Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 08/25/2025 4:28:10 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Ok thank you very much.
How is it different from slashing research funding over DEI issues?
Because state administration of justice is covered by the 10th Amendment, and the disbursement of federal grants is not.
The federal government can't use "the power of the purse" to compel a state to do something it doesn't have the power to compel directly. The feds do have the right to put conditions on grants it is going to award, as long as those conditions relate to the grants themselves. "If you want this grant, you must promise to use this grant for "x"".
That's fine.
What you can't do is say "if you want this research grant, you have to agree to order the state police to round up illegals". And that's because the feds don't have the power to order the state police to do anything. Same would apply to telling state judges how to set bail.
Well, if the States and municipalities endanger the public this way, is there nothing the executive can do about it?
Well, if the States and municipalities endanger the public this way, is there nothing the executive can do about it?
“Yes...but it is really hard to imagine the argument that it wouldn’t be a clear violation of the 10th Amendment/anti-commandeering doctrine to do that.”
Please explain the 55 mph speed limit the Feds imposed a couple decades ago, then.
Oh, and the nation wide 21 year old age limit to purchase alcohol.
Thanks.
L
The Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was passed by Congress; it wasn’t an EO.
Never made it up to the Supreme Court, and no conflicting decisions from the Courts of Appeal.
Oh, and the nation wide 21 year old age limit to purchase alcohol.
I'll try to keep this short.
The Supreme Court upheld that law, but noted specifically that it only penalized a state by withholding 5% of highway funds, not ALL of them. So the Court developed a (stupid) test where they said that "coercive" penalties were unconstitutional, but penalties that only "mildly encouraged" compliance were not. Because 5% was only "mildly coercive", it was a lawful restriction.
But that was back in 1987. Since then, the Supreme Court has taken an increasingly restrictive view of that kind of financial coercion that seeks to evade the Anti-commandeering doctrine - a bunch of cases in there. The most recent clear example of that was in the Obamacare case, NLRB v. Sebelius (2012). The ACA said that if states did not choose to expand the Medicaid program for additional recipients, they would be denied ALL Medicaid funds. The Court struck down that part of the Affordable Care Act, saying that it was unduly coercive in trying to force states to expand state programs.
Now, that was denying MEDICAID funds for not enacting a MEDICAID expansion, so those two things were certainly related in some sense. Under that reasoning, Trump's threats to "stop all funding" would fail very easily.
I’m beginning to agree with Shakespeare lately.
You excepted, of course.
L
Regards,
There is no need for an “Obama judge” to block it, bail is a Judicial Branch function, the President has nothing to do with it.
There is no need for an “Obama judge” to block it, bail is a Judicial Branch function, the President has nothing to do with it.
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.