Posted on 08/14/2017 12:03:20 PM PDT by davikkm
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The state of California and city of San Francisco are suing the U.S. Department of Justice over President Donald Trump’s sanctuary city restrictions on public safety grants. In a news conference Monday, Attorney General Xavier Becerra and City Attorney Dennis Herrera, both Democrats, announced the lawsuit, which makes California the first state to challenge the administration on its sanctuary city policy of denying funds to cities that limit cooperation with enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. San Francisco also filed its own federal lawsuit Friday. Becerra said he was filing on behalf of smaller cities and counties that may not have the resources to challenge the federal administration.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Thank you for confirming it’s about the money!
Good luck making Uncle Sam write that check!
A grant is a gift.
They are suing bc they are not getting a gift.
FUSF/CA
Start stopping gifts to other nations. Let them ask the Ruskies or Peking so they
can go bankrupt.
I could have sworn, when I was in high school (and that’s partly why I can’t remember for certain - it was a while ago) that we studied a Supreme Court ruling over something very, very similar.
Basically, the Supreme Court ruled that if you wanted to the dance, you had to dance to the music chosen by the man who paid the band!! In other words, if you want Federal funds, you have to follow the rules which the Feds create!!
Did this Supreme Court ruling change all of a sudden?!? I’m always curious how these old Supreme Court rulings aren’t used to stop wasting precious resources and time in Federal courts!!?!!
Congress spends money, not the President.
A President can (and sometimes should) make things difficult, but in the end he can’t stop the money unless he vetoes the spending bill.
To Hell with secession, just expel California from the Union.
Gosh that’s about as rational thinking as the calexit an texit morons exhibit.
good memory.
SCOTUS - South Dakota v. Dole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole
would it hold up vs. executive action ?
Of course it would, because the grants are administered via the executive branch. The money isn’t directly granted to the state. The money is provided for grants to be dispersed at the discretion of the executive branch department the grant is through.
SCOTUS has the only jurisdiction when a state sues the Federal Government. It has Original Jurisdiction and therefore the only jurisdiction, per USConstitution.
No other court may lawfully hear the case.
The Dept. Of Justice should be rename "Dept. Of Jokers."
Loosen up. I don’t want California to cease to be in the Union. The best result would be for California to be split into at two States. This is expressly permitted by the Constitution (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1). This would the different political groups to have their own State while keeping the Union intact.
California will sue a federal office, not the federal government. Thus, this case will start in a federal district court and then go the Ninth Circus Court of Absurdities.
Better yet, come and retrieve all the New Yorkers
who moved to Cali and ruined it all those years ago.
Now you’re making sense.
The aim is to tie up these fed funds in a bunch of court cases. Where the lower courts rule in the suplicants favor and evenmtially winds up at SCOTUS.
If that goes to the citys and states favor. Fed funds which have long cords attached to them like the highway bill which mandates a state must maintain a point 8 alcohol driving limit might get tossed.
Very likely that won’t happen. What these cities like Chicago, Frisco, and Kalyforny are actually doing is rewarding donor lawyers for their support.
Really, the President and his management of all of the various alphabet agencies isn’t part of the spending process in Washington?
I mean, when did Congress get back to deciding exactly how each dollar is spent? Because from my experience and short history on this earth, I have seen a dollar amount issued in the name of something or a department, but how it is actually spent is decided by each alphabet agency! Good example, Congress approved the Defense budget, but Trump lowered the cost of several defense weapons systems - do you think that money went back to Congress for additional spending discussions? NO!
Otherwise, we would already have a wall, since that was voted on by Congress many, MANY times.
The actual texts of laws that spend money can vary, and they are very important, as many court cases make clear.
The example of the 55 mph speed limit is instructive. It was a federal law passed by Congress that authorized withholding highway funds for non-compliance.
“California will sue a federal office, not the federal government. Thus, this case will start in a federal district court and then go the Ninth Circus Court of Absurdities. “
Meanwhile, hopefully the money involved will be “sequestered” pending the outcome of the lengthly litigation.
As an aside, Judge Napolitano says the State will win, at least initially, because the current funding comes from the Obola Budget, which specified the terms under which the money would be spent. It will be interesting to see if he’s right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.