Anarchy zones in the US

#26
#26
Orange_Crush said:
Serious question: Is the President bound to spend money Congress has earmarked?

And serious question: Is this the first time federal moneys have gone to localized governments with strings attached?
Click to expand...
Serious answer:
Congressional spending power has been used as a cudgel, before. It’s how we got the national speed limit and the minimum drinking age.

Unsurprisingly, the minimum drinking age was challenged in court. In South Dakota v. Dole, SCOTUS announced a multi-part test for when this use of the spending power is appropriate. I think there were 4 parts. The two that I remember are:
1. that the action sought to be compelled is not otherwise unconstitutional. So Congress cannot force the state to try defendants without due process, for example.
2. that the use of the power cannot be coercive, which basically boils down to how much money they’re losing and whether there’s a rational relation between the funds and the action sought, although I may be mashing up two of the criteria. Obviously it’s trivial knowledge and not something I mess with on the daily.

In all seriousness, I would think a similar standard would apply to this action with an additional factor to determine whether the executive has the authority to act in this manner.
 
#29
#29
37L1 said:
It's not cutting funds if they haven't been granted yet. I'm not sure if that's what they are talking about when the article referred to "grant money."

You play for the Feds $ and they call the tune, that's the way it has always worked. Don't want to dance to their tune, use your own $. Sounds like the Feds are planning to change the tune and the dance. Not sure it's a good thing but it sounds like the carrot or the stick, in other words, "Do your job or no soup for you."
Click to expand...
Sure it is. Any proposed reduction in police fundIng is “defunding the police.” Ask anybody. Trump is a liberal pinko commie. Might as well be AOC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128
#30
#30
RockyTop85 said:
Serious answer:
Congressional spending power has been used as a cudgel, before. It’s how we got the national speed limit and the minimum drinking age.

Unsurprisingly, the minimum drinking age was challenged in court. In South Dakota v. Dole, SCOTUS announced a multi-part test for when this use of the spending power is appropriate. I think there were 4 parts. The two that I remember are:
1. that the action sought to be compelled is not otherwise unconstitutional. So Congress cannot force the state to try defendants without due process, for example.
2. that the use of the power cannot be coercive, which basically boils down to how much money they’re losing and whether there’s a rational relation between the funds and the action sought, although I may be mashing up two of the criteria. Obviously it’s trivial knowledge and not something I mess with on the daily.

In all seriousness, I would think a similar standard would apply to this action with an additional factor to determine whether the executive has the authority to act in this manner.
Click to expand...

So, when you called Trump's strings unconstitutional, you were shooting from the hip a bit? I was under the impression that this was dealt with a little more firmly when Trump withheld Ukrainian money? If it's unconstitutional, that should have been one of the many crimes on the impeachment docket?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#32
#32
RockyTop85 said:
Sure it is. Any proposed reduction in police fundIng is “defunding the police.” Ask anybody. Trump is a liberal pinko commie. Might as well be AOC.
Click to expand...
It's future request for funding that hasn't been given yet. So how's that a cut? I guess if the jurisdiction made its plans on qualifying for Federal largess and budgets accordingly, it might feel like defunding but since you have to beg for it, you should be prepared to be denied, Oliver Twist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#33
#33
Orange_Crush said:
So, when you called Trump's strings unconstitutional, you were shooting from the hip a bit? I was under the impression that this was dealt with a little more firmly when Trump withheld Ukrainian money? If it's unconstitutional, that should have been one of the many crimes on the impeachment docket?
Click to expand...
No. I have no first hand knowledge, but I have “a source” saying these are not discretionary funds. Meaning it would be overreach to withhold them.
 
#34
#34
37L1 said:
It's future request for funding that hasn't been given yet. So how's that a cut? I guess if the jurisdiction made its plans on qualifying for Federal largess and budgets accordingly, it might feel like defunding but since you have to beg for it, you should be prepared to be denied, Oliver Twist.
Click to expand...

Radical leftist!!!!

I bet you’re the unheard of people in the streets pulling the strings on Biden!
 
#35
#35
37L1 said:
It's future request for funding that hasn't been given yet. So how's that a cut? I guess if the jurisdiction made its plans on qualifying for Federal largess and budgets accordingly, it might feel like defunding but since you have to beg for it, you should be prepared to be denied, Oliver Twist.
Click to expand...
No no no Trumpz iz definding poliz!!!11!!! 😂
 
#38
#38
37L1 said:
Yep, that's me, move over AOC!

I'm a poet too, a perfect leftist and an artist. My poor suffering soul. Now where in the hell is my Che Guevara shirt?
Click to expand...

Don’t forget your p**** hat! It’s a must for any liberal.
 
#39
#39
37L1 said:
Yep, that's me, move over AOC!

I'm a poet too, a perfect leftist and an artist. My poor suffering soul. Now where in the hell is my Che Guevara shirt?
Click to expand...

Just seeding this thread with plenty of easily searchable content for when that edited clip of Biden saying he would support some reduction in federal funding of police gets rehashed for the 436th time next week.
 
#41
#41
RockyTop85 said:
Just seeding this thread with plenty of easily searchable content for when that edited clip of Biden saying he would support some reduction in federal police funding gets rehashed for the 436th time next week.
Click to expand...
It will have to be put up that many times to remind him because he forgets what he said while he is saying it.
 
#44
#44
Actual footage of Trump and Barr determining that Portland is an “anarchist jurisdiction.”

 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1
#45
#45
37L1 said:
What the hell happened with Telemundo?
Click to expand...

Trump threw Ramos back across the Rio Grande
OGC.d3131a84996cce9134f33e7c3918acdb
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top