guess the final showdown would be some law enforcement coming onto WH ground to arrest Trump and likely some other law enforcement there to prevent it

 

[JimBowie1958]

Thats not the only hurdle trumpty dumpty has with this overreach. Check out the 10th amendment of our constitution, its a good read.

A libtard going for the Tenth Amendment, classic irony.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Once funding is authorized it cannot be withheld. There is nothing compelling funding to be authorized either. Just don't authorize the funds.

Sanctuary cities aren't asked to investigate or detain anyone. They are asked to hold criminals they already have in custody for which valid immigration holds have been issued. Or, at least inform immigration that an in custody is here illegally. This isn't demanding too big a stretch, or maybe it is.

As I understand it, how ever, the money Trump and Sessions are wanting to with hold is not funding it is an annual reward to cities for their cooperation with federal authorities to re-imburse the costs of that compliance.

And there is the rub, are annual awards now to be considered to be normal funding from the feds? If so this impacts a lot more than just this one case.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Trump doesn't have that authority because of the act that was passed in 1974. Trump has no authority to withhold funds from state and local governments without Congressional approval for more than 45 days, so no, he can't cut funding with an EO.

These are not appropriated funds. They are from a reward in the control of the DOJ to reimburse expenses in compliance with federal laws and awarded annually by the DOJ. It is not normal funding, as I understand it.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Like I've said before in post 285, he can't with hold federal funds. Nixon was the last president to be able to do that, and it was taken away from the president because Nixon abused it.

A presidential EO can only hold back the funds for 45 days. Anything beyond that has to be approved by Congress.

Too bad Trump doesn't know how to do his job.

 

[JimBowie1958]

AG Sessions Makes Surprise Sanctuary City Announcement; Vows To Withhold Funding | Zero Hedge

"Today, I'm urging states and local jurisdictions to comply with these federal laws. Moreover, the Department of Justice will require that jurisdictions seeking or applying for DOJ grants to certify compliance with 1373 as a condition for receiving those awards."

"This policy is entirely consistent with the DOJ's Office of Justice Programs guidance that was issued just last summer under the previous administration."

"This guidance requires jurisdictions to comply and certify compliance with Section 1373 in order to be eligible for OJP grants. It also made clear that failure to remedy violations could result in withholding grants, termination of grants and disbarment or ineligibility for future grants."

"The DOJ will also take all lawful steps to claw back any fines awarded to a jurisdiction that willfully violates Section 1373."​

https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...oj-move-toward-showdown-with-sanctuary-cities

The Justice Department sent letters to nine jurisdictions, often called "sanctuary cities," escalating warnings that federal law enforcement grants could be withheld if the areas don't prove by the end of June that they are abiding by a portion of federal law, referred to as Section 1373, that mandates local cooperation with federal officials on information about a person's immigration status....

The agency said the jurisdictions which received the letters had been singled out in a May 2016 report by the Justice Department Office of the Inspector General as having statutes that could conflict with federal law, adding that "many of these jurisdictions are also crumbling under the weight of illegal immigration and violent crime."

"The letters remind the recipient jurisdictions that, as a condition for receiving certain financial year 2016 funding from the Department of Justice, each of these jurisdictions agreed to provide documentation and an opinion from legal counsel validating that they are in compliance with Section 1373," the agency said in a statement. "The Department of Justice expects each of these jurisdictions to comply with this grant condition and to submit all documentation to the Office of Justice Programs by June 30, 2017, the deadline imposed by the grant agreement."​

 

[JimBowie1958]

Like I've said before in post 285, he can't with hold federal funds. Nixon was the last president to be able to do that, and it was taken away from the president because Nixon abused it.

A presidential EO can only hold back the funds for 45 days. Anything beyond that has to be approved by Congress.

Too bad Trump doesn't know how to do his job.

These are conditional grants based on compliance with federal l aw. It is not general funding.

How many ways does it have to be assplained to you?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Which one.

The one original (that Obama wiped his ass with), or the one the left wishes were in place ?

the one that references checks and balances

that help?

That would be the first one I mentioned.

However, please show me where it says that the President is obligated to follow courts decision.

However, please show me where it says that the President is obligated to follow courts decision.

One could start with the President's oath of office and go on to the full US Constitution from there!

Well, not really.

there is no exception for the President, we all have to follow the law, including court decisions, all the way through the appeals court and then if it makes it there, by the Supreme Court....

Nobody has provided any support to this claim.

Saying it is in the Constitution does not count.......show where.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

let's take it to SCOTUS. Include Travel Ban ... SCOTUS will smack down activist judges (aaaagain).

They're not "activist" judges.

They are simply doing their job - upholding the law.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Sun Devil 92]

That would be the first one I mentioned.

However, please show me where it says that the President is obligated to follow courts decision.

However, please show me where it says that the President is obligated to follow courts decision.

One could start with the President's oath of office and go on to the full US Constitution from there!

Well, not really.

there is no exception for the President, we all have to follow the law, including court decisions, all the way through the appeals court and then if it makes it there, by the Supreme Court....

If it's unconstitutional, then yes, the president has to abide with the law as we all do.
However, I for one would never trust a federal judge in San Francisco on this matter. I think it's likely he reflects the local culture, and we all know what that means when it comes to San Francisco.
Hopefully this will make it to the Supreme Court, and we can get the final word.

Would the Supreme Court hear the case? The court has previously ruled in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, that the government cannot use the threat of large cuts in federal funds to “coerce” states into adopting federal policies. There is also strong case law that supports the ruling. There are also other issues involved such as concerns over the constitutionality of holding detainees after they are legally free to leave custody and have not been charged with a new crime or made subject to a formal warrant. ICE depends on local communities to holding undocumented immigrants without a warrant which seems clearly unconstitutional.

This is so ironic.

Case law supporting why you have to follow the law...when this is all about cities not following federal law.

Me....I'd hang the mayor in front of City Hall and ask if there are any questions.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Just do it, Trump. These 'judges' have no say.

You have no say, obviously shoog, but whine on, by all means.

This faggot judge will be overruled. Like all 9th jerkit faggot rulings.

Nor does the ninth grit overruled more than any other.




Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[ABikerSailor]

Like I've said before in post 285, he can't with hold federal funds. Nixon was the last president to be able to do that, and it was taken away from the president because Nixon abused it.

A presidential EO can only hold back the funds for 45 days. Anything beyond that has to be approved by Congress.

Too bad Trump doesn't know how to do his job.

These are conditional grants based on compliance with federal l aw. It is not general funding.

How many ways does it have to be assplained to you?

Post a link to prove your point. I did.