Originally posted by whodey
It makes one wonder, what would Jesus do, use money to repair damns ready to flood communities or give it to sanctuary cities even though it goes against Federal law?
Do you know king rat? What would Jesus do?
I always find your gross inconsistencies amusing. You are a constant screecher for all manner of policies that would limit Federal power (even explicit grants of such power in the Constitution) in favor of States and localities EXCEPT when the policy is something you and your fellow right wingers don't like. In point of fact, "sanctuary cities" are not in violation of Federal law based on (gulp) Tenth Amendment principles:
Congress cannot commandeer local authorities to enforce federal immigration laws. Thus, as long as sanctuary communities that choose not to ask about immigration status do not bar volunteer communications and follow other federal requirements of cooperation, they clearly are not preempted.
The central teaching of the Tenth Amendment cases is that even where Congress has the authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the states to require or prohibit those acts. Congress may not, therefore, directly compel states or localities to enact or to administer policies or programs adopted by the federal government. It may not directly shift to the states enforcement and administrative responsibilities allocated to the federal government by the Constitution. Such a reallocation would not only diminish the political accountability of both state and federal officers, but it would also compromise the structural framework of dual sovereignty and separation of powers. Thus, Congress may not directly force states to assume enforcement or administrative responsibilities constitutionally vested in the federal government. Forcing subfederal entities to allow voluntary cooperation raises the spector of violating those principles. [UC Irvine Law Review, 2012]