It is currently Thu Nov 28, 2024 3:01 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22578
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Can states ignore the Civil Right Act? Or by decree, not enforce it when its protections are invoked?

They can't ignore it because the 14th Amendment. If the CRA were ever challenged in court, it would be ruled Constitutional under that Amendment


What about Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution makes laws deriving their authority from its provisions able to be ignored by the states?

Congress sets the rules for naturalization, but what Chicago is doing is not naturalization of immigrants.

If Chicago was granting some sort of citizenship, yes they are in violation of the clause. Refusing to arrest people at the behest of the government is not in violation though.

If ICE wants to round up immigrants in Chicago, they are free to do so on their own volition.


That's not exactly true. In the late 19th Century, the Supreme Court began upholding federal immigration regulations with the rationale that Article 1 grants such authority to regulate and enforce immigration law.

Here is the court in Hines v. Davidowitz:

Quote:
[W]here the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field [of immi­gration], has enacted a complete scheme of regulation and has therein provided a standard for the registration of aliens, states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or comple­ment, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulation.


States can't just go around messing with federal immigration law, whether by overt action or inaction.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Flip the script.

If this were a city resisting a Federal requirement to accept immigrants, would your (anyone)'s view change?

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Can states ignore the Civil Right Act? Or by decree, not enforce it when its protections are invoked?

They can't ignore it because the 14th Amendment. If the CRA were ever challenged in court, it would be ruled Constitutional under that Amendment


What about Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution makes laws deriving their authority from its provisions able to be ignored by the states?

Congress sets the rules for naturalization, but what Chicago is doing is not naturalization of immigrants.

If Chicago was granting some sort of citizenship, yes they are in violation of the clause. Refusing to arrest people at the behest of the government is not in violation though.

If ICE wants to round up immigrants in Chicago, they are free to do so on their own volition.


That's not exactly true. In the late 19th Century, the Supreme Court began upholding federal immigration regulations with the rationale that Article 1 grants such authority to regulate and enforce immigration law.

Here is the court in Hines v. Davidowitz:

Quote:
[W]here the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field [of immi­gration], has enacted a complete scheme of regulation and has therein provided a standard for the registration of aliens, states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or comple­ment, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulation.


States can't just go around messing with federal immigration law, whether by overt action or inaction.


Jln, you're completely missing the point here. The federal government cannot force local and state actors to actively enforce solely federal law. Think California, Colorado and other states with legal marijuana

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Ogie wins this thread

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:18 pm
Posts: 19488
pizza_Place: Phils' on 35th all you need to know
Quote:
Quote:
Jln, you're completely missing the point here. The federal government cannot force local and state actors to actively enforce solely federal law. Think California, Colorado and other states with legal marijuana



false narrative . It is still a class 1 narcotic illegal at fed level. Only reason the feds did not go after is because the Obama admin did not want to and seem uncool.

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:15 am
Posts: 27591
pizza_Place: nick n vito's
chaspoppcap wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Jln, you're completely missing the point here. The federal government cannot force local and state actors to actively enforce solely federal law. Think California, Colorado and other states with legal marijuana



false narrative . It is still a class 1 narcotic illegal at fed level. Only reason the feds did not go after is because the Obama admin did not want to and seem uncool.




Wrong numbnutz, Obama was no friend to weed, the DEA raided more shops under Obama than Bush.

_________________
The Original Kid Cairo wrote:
Laurence Holmes is a fucking weirdo, a nerd in denial, and a wannabe. Not a very good radio host either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
leashyourkids wrote:
Flip the script.

If this were a city resisting a Federal requirement to accept immigrants, would your (anyone)'s view change?



I'm certain that they would.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
312player wrote:
chaspoppcap wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Jln, you're completely missing the point here. The federal government cannot force local and state actors to actively enforce solely federal law. Think California, Colorado and other states with legal marijuana



false narrative . It is still a class 1 narcotic illegal at fed level. Only reason the feds did not go after is because the Obama admin did not want to and seem uncool.




Wrong numbnutz, Obama was no friend to weed, the DEA raided more shops under Obama than Bush.

