Coming soon to a Sanctuary City near you. - Page 3
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 114
  1. #51
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    13,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Pilot321 View Post
    cities just virtue signaling
    Wasn't sure what this "virtue signaling" thing is but then I realized you might be right

    Sanctuary cities do not want to burn taxpayer funds on Trump's silly jihad. They also know that when undocumented immigrants are scared to go to the police crime increases.

    Conservatives have long embraced the "virtues" of not wasting taxpayer funds and have been the party of law and order.

    Why do you hate conservatives? Why do you want to waste money and increase crime?

  2. #52
    gazing from the shadows
    Reputation: QuiQuaeQuod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    26,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Pilot321 View Post
    There has been instances where the Mayor of a city has blatantly refused to cooperate with Federal authorities in their attempt to enforce Federal Law. Oakland comes to mind as one example. That is obstruction of justice.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/03/20/why-oakland-sanctuary-city-editorials-debates/33121703/
    I read the entire link. All I see there is

    Sanctuary jurisdictions do not assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement in conducting immigration raids or turning over people for deportation. When ICE asserts that its targeting criminals, some believe we should work with the federal agency. I disagree because ICE has misled us when it claimed to be pursuing criminals.

    Last August, ICE officers conducted a raid on a West Oakland family, claiming they were targeting child trafficking. ICE took one young man for deportation proceedings, but filed no human-trafficking criminal charges. Child trafficking is a real problem, which should be taken seriously, not misused as a false claim. After ICE disrupted and slandered this family, it turned out there was no evidence of human trafficking.
    The bold part is what they do. Not assist. They used to assist, but since ICE lied to them, they no longer do. I included an example of why they made that call as well.

    If law enforcement asks you questions, you do not have to answer. That is not obstruction because you are under no obligation to answer questions, other than to identify yourself if asked. Not helping is not obstruction.

    What have they done to BLOCK the actions of ICE? Failure to help is not blocking the work of ICE.

    Try again.
    .
    Stout beers under trees, please.

  3. #53
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,412
    Quote Originally Posted by rufus View Post
    Like, isn't the Federal Speed Limit still 55?
    Yes, and it is because there are Federal dollars associated. There is no law that says the limit has to be 55. Any State of Locality can increase it, but they will lose Federal funding which they all rely on heavily for new road construction and maintenance, as well as other road related programs.

  4. #54
    Schuylkill Trail Bum
    Reputation: SPlKE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    4,266
    Quote Originally Posted by ljvb View Post
    Yes, and it is because there are Federal dollars associated. There is no law that says the limit has to be 55. Any State of Locality can increase it, but they will lose Federal funding which they all rely on heavily for new road construction and maintenance, as well as other road related programs.
    It was repealed in 1995.

  5. #55
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: troutmd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    23,466
    Quote Originally Posted by Easy Riders View Post
    This is flat not true. It has been ruled on by the Supreme Court many times that "States Rights" do not include the right to ignore Federal Law.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
    Baloney. The federal government once demanded all states apprehend slaves. The courts said no ... its a violation of the 10th Amendment.

  6. #56
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: nealric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Easy Riders View Post
    This is flat not true. It has been ruled on by the Supreme Court many times that "States Rights" do not include the right to ignore Federal Law.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
    That's not what the Supremacy Clause means. From your link:

    "In essence, it is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain federal acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with federal law."

    So when a state law and federal law conflict, the federal law controls so long as the federal law is constitutional. That has NOTHING to do with whether state or local government must assist with enforcement of federal law (there is no legal requirement for them to do so).

  7. #57
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    770
    Quote Originally Posted by nealric View Post
    That's not what the Supremacy Clause means. From your link:

    "In essence, it is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain federal acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with federal law."

    So when a state law and federal law conflict, the federal law controls so long as the federal law is constitutional. That has NOTHING to do with whether state or local government must assist with enforcement of federal law (there is no legal requirement for them to do so).
    More on the Tenth Amendment, specifically:

    "even within those areas that the federal government does exercise authority, it cannot force state or local governments to cooperate in enforcement or implementation. The feds must exercise their authority on their own, unless the state and local governments choose to assist.

    Simply put, the federal government cannot force state or local governments to act against their will.

    This is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine, and it is well established in constitutional jurisprudence. Four Supreme Court opinions dating back to 1842 serve as the foundation for this legal doctrine."

    https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/201...ring-doctrine/
    "When the spirits are low, when the day appears dark, when work becomes monotonous, when hope hardly seems worth having, just mount a bicycle and go out for a spin down the road, without thought on anything but the ride you are taking." -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

  8. #58
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by nealric View Post
    That's not what the Supremacy Clause means. From your link:

    "In essence, it is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain federal acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with federal law."

