Skip to comments.Judge OKs sanctuary cities, rules anti-sanctuary law unconstitutional
Posted on 12/01/2018 6:53:32 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
A federal judge in New York has ruled the Trump sanctuary city crackdown illegal Friday but even went further and also ruled the law Congress passed requiring information-sharing is unconstitutional.
Judge Edgardo Ramos decision frees sanctuary jurisdictions in New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Washington, Massachusetts and Virginia to continue their policies without fear of losing federal money.
The judge said the Trump administration attempted to write new conditions of cooperation, including notifying the feds of illegal immigrants ready for pickup, beyond what Congress had authorized. He said it is up to Congress to decide those conditions.
The separation of powers acts as a check on tyranny and the concentration of power, the judge wrote
But beyond that, the judge ruled Section 1373 of immigration law, which requires at least some level of information-sharing, to be a violation of the Constitutions Tenth Amendment, which prohibits federal interference with state powers.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Another activist judge.
Wonder if Ramos is an anchor baby himself?
Nothing to do but appeal. He's just a lowly district judge.
And Robert’s believes justice is blind. The justice system has become nothing more than another political weapon.
Another Obama Moron that doesn’t know that Immigration isn’t a State’s Right.
The law may be unconstitutional but what IS NOT unconstitutional is the Feds withdrawing FED funds from supporting locals refusing to aid ICE.
So, once an appeal is filed, cannot the Trump Admin continue their policy until another higher court rules?
And, no doubt, he/she/them/they have offered to take in XXX number of ‘refugees’ and support them without using tax payers money. Hello? Crickets....................
This Obama Judge....First time I ever saw a libby-left judge cite the 10th Amendment to support his screwball decision.
I sure Ginzzzzborg goes soon. We could use a super solid Supreme Court to nullify these pablum puking judges.
Another activist judge.
There’s no end to them. They are part of the resistance.
In actuality, they are not judges at all. Just politicians in black robes.
"I am Presidentacus!"
"No, I am Presidentacus!"
This judge hasjust invalidated almost the entire USC. If this violates the Xth then so does education law, environmental law,labor law, and every area of law not specifically granted the Federal govt.
The Bammy-Skidmark #fakejudge should just STFU.
It seems to me that the federal government has quite a history
of withholding federal funding to the states to require a lot of things,
like highway speed limits, blood-alcohol limits, etc., etc.
Perhaps the courts finally recognizing the 10th amendment might be a good thing.
Exactly right. If one branch is going to dominate the other two branches what is the purpose of having them? The liberal courts clearly want to make policy and limit executive power.
But wait, it gets worse. We also have a fourth, unelected branch of government consisting of agencies run by federal bureaucrats who also effectively make laws.
What we need IMO is to decentralize power back to the states. Washington wields too much control over our lives. If I’m not mistaken, I believe this is what the Founders feared and wanted to avoid.
If there were a solid conservative court...The next DemocRAT president could pack it with enough commies to unconstitutionalize the constitution itself. And they will do exactly that
We deduct one Freisler because KKKlown-Ramos didn't make the ruling nation-wide.
Depends on who appropriated the money.
If Congress giveth,
Only Congress can taketh away.
And that ain’t a-gonna happen
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.