Posted on 03/10/2017 8:48:11 AM PST by davikkm
Well, one thing that congress could do is remove jurisdiction over immigration from the federal courts.
Federal funds are `carrot-and-stick’. If you don’t want the carrot, you get the stick. This is the way it has always been.
Maybe they can get an advisory opinion from a friendly court, but that and $5.00 will get them a cup of burned coffee at Starvebucks.
San Fransicko is screwed if they don’t get their minds right and start complying with federal law. Trump and Co. are just about out of chewing gum, and so are we: the American public.
>Why should the taxpayers from XYZ State have to subsidize the other 56...
Could be asked for 99% of Fedzilla. ‘Infrastructure’, schools, etc.
Amazing the # of ‘issues’ resolved if govt followed the Law of the Land from the get-go.
The courts have gone completely over the edge. They now routinely exert authority that they were never granted under the Constitution. Its not their job to make law, but to simply rule on cases within the laws that are set in place by the people's representatives.
The courts have NO jurisdiction over immigration. None. That authority resides expressly with the legislative branch, who are empowered by our Constitution to make the laws. Its the express authority of the executive branch to enforce those laws.
This is elementary stuff, but such is the disheveled state of our people's basic understanding of our system, that judicial activism has become the accepted order of the day.
Just stop the money and then drag out the law suits for ever. The injunction can be ignored since it is not enforceable
and is in fact made by a judge that should have been recused.
An injunction permitting illegal activity is invalid
Keep putting out new EOs against sanctuary cities.
Increase sanctuary city liability by making city liable for any harm, damages to US citizen from any illegal alien that commits such an act in the sanctuary city or resides in a sanctuary city but commits an act outside the city.
The VOIC bureau can be used to take and investigate complaints by US citizens against illegal aliens from sanctuary cities and file actions against sanctuary city. Victims will feed complaints and the Feds will litigate against the cities to seek damages for victims, putative assessments and costs of litigation.
IOW all sanctuary cities must indemnify any US citizen from harm done by illegals.
So, let’s see if I’ve got this right. You want to violate federal laws, and then you are told if you violate them, and hold them in contempt then you will lose the money you are being extra-Constitutionally, by the feds, and you freak out and say it’s unconstitutional.... Wow. What chutzpah.
“One can only wonder how San Fransissyco’s tourist dollars compare with a decade or so ago. I, for one, will NEVER go to the city by the bay ever again!”
A conservative friend of mine visited his police officer friend in San Francisco. Even is liberal wife (yes, I feel for him) was disgusted by the number of homeless and the fact she almost twice stepped into human feces on the sidewalks. Over the past few years, it has gotten much worse.
“it seems they have two activities; going to soup kitchens and spending their money on drugs. “
****
here in LA, there is a 3rd activity: hanging out/sleeping at the public library. My grad thesis at Stanford had me volunteer at the Gospel Mission charity. The “homeys” were mostly bragging that they get FREE food, medical and shelter and I heard this EVERYDAY there.
THEN they head to the public library, the biggest one in L.A. WITH 8 floors to sleep there. There’s a running joke they call that library the Homeless Hilton. It’s a shame because it’s a beautiful library.
Stop giving Frisco money, and then suggest to Frisco that a good way to get funding is to charge every resident a “small” fee that will be used to support the sanctuary city.
“Increase sanctuary city liability by making city liable for any harm, damages to US citizen from any illegal alien that commits such an act in the sanctuary city or resides in a sanctuary city but commits an act outside the city.”
This is the key. Make the city and the Council members personally liable for any criminal activity by the protected illegals.
Hence the phrase, “Tool much welfare requires ever more welfare”.
If a judge orders that they release the funds, he should just say “Make me.”
Liberal Courts are simply going to have to be ignored. There is no other way around it.
Feds need to slash welfare.
Period.
Get the slobs off their butts and make them work.
Why should people have to be taxed to support another “family” unit where the lazy parents refuse to get off their butts?
Both my parents worked.
We had no free lumches, baby sitting services and no rent subsidies handed to us.
We had to pay for our own health care.
See if a video can be found of some SF muckee-muck decrying the threat to remove federal funding by derisively saying go ahead or some such thing. Use that tape to show that they refused the money.
If the city of San Francisco doesn’t need to follow federal laws, then they don’t need federal funds.
If they follow the laws, they can get the money. Gee, pretty simple. Sort of like a child refusing to do his chores, and gets upset when he doesn’t get an allowance.
Mark
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.