    So when a state law and federal law conflict, the federal law controls so long as the federal law is constitutional. That has NOTHING to do with whether state or local government must assist with enforcement of federal law (there is no legal requirement for them to do so).
    If the Federal Law is deemed unconstitutional, it is no longer a law, it has been invalidated. It is not 'certain acts' it is only laws that have been adjudicated.

    State and local governments have no responsibility to enforce federal law but the federal government has plenty of legal muscle to do so.

    Let's look at some examples.

    Federal Law states that abortion is legal and this has been upheld in the Supreme Court. While states can and do regulated abortion, those regulations are subject to judicial review if they deny a woman's right to an abortion. The Supreme Court has rule the Federal Law is constitutional.

    Look at the myriad of laws that have been reviewed relating to interstate commerce.

    Guns could not be banned in DC as this has been adjudicated to violate the Constitution.

    The list could go on, but it is well established that Federal Law is THE law unless overturned by the courts.

    IIRC, this was pretty well decided by the Civil War.

  9. #59
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeBean2 View Post
    More on the Tenth Amendment, specifically:

    "even within those areas that the federal government does exercise authority, it cannot force state or local governments to cooperate in enforcement or implementation. The feds must exercise their authority on their own, unless the state and local governments choose to assist.

    Simply put, the federal government cannot force state or local governments to act against their will.

    This is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine, and it is well established in constitutional jurisprudence. Four Supreme Court opinions dating back to 1842 serve as the foundation for this legal doctrine."

    https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/201...ring-doctrine/
    Federal law can and does force states to act against their will. We fought a civil war to establish principle.

    It was the will of South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, et al to maintain slavery.

  10. #60
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,993
    Poor USA... the third world is leading the way.
    https://www.npr.org/2019/04/15/71025...ohingya-refuge
    BANNED

  11. #61
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: DaveWC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    4,449
    Apparently the feds can't force sanctuary cities to enforce their laws... or they would. There's no way Trump would permit sanctuary cities to act the way they do if he could prevent it.

  12. #62
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by troutmd View Post
    Baloney. The federal government once demanded all states apprehend slaves. The courts said no ... its a violation of the 10th Amendment.
    And some states demanded they have the right to maintain slavery. But to your point, The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 used Federal Marshalls to arrest runaway slaves.

    Additionally, let's look at what really happened with states and runaway slaves.

    n 1855, the Wisconsin Supreme Court became the only state high court to declare the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional, as a result of a case involving fugitive slave Joshua Glover and Sherman Booth, who led efforts that thwarted Glover's recapture. In 1859 in Ableman v. Booth, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the state court.[10]In the November 1850, the Vermont legislature passed the "Habeas Corpus Law," requiring Vermont judicial and law enforcement officials to assist captured fugitive slaves. It also established a state judicial process, parallel to the federal process, for people accused of being fugitive slaves. This law rendered the federal Fugitive Slave Act effectively unenforceable in Vermont and caused a storm of controversy nationally. It was considered a "nullification" of federal law, a concept popular in the South among states that wanted to nullify other aspects of federal law, and was part of highly charged debates over slavery. Noted poet and abolitionist John Greenleaf Whittier had called for such laws, and the Whittier controversy heightened angry pro-slavery reactions to the Vermont law. Virginia governor John B. Floyd warned that nullification could push the South toward secession, while President Millard Fillmore threatened to use the army to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act in Vermont. No test events took place in Vermont, but the rhetoric of this flare-up echoed South Carolina's 1832 nullification crisis and Thomas Jefferson's 1798 Kentucky Resolutions.[11]"Jury nullification" occurred as local Northern juries acquitted men accused of violating the law. Secretary of State Daniel Webster was a key supporter of the law as expressed in his famous "Seventh of March" speech. He wanted high-profile convictions. The jury nullifications ruined his presidential aspirations and his last-ditch efforts to find a compromise between North and South. Webster led the prosecution against men accused of rescuing Shadrach Minkins in 1851 from Boston officials who intended to return Minkins to his owner; the juries convicted none of the men. Webster sought to enforce a law that was extremely unpopular in the North, and his Whig Party passed him over again when they chose a presidential nominee in 1852.[12]

  13. #63
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: nealric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Easy Riders View Post

    State and local governments have no responsibility to enforce federal law but the federal government has plenty of legal muscle to do so.
    .
    You could have stopped right there. That was precisely my point and contrary to what you were saying before.

    Oh, and there is no federal law that says abortion is legal. Rather, the Supreme Court held that state and local laws prohibiting abortion are unconstitutional.

  14. #64
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by nealric View Post
    You could have stopped right there. That was precisely my point and contrary to what you were saying before.

    Oh, and there is no federal law that says abortion is legal. Rather, the Supreme Court held that state and local laws prohibiting abortion are unconstitutional.
    So you don't consider the constitution to be Federal Law?

    Yours is hardly a cogent argument.

  15. #65
    Folsom City Blues...
    Reputation: Elfstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,304
    Quote Originally Posted by Easy Riders View Post
    So you don't consider the constitution to be Federal Law?

    Yours is hardly a cogent argument.
    Ha ha a, I know you are but what am I moment in real time. Priceless.
    Tao Te Ching

    The movement of the Tao is to return

    The way of Tao is to yield

    Heaven, Earth and all things are born of the existant world.

    The existent world is born of nothingness of the Tao

    Master Lao Tzu

  16. #66
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: DaveWC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    4,449
    This will all be over once we're all on Easy Riders' ignore list. I give it a week.

  17. #67
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Fredrico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    26,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Easy Riders View Post
    So you don't consider the constitution to be Federal Law?

    Yours is hardly a cogent argument.
    I believe you have a point there, Easy Riders.

  18. #68
    xxl
    xxl is offline
    Moderator
    Reputation: xxl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    35,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Easy Riders View Post
    So you don't consider the constitution to be Federal Law?

    Yours is hardly a cogent argument.
    You should go back and read what he wrote, because it appears from your post that you've badly misunderstood what he said.
    More Americans wanted Hillary Clinton to be President than wanted Donald Trump.

    Donald Trump has never had a wife he didn't cheat on.

    "Oh my god. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. Im fd.

  19. #69
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by xxl View Post
    You should go back and read what he wrote, because it appears from your post that you've badly misunderstood what he said.
    Here's what he wrote, "
    Oh, and there is no federal law that says abortion is legal. "

    Early that year, on January 22, 1973, the
    Supreme Court
    in
    Roe v. Wade
    invalidated all of these laws, and set guidelines for the availability of abortion.
    Roe
    established that the
    right of privacy
    of a woman to obtain an abortion "must be considered against important state interests in regulation"

    Further:

    n deciding
    Roe v. Wade
    , the Supreme Court ruled that a
    Texas
    statute forbidding abortion except when necessary to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional. The Court arrived at its decision by concluding that the issue of abortion and abortion rights falls under the
    right to privacy
    (in the sense of the right of a person not to be encroached by the state). In its opinion, it listed several landmark cases where the court had previously found a right to privacy implied by the Constitution. The Court did not recognize a right to abortion in all cases.

    The right to privacy is guaranteed by the Constitution (Federal Law)

    Both you and nealric need to consider two important points of law:

    The right to privacy n the US Constitution (federal law) guarantees a woman's right to an abortion.

    Review Roe v. Wade to better understand the justice's ruling as to how it relates to state law and the Constitution.

    And so, it's clearly wrong to state that there is no Federal Law that guarantees a woman's right to an abortion, as the court cited the US Constitution as the applicable Federal Law.

    You may not like it, but you would need to take it up with the court not with me. There is no way to spin Roe
    v. Wade to not make the Constitution the applicable Federal law.
    Last edited by Easy Riders; 4 Days Ago at 12:15 AM.

  20. #70
    xxl
    xxl is offline
    Moderator
    Reputation: xxl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    35,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Easy Riders View Post
    Here's what he wrote, "
    Oh, and there is no federal law that says abortion is legal. "

    Early that year, on January 22, 1973, the
    Supreme Court
    in
    Roe v. Wade
    invalidated all of these laws, and set guidelines for the availability of abortion.
    Roe
    established that the
    right of privacy
    of a woman to obtain an abortion "must be considered against important state interests in regulation"

    Further:

    n deciding
    Roe v. Wade
    , the Supreme Court ruled that a
    Texas
    statute forbidding abortion except when necessary to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional. The Court arrived at its decision by concluding that the issue of abortion and abortion rights falls under the
    right to privacy
    (in the sense of the right of a person not to be encroached by the state). In its opinion, it listed several landmark cases where the court had previously found a right to privacy implied by the Constitution. The Court did not recognize a right to abortion in all cases.

    So you see, the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution (Federal Law)

    So you see, both you and nealric need to consider two important points of law:

    The right to privacy n the US Constitution (federal law) guarantees a woman's right to an abortion.

    You both need to review Roe v. Wade to better understand the justice's ruling as to how it relates to state law and the Constitution.

    Further, it's clearly wrong to state that there is no Federal Law that guarantees a woman's right to an abortion, as the court cited the US Constitution as the applicable Federal Law.

    You may not like it, but you would need to take it up with the court not with me. There is no way to spin Roe v. Wade to not make the Constitution the applicable Federal law.
    I was referring to his comment about your misunderstanding of the Supremacy Clause.

    I'll let nealric, if he's so inclined, explain his comment about there being no federal law that legalizes abortion.
    More Americans wanted Hillary Clinton to be President than wanted Donald Trump.

    Donald Trump has never had a wife he didn't cheat on.

    "Oh my god. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. Im fd.

