Posted on 03/29/2017 8:10:38 PM PDT by kevcol
Prove that city governments have a legal right to federal funds.
There is no right they can cite.
Prove local governments can force federal government to provide them money when they are deliberately violating federal law.
There is no proof. There is no right.
Based on what legal reasoning? The unassailable Constitutional right to violate federal law?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You mean like several states thumbing their noses at federal marijuana laws or is that somehow different?
The above is neither a pro or con about marijuana, just hypocrisy in general.
I hope he drops the Obama appeal on the court ruling that they can’t enforce funding of obamacare subsidies on May 22.
Time for a forensic cost analysis of the costs the individual taxpayer is bearing living in a city declaring itself a sanctuary by their wacked out glo-bullist pols.
These costs are paid from tax money paid by its citizens which should be directed to their benefit and run into the billions. But those moneys get diverted from city services which are supposed to be allocated to covering everything from fixing pot holes to picking up the garbage never mind school bills, food stamps, and energy assistance. Going to a bunch of foreigners and attempt to solve the serious problems they create at the expense of its citizens just so their politicians can exclaim how kind they are .
That’s a wholly disgusting situation.
Definitely not husband and wife. Simply put, they are butt buddies.
By electing this openly wicked and degenerate person as mayor of Seattle, one can make a good case for nuking the place from orbit - just like God did to Sodom and Gomorrah.
I do admit that in the case of the citizens of Seattle, it would be tough to find the modern-day version of Lot and his family.
The article says these monies are "grants," not allocated funds from a Congressional budget.
As grants, aren't they totally discretionary from the Justice Department? DoJ can choose which agencies to award grants and which one to not, correct?
I don't see how a judge can compel the Department of Justice to "grant" money to a specific agency, otherwise it is no longer a grant. If a judge converts a grant into a budgetary funding, then it is encroaching on both Executive and Congressional powers.
-PJ
Correct, it is well established that the Congress (and when authorized, the President) can attach all kinds of strings to Federal money. No 10th Amendment issue.
The states (and the cities they create) have no entitlement to Federal money. During the double nickel era, the states could have set any speed limit or drinking age they wanted, but they would have had to give up federal highway money.
When you accept federal money, you accept federal control.
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.