Yup. Chas showing his ignorance once again. Very sad

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
312player wrote:
chaspoppcap wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Jln, you're completely missing the point here. The federal government cannot force local and state actors to actively enforce solely federal law. Think California, Colorado and other states with legal marijuana



false narrative . It is still a class 1 narcotic illegal at fed level. Only reason the feds did not go after is because the Obama admin did not want to and seem uncool.




Wrong numbnutz, Obama was no friend to weed, the DEA raided more shops under Obama than Bush.


You realize that I'm talking about state and local actors right?

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22578
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Regular Reader wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Can states ignore the Civil Right Act? Or by decree, not enforce it when its protections are invoked?

They can't ignore it because the 14th Amendment. If the CRA were ever challenged in court, it would be ruled Constitutional under that Amendment


What about Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution makes laws deriving their authority from its provisions able to be ignored by the states?

Congress sets the rules for naturalization, but what Chicago is doing is not naturalization of immigrants.

If Chicago was granting some sort of citizenship, yes they are in violation of the clause. Refusing to arrest people at the behest of the government is not in violation though.

If ICE wants to round up immigrants in Chicago, they are free to do so on their own volition.


That's not exactly true. In the late 19th Century, the Supreme Court began upholding federal immigration regulations with the rationale that Article 1 grants such authority to regulate and enforce immigration law.

Here is the court in Hines v. Davidowitz:

Quote:
[W]here the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field [of immi­gration], has enacted a complete scheme of regulation and has therein provided a standard for the registration of aliens, states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or comple­ment, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulation.


States can't just go around messing with federal immigration law, whether by overt action or inaction.


Jln, you're completely missing the point here. The federal government cannot force local and state actors to actively enforce solely federal law. Think California, Colorado and other states with legal marijuana


That doesn't make sanctuary city policies any less unlawful.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:15 am
Posts: 27591
pizza_Place: nick n vito's
Regular Reader wrote:
312player wrote:
chaspoppcap wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Jln, you're completely missing the point here. The federal government cannot force local and state actors to actively enforce solely federal law. Think California, Colorado and other states with legal marijuana



false narrative . It is still a class 1 narcotic illegal at fed level. Only reason the feds did not go after is because the Obama admin did not want to and seem uncool.




Wrong numbnutz, Obama was no friend to weed, the DEA raided more shops under Obama than Bush.


You realize that I'm talking about state and local actors right?




I haven't even read your quotes, I read Chas' .. He stated Obama "wanted to be cool" so he had the feds back off weed.



Why isn't your name under Chas quote?

_________________
The Original Kid Cairo wrote:
Laurence Holmes is a fucking weirdo, a nerd in denial, and a wannabe. Not a very good radio host either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
RR and Chas are hard to distinguish.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
They can't ignore it because the 14th Amendment. If the CRA were ever challenged in court, it would be ruled Constitutional under that Amendment


What about Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution makes laws deriving their authority from its provisions able to be ignored by the states?

Congress sets the rules for naturalization, but what Chicago is doing is not naturalization of immigrants.

If Chicago was granting some sort of citizenship, yes they are in violation of the clause. Refusing to arrest people at the behest of the government is not in violation though.

If ICE wants to round up immigrants in Chicago, they are free to do so on their own volition.


That's not exactly true. In the late 19th Century, the Supreme Court began upholding federal immigration regulations with the rationale that Article 1 grants such authority to regulate and enforce immigration law.

Here is the court in Hines v. Davidowitz:

Quote:
[W]here the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field [of immi­gration], has enacted a complete scheme of regulation and has therein provided a standard for the registration of aliens, states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or comple­ment, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulation.


States can't just go around messing with federal immigration law, whether by overt action or inaction.


Jln, you're completely missing the point here. The federal government cannot force local and state actors to actively enforce solely federal law. Think California, Colorado and other states with legal marijuana


That doesn't make sanctuary city policies any less unlawful.


Pick a lane. Or a constitutional section upon which to base your argument.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22578
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Regular Reader wrote:

Pick a lane. Or a constitutional section upon which to base your argument.


Was the "lawfulness of sanctuary cities under the 10th" lane not picked?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:

Pick a lane. Or a constitutional section upon which to base your argument.


Was the "lawfulness of sanctuary cities under the 10th" lane not picked?