  21. #71
    gazing from the shadows
    Reputation: QuiQuaeQuod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    26,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Fredrico View Post
    I believe you have a point there, Easy Riders.
    Actually, the constitution is better understood as a framework for making law. Laws, and their enforcement, must fit with that framework.
    .
    Stout beers under trees, please.

  22. #72
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by xxl View Post
    I was referring to his comment about your misunderstanding of the Supremacy Clause.

    I'll let nealric, if he's so inclined, explain his comment about there being no federal law that legalizes abortion.
    I have no misunderstanding about the supremacy clause, either.

    The Supreme Court has ruled extensively invalidating arguments re states attempting to nullify (See 'nullification) federal law.

    It is you and nealric who are misunderstanding state attempts to nullify federal law and the federal government's ability to enforce federal law through federal warrants executed by US Marshalls to include arrest.

    You may remember George Wallace in Alabama and federal Marshalls enforcing integration.

    More reading on the subject will make this clear to you and nealric.

  23. #73
    xxl
    xxl is offline
    Moderator
    Reputation: xxl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    35,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Easy Riders View Post
    I have no misunderstanding about the supremacy clause, either.

    The Supreme Court has ruled extensively invalidating arguments re states attempting to nullify (See 'nullification) federal law.

    It is you and nealric who are misunderstanding state attempts to nullify federal law and the federal government's ability to enforce federal law through federal warrants executed by US Marshalls to include arrest.

    You may remember George Wallace in Alabama and federal Marshalls enforcing integration.

    More reading on the subject will make this clear to you and nealric.
    Yes you do. As nealric explained, the Supremacy Clause doesn't mean what you think it means, and you're confabulating what it addresses with the ability of the federal government to commandeer state forces.

    Your example is a good one to illustrate: National Guard troops (which are under the jurisdiction of the federal government as part of its armed forces, even though the states can command them in peacetime) were used to enforce integration. The federal government did not use the state police to do so.
    More Americans wanted Hillary Clinton to be President than wanted Donald Trump.

    Donald Trump has never had a wife he didn't cheat on.

    "Oh my god. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. Im fd.

  24. #74
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: troutmd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    23,466
    Quote Originally Posted by QuiQuaeQuod View Post
    Actually, the constitution is better understood as a framework for making law. Laws, and their enforcement, must fit with that framework.
    Easy doesn't understand a State can disagree and lawfully not act as the federal law enforcement agents on behalf of Uncle Sam. If Uncle Sam want to enforcement the law in this case, then Hombre send in the Federalie. This doesn't mean a Sanctuary City needs to cooperate, aide of abet ICE.
    I am 100% convinced the internet and social media are not the salvation to human civility.

  25. #75
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: nealric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Easy Riders View Post
    So you don't consider the constitution to be Federal Law?

    Yours is hardly a cogent argument.
    It depends on what you mean by "Federal Law." The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and sits above federal statutes and common law in the hierarchy. When I said there is no "federal law" allowing abortion, I meant that Congress has passed no statute explicitly allowing abortion. Rather, abortion became legal when the Supreme Court held a state law prohibiting abortion unconstitutional.



    It is you and nealric who are misunderstanding state attempts to nullify federal law and the federal government's ability to enforce federal law through federal warrants executed by US Marshalls to include arrest.

    You may remember George Wallace in Alabama and federal Marshalls enforcing integration.

    More reading on the subject will make this clear to you and nealric.
    I'm a lawyer. I deal with constitutional issues professionally from time to time. I've done plenty of reading on the subject.

    You are confused again on this point. Both the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act prohibited segregation. However, Alabama law required it. Wallace refused to accept the supremacy of federal law over Alabama law.

    If Wallace had simply refused to provide state police to help enforce integration, he would have been within his legal rights to do so (even if it would have been the right thing to do). For example, if he did not provide a state police escort for African American children showing up to white schools. But that's not what he did. He actively defied and interfered with attempts at integration, thus acting in violation of the supremacy clause.

    Likewise, you may not like that cities are not providing resources to assist with federal immigration enforcement, but nothing in the supremacy clause requires them to do so. What they may not do is actively interfere with federal immigration enforcement and/or attempt to enforce an immigration law that is contrary to federal law.
    Last edited by nealric; 4 Days Ago at 12:24 PM.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Sylent Green, coming to a store near you soon.
    By MikeBiker in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-15-2011, 09:16 AM
  2. San Francisco: Sanctuary City
    By Jett in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-02-2008, 10:02 AM
  3. Uncle Osammy --coming soon to a TV near you
    By Bocephus Jones II in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-27-2007, 10:56 AM
  4. The Land of Too Much Coffee: My Sanctuary
    By JoeDaddio in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-11-2007, 10:29 PM
  5. soon, very soon....
    By ErNestO_from_Wisconsin in forum Fixed/Single Speed
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 04-20-2006, 01:28 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.