Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: LeoWindhorse

There is an older SC ruling preventing fedgov from retroactively revoking earmarked funds for unrelated reasons. But they can tie future spending to activity. It sort of depends if this $28M was tied to cooperation on immigration enforcement.

This kind of thing could swing both ways - like, a leftist government could revoke money from states that don’t impose a 10-day waiting period on gun purchases or a 10 round magazine limit. So I think if money is promised for activity A, then it should be paid if the terms of activity A is honored and not revoked because of activity B.


8 posted on 10/07/2018 1:26:58 AM PDT by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: monkeyshine

A condition for accepting federal money is that they enforce all federal laws. Since they are not inforcing immigration laws, they are breaking the deal, not the Feds. I think the Feds would win this case in the Supreme Court....based on the law.


24 posted on 10/07/2018 4:47:09 AM PDT by Mustangman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson