I suppose it's a bit ironic that Trump and the GOP would have "states' rights" thrown back in their face on this one.

That's not an article, it is a guest editorial that appears under the "Opinion" heading, written by three California law professors. If it had appeared on the editorial page of the Washington Times and was written by Ted Cruz, I doubt that it would be described as an article.

 

Then again, it probably would, because most Americans don't make the distinction between an opinion column and an actual news article.

That's not an article, it is a guest editorial that appears under the "Opinion" heading, written by three California law professors. If it had appeared on the editorial page of the Washington Times and was written by Ted Cruz, I doubt that it would be described as an article.

 

 

Good lord. Debate what it says or quit wasting time.

I suspect this will have little effect on Trump and his move to do away with sanctuary cities. They will withhold the money( see the details of his order today). If they still refuse I suspect they will end up like I would if I break Federal Law. In jail. Its gonna come down hard on these mayors. Comply or fines, being removed from office( they should be if they defy the laws) and arrested. I am 100% in favor of that path to the cross bar hotel.

Good lord. Debate what it says or quit wasting time.

Posting a politically biased editorial and describing it as article is a waste of time. It is a little late for liberals to try to use the 10th Amendment as a shield for illegal behavior. They have spent decades trashing it.

Posting a politically biased editorial and describing it as article is a waste of time. It is a little late for liberals to try to use the 10th Amendment as a shield for illegal behavior. They have spent decades trashing it.

 

 

So you are the legal expert. Got it.

I suspect this will have little effect on Trump and his move to do away with sanctuary cities. They will withhold the money( see the details of his order today). If they still refuse I suspect they will end up like I would if I break Federal Law. In jail. Its gonna come down hard on these mayors. Comply or fines, being removed from office( they should be if they defy the laws) and arrested. I am 100% in favor of that path to the cross bar hotel.

 

 

So tell us what part of the SCOTUS decisions regarding the federal govt and local governments that you think do not apply here.

So you are the legal expert. Got it.

Not at all, but I am smart enough to recognize an editorial when I read it and have no problem distinguishing one from a factual article.

So tell us what part of the SCOTUS decisions regarding the federal govt and local governments that you think do not apply here.

 

I think that when you break Federal law, especially given the issue here, its not gonna matter. I think if these mayors decide to not follow the law the pressure will be too much from both the Government and the citizens. I would gander we are getting ready to see though. I think unless they change the laws, they need to comply with the laws on the books. Do you agree that they need to comply?

Not at all, but I am smart enough to recognize an editorial when I read it and have no problem distinguishing one from a factual article.

 

So as I stated originally - wasting our time.

I think that when you break Federal law, especially given the issue here, its not gonna matter. I think if these mayors decide to not follow the law the pressure will be too much from both the Government and the citizens. I would gander we are getting ready to see though. I think unless they change the laws, they need to comply with the laws on the books. Do you agree that they need to comply?

 

 

You say "I think."

 

Based on what case law specific to this type of issue?

You say "I think."

 

Based on what case law specific to this type of issue?

 

Im not looking up case law tonight. So if you are wanting a debate that involves anything other than my opinion you need to look elsewhere.

 

Do you agree the cities need to follow Federal law? That dont take a supreme court decision to get your opinion does it?

So as I stated originally - wasting our time.

And I agreed. Debating the editorial opinion of three very liberal law professors is a waste of our time. All I did was correct an obvious error in the OP and look at the thanks I got for my trouble. :lol2:

And I agreed. Debating the editorial opinion of three very liberal law professors is a waste of our time. All I did was correct an obvious error in the OP and look at the thanks I got for my trouble. :lol2:

 

Let's back up here.

 

You (without going back to verify) and others are seemingly under the impression that because the federal govt says so it is so.

 

I posted a link that shows SCOTUS cases where that's not always so. While it may seem logical that fed law TRUMPS state/local law the SCOTUS has said that's not always the case.

 

That's why I posted the links. Not because I think those linked cases 100% prove anything but to show you that your logic , while seemingly logical to you and many, is not true legally.

 

I can easily find others who say that those cases do NOT apply to this situation. Irrelevant because my point is to show that cities in some cases can defy requests/mandates from the feds.

 

If you want to state that IT SHOULD say that. However, to say that "I think" but have nothing to back it up or try in no way to show how it's different than SCOTUS cases provided is silly. You're no legal scholar. I'm certainly no legal scholar.

 

So to answer your question, I think the cities should follow the law of the land. Period.

Let's back up here.

 

You (without going back to verify) and others are seemingly under the impression that because the federal govt says so it is so.

 

I posted a link that shows SCOTUS cases where that's not always so. While it may seem logical that fed law TRUMPS state/local law the SCOTUS has said that's not always the case.

 

That's why I posted the links. Not because I think those linked cases 100% prove anything but to show you that your logic , while seemingly logical to you and many, is not true legally.

 

I can easily find others who say that those cases do NOT apply to this situation. Irrelevant because my point is to show that cities in some cases can defy requests/mandates from the feds.

 

If you want to state that IT SHOULD say that. However, to say that "I think" but have nothing to back it up or try in no way to show how it's different than SCOTUS cases provided is silly. You're no legal scholar. I'm certainly no legal scholar.

 

So to answer your question, I think the cities should follow the law of the land. Period.

I did not post that "I think" anything about the opinions that you want to discuss. I did not and will not read the editorial. You must have me confused with somebody else.

 

However, I will share this opinion of mine, which is no less valid than the opinion of a very biased left wing law professor. The only Supreme Court decision in which I recall faulting Antonin Scalia's vote was a Tenth Amendment case involving the distribution of medical marijuana in California (Gonzales v. Raich). Scalia justified his vote with a Commerce Clause argument, despite the fact that there was no evidence presented that suggested that the defendant engaged in interstate commerce.

 

Scalia, who had a strong disdain for illicit drug use, joined with the liberals and swing voter, Anthony Kennedy, to overturn the lower Court's decision by a 6-3 margin. Had the decision gone the other way, the 10th Amendment would have been strengthened and would have undermined the federal government's authority to enact and enforce environmental regulations, which have been justified in the past through arguments citing interstate commerce.

 

My point is that even though many conservatives want to see the 10th Amendment strengthened, the composition of the Supreme Court will need to change drastically before that will happen. Some law and order conservatives like Scalia do not want to risk depriving the federal government of much of its power to regulate drug use and liberals do not want to risk taking away the federal government's ability to enforce environmental regulations within state borders.

 

Sanctuary cities may make 10th Amendment arguments to support their position, but they face an uphill battle that will cross party lines. Given the choice, would liberal justices risk weakening environmental laws and regulations, or would they roll the dice and give a win to the illegal aliens and their supporters? I believe that they would come down hard on sanctuary cities, if they agreed to hear a case on the matter.

 

If Trump stands his ground on ridding the country of sanctuary cities, I doubt that the issue even reaches the USSC.