Posted on 04/20/2018 7:18:21 AM PDT by Kalamata
It’s time to say no to judicial tyranny. It’s also time to impeach renegade judges who violate their oath.
Actually, the administration IS required to spend the money they appropriate if Congress passes a law saying the administration must spend it. But what is deeply concerning (this is a Republican-dominated circuit, by the way) is
1) that we’re talking about grants for fighting crime...
2) after Congress did explicitly ban sanctuary cities...
3) and the court is arguing on the failure of Congress to pass laws preventing funds from going to sanctuary cities, as if the inability to act represents legislative intent equivalent to the affirmatively passing laws.
These Justice Department grants to the states are to pay for state costs incurred in support of federal law enforcement.
If sanctuary states refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement, then they should not receive the funds granted to the states for those costs, since they are not being incurred.
-PJ
It was AG Sessions that was behind the initiative to cut funding for sanctuary states and cities. What else would you have him do?
—
Maybe get up... say something? Grow a #$(*%ing pair of balls?
This guy’s about as visible these days as John McCain. Maybe he thinks if he hides under his desk Trump will forget about him and not fire his sorry ass.
Congress withheld that money in past cases, though, not the President. Courts have ruled in the past that the President can’t decide to not fund things that Congress has allocated money to. So this ruling isn’t some new development, it is just applying the same principles that have been in place for some time now.
Preposterous. As if Congress must approve how every Agency spends every penny it has budgeted.
No moneys can be allocated without Congressional action, but once the money is allocated, Agencies can use that money in any manner they see fit as long as it is not illegal, does not violate the conditions Congress imposed in allocating the money, or the specific requirements set down for the funding.
This ruling is absurd on the face of it. We have no Constitution left to defend.
The president can spend those grants by increasing funding to cities cooperating with ICE. There is no requirement to spend that money on a sanctuary city. He can spend it elsewhere.
Then conservative jurisdictions can declare themselves sanctuaries from any federal laws they don’t like, and the federal government can’t withhold funding from them.
Probably that could be done before the grants are issued, if the Executive branch has the discretion to decide who gets the grants.
However, I think the issue here is the threat to cut off grants that were already issued, over an issue that wasn’t a qualification for the grant at the time they were issued.
I defer to your greater knowledge.
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.