Get back to me when the feds get their asses kicked in court. There is no duty for the locals to actively here. If the ag, idiot potus and his yes men couldn't figure out the constitution yet, maybe they'll get it after the on coming thrashing

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
What a mess huh?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22578
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Regular Reader wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:

Pick a lane. Or a constitutional section upon which to base your argument.


Was the "lawfulness of sanctuary cities under the 10th" lane not picked?


Get back to me when the feds get their asses kicked in court. There is no duty for the locals to actively here. If the ag, idiot potus and his yes men couldn't figure out the constitution yet, maybe they'll get it after the on coming thrashing


What were your thoughts on the actions of Kim Davis?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:

Pick a lane. Or a constitutional section upon which to base your argument.


Was the "lawfulness of sanctuary cities under the 10th" lane not picked?


Get back to me when the feds get their asses kicked in court. There is no duty for the locals to actively here. If the ag, idiot potus and his yes men couldn't figure out the constitution yet, maybe they'll get it after the on coming thrashing


What were your thoughts on the actions of Kim Davis?


Who?

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22578
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Regular Reader wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:

Pick a lane. Or a constitutional section upon which to base your argument.


Was the "lawfulness of sanctuary cities under the 10th" lane not picked?


Get back to me when the feds get their asses kicked in court. There is no duty for the locals to actively here. If the ag, idiot potus and his yes men couldn't figure out the constitution yet, maybe they'll get it after the on coming thrashing


What were your thoughts on the actions of Kim Davis?


Who?


The state actor who didn't comply with de facto federal law from SCOTUS.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:

Pick a lane. Or a constitutional section upon which to base your argument.


Was the "lawfulness of sanctuary cities under the 10th" lane not picked?


Get back to me when the feds get their asses kicked in court. There is no duty for the locals to actively here. If the ag, idiot potus and his yes men couldn't figure out the constitution yet, maybe they'll get it after the on coming thrashing


What were your thoughts on the actions of Kim Davis?


Who?


The state actor who didn't comply with de facto federal law from SCOTUS.


I don't consider this area particularly enjoyable, so in the words of the current clowns in the executive branch, I'll have to look into this and get back to you

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 17225
pizza_Place: Pequods
312player wrote:
chaspoppcap wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Jln, you're completely missing the point here. The federal government cannot force local and state actors to actively enforce solely federal law. Think California, Colorado and other states with legal marijuana



false narrative . It is still a class 1 narcotic illegal at fed level. Only reason the feds did not go after is because the Obama admin did not want to and seem uncool.




Wrong numbnutz, Obama was no friend to weed, the DEA raided more shops under Obama than Bush.

furthermore, the Obama administration kept it Schedule 1 despite a DEA review to consider descheduling it.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92106
Location: To the left of my post
Chicago would save a lot of money if it ignored federal murder laws.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40651
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Immigration is such an odd issue. The right claims the left wants them here so they can vote for them. The left denies but fights tooth and nail to let them in and keep them here. The left claims the right wants them here to use the cheap labor and save money. The right denies this and fights tooth and nail to deny them entry and get them out.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68612
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:

Pick a lane. Or a constitutional section upon which to base your argument.


Was the "lawfulness of sanctuary cities under the 10th" lane not picked?


Get back to me when the feds get their asses kicked in court. There is no duty for the locals to actively here. If the ag, idiot potus and his yes men couldn't figure out the constitution yet, maybe they'll get it after the on coming thrashing


What were your thoughts on the actions of Kim Davis?


Who?


The state actor who didn't comply with de facto federal law from SCOTUS.


Wasn't she not complying with State Law as well? I can't remember her whole saga.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40651
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Wasn't she not complying with State Law as well? I can't remember her whole saga.


I also can't recall all of it. Was she following a state order to a tee to avoid following a federal court order?

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68612
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
pittmike wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Wasn't she not complying with State Law as well? I can't remember her whole saga.


I also can't recall all of it. Was she following a state order to a tee to avoid following a federal court order?


Maybe?

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68612
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
viewtopic.php?f=100&t=95770

God this thread was great.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40651
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
You can read 21 pages. I'm good.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
I had forgotten her name.

Jln, this is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. She was actively denying people their civil rights. Entirely differentmatter.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68612
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
pittmike wrote:
You can read 21 pages. I'm good.


Like you have something better to do.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group