|
|
08-17-2017, 06:03 PM
|
#2
|
The Voice of Reason!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,842
|
You know, those funds to the cities that Trump want to withhold?
After thinking about it, I have to say, why is ANY city getting federal finds for anything? I don't want ollar one of my taxes going to Chicago for any reason, or New York, or any other place. If the Fed has enough money to pay for cities, they can damn will cut my takes.
States and cities should be on their own.
For every damn thing.
Withhold it ALL, Donald. ALL!
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
|
|
|
08-18-2017, 09:56 AM
|
#3
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,450
|
The will of the people.
We shall not allow the liberal-infested Democratic Party to pick and choose which laws they wish to respect and which laws they wish to ignore.
|
|
|
08-18-2017, 10:25 AM
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom
After thinking about it, I have to say, why is ANY city getting federal finds for anything? I don't want dollar one of my taxes going to Chicago for any reason, or New York, or any other place. If the Fed has enough money to pay for cities, they can damn will cut my takes.
|
Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution lists the powers of Congress, the things that they have the authority and responsibility to deal with. I see nothing there that by any stretch of the imagination would include federal financing of any city.
The Tenth Amendment states:
Quote:
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.
|
It is my considered legal opinion, unhampered and unbiased by any legal training, that funding of any city activity is the responsibility of the state and/or the citizens of that city.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
|
|
|
08-18-2017, 10:41 AM
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker
Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution lists the powers of Congress, the things that they have the authority and responsibility to deal with. I see nothing there that by any stretch of the imagination would include federal financing of any city.
The Tenth Amendment states:
It is my considered legal opinion, unhampered and unbiased by any legal training, that funding of any city activity is the responsibility of the state and/or the citizens of that city.
|
Oooh...you're no friend of the teachers' unions.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
08-18-2017, 10:47 AM
|
#6
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5,414
|
all this federal funding for anything and everything needs to stop. If states want shit they can tax their citizens for it. more swamp draining has to happen. that includes federal financing.
|
|
|
08-18-2017, 10:50 AM
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Oooh...you're no friend of the teachers' unions.
|
I will be if they ever start teaching the Constitution in schools.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
|
|
|
08-18-2017, 12:49 PM
|
#8
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker
I will be if they ever start teaching the Constitution in schools.
|
Hell will freeze over first and fish will be swimming the streets in downtown Miami before that ever happens.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
11-21-2017, 11:02 AM
|
#9
|
gelding
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,883
|
US Judge permanently blocks Trump order to cut funding to sanctuary cities:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ctuary-cities/
Quote:
“The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the President, so the Executive Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds. Further, the Tenth Amendment requires that conditions on federal funds be unambiguous and timely made; that they bear some relation to the funds at issue; and that they not be unduly coercive,” the judge wrote. “Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves.”
|
|
|
|
11-21-2017, 11:10 AM
|
#10
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 17
|
"Follow the money."
These federal funds are in play by BOTH major parties. They are used as bargaining chips to keep their status quos.
|
|
|
11-21-2017, 11:43 AM
|
#11
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,170
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FantasticDan
|
The good news I take from these decisions is that eventually they'll run their course through the courts and solidify the right of the feds to take these and other federal actions. Sometimes Dan, it's better to keep the court card in the back pocket and negotiate better than to expose your hand for the losing proposition it is.
|
|
|
11-21-2017, 12:04 PM
|
#12
|
The Voice of Reason!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,842
|
I think this would not hold up in the Supreme Kourt.
OR, Congress could step up and doi its job and cut off funding to any city that defies the laws.
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
|
|
|
11-21-2017, 02:24 PM
|
#13
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2014
Location: st louis
Posts: 2,985
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FantasticDan
|
When Obama threatened to cut off aid through EO for schools that would not allow kids to pick their own rest room I did not hear a peep out of liberals saying it is unconstitutional for a president to do that. Democrats are so two faced it is pathetic. Did you Dan stand up for the schools at that time? Did you?
__________________
You will never achieve 100% if 99% is okay!
|
|
|
11-21-2017, 03:10 PM
|
#14
|
gelding
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by zico20
When Obama threatened to cut off aid through EO for schools that would not allow kids to pick their own rest room I did not hear a peep out of liberals saying it is unconstitutional for a president to do that. Democrats are so two faced it is pathetic. Did you Dan stand up for the schools at that time? Did you?
|
All the Obama admin did was send guidance information to schools as to their legal and civil rights requirements in regard to transgender students. The only "threat" was citing that all federally-funded schools were required to follow these obligations.
|
|
|
11-21-2017, 03:28 PM
|
#15
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5,414
|
it's best if congress actually does it. that will expose those that are for sanctuary cities and it won't be able to be over ridden by a liberal president.
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|