SCOTUS ruling 4 Obamacare makes witholding funds for Sanctuary Cities Unconstiutional
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: SCOTUS ruling 4 Obamacare makes witholding funds for Sanctuary Cities Unconstiutional

  1. #1

    SCOTUS ruling 4 Obamacare makes witholding funds for Sanctuary Cities Unconstiutional

    From the Talking Points Memo

    A SCOTUS Obamacare Ruling May Doom Trump's Sanctuary Cities Crackdown

    The Trump administration announced this week that it will make good on its January threat to claw back funding from so-called sanctuary cities that limit information-sharing with federal immigration officials. Yet hundreds of legal experts say the move would itself be illegal—in part due to a court ruling Republicans cheered just a few years ago.

    In 2012, the Supreme Court forced the Obama administration to make Medicaid expansion voluntary for states instead of mandatory, ruling that when the federal government “threatens to terminate other significant independent grants as a means of pressuring the States to accept” a federal policy, it is unconstitutionally coercive.

    Conservative groups that celebrated this victory over "infringement on state sovereignty by the federal government" may now be dismayed to learn that it could throw a wrench into the Trump administration's current plan to punish sanctuary cities.

    As much as $4 billion is at stake, funding that supports local programs to tackle human trafficking, sexual assault, gang violence, mental health, gun crimes and safety issues.

    My Thoughts:
    Gotta love the law of unintended consequences.

  2.   
  3. Big difference. The Justice Dept want those cities to simply obey the LAW.
    Proud Member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiricy

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Waffles View Post
    Big difference. The Justice Dept want those cities to simply obey the LAW.
    No difference, by your logic conservative organizations should have just obeyed the LAW that is the Affordable Healthcare Act. They sued and argued that the government was unduly coercing them, SCOTUS agreed. That legal precedent, among many others, cuts both ways. Ya can't argue that someone else doesn't benefit from the same ruling you did just because you don't like their point of view.

  5. If federal immigration laws are being violated, then those who are in violation need to be charged. While withholding funds can be painful to a city, personal loss if liberty will hurt the individual more.

    If no laws are being violated, then move on.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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