Of ALL federal funds due to them being a sanctuary state now
http://time.com/4724121/california-sanctuary-state-bill-passes-senate-immigration/
http://time.com/4724121/california-sanctuary-state-bill-passes-senate-immigration/
Time to Defund California 100%
- Thread starter IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life
- Start date
Federal government can't enforce it's own laws? It needs the states to do the work for them?
So, we should not let FBI Agents into California to help them on cases the locals can't handle?
California would be fine with the deal as they, like most of the blue states, pay for the red state welfare state. Cali keeps its federal tax payments and forfeits receipt of federal money from DC. Done. Settled. Next.
California is among a handful of so called “donor states,” which pay more in taxes to the federal Treasury than they receive in government funding. Good luck with your fight.
https://callyourrep.co/
https://callyourrep.co/
FBI as a service to the states assists states in investigating crimes that where broken under that state's laws. The FBI does not make the arrest it only provides resources that the states may not have access to.
The federal government is asking the states to enforce it's laws for them. I see no reason why the states should be forced to comply. States have enough work to do with enforcing their own laws.
This is incorrect,.... The federal government is not asking states to "enforce" immigration law. Rather, the federal government is asking states to provide some limited level of cooperation. Face it, local law enforcement is the filter that first catches most illegal activity. The feds can't do this effectively on their own.
Counterfeiting is a federal crime. What does a local police department do when they arrest someone for distributing fake currency?.... They call the feds. Same thing here, no difference....
So torn...on one hand, OP is exactly why we have an ignore button and yet I can't help but stare at train wrecks...
It's time to only give steve king a one-way ticket for his foreign travels. I do think Syria would be a good landing place.
The more you post the more I think you are a Russian troll.
Add Tennessee to the list. Take away their federal aid and funding from their Universities that want to educate illegal immigrants.
Put another way, California is #46 on the list of federally dependent states...
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/
I've never quite understood this concept of "donor states." I totally understand the idea that some states get a smaller percentage of the federal tax dollars paid by their residents back from the Feds than other states do. But I can't believe that any state gets any where near 100% back, even the ones which get the most federal aid. After all, before providing aid back to the states, the Feds have a ton of stuff to pay for to run the federal government and pay for the national defense.
I think expenditures on running the government and defense are counted in the returned dollars. My understanding is there are just two pots in the calculating. The pot of money from all sources flowing out of the state to the federal government and the pot of money from all sources flowing back to the state. It's not just direct state aid for roads or welfare, but everything going into the state economy from a federal funding source.
Believe it.
It is mainly Bible thumping Red states which 'take' the most.
CA is like 1/6th of the total US population, which means when they pay more in than what they get back, it funds 10 other states which take more than they pay in.
A simply Google search will provide you the numbers.
Yep; shut off CA's federal money, and we can eliminate a HUGE fraction of the defense budget by closing Camp Pendleton and all the West Coast naval bases....
It'd balance the budget in a heartbeat....
I've lived in 3 of the 4 least dependent states. So, 8 of the 10 most dependent states voted for Trump.
90% of the most dependent states vote Trump. 80% of the least dependent states vote Clinton. When are the righties going to get off the government teat?
Most conservatives have no problem taking government assistance. In their minds, they're one of the good ones who really deserve the money. They see other people as the ones who are just living off the government.
Yep. But they'll tell you how much money they would donate to good causes if there were no taxes! That's why they're retards. They take more than they pay in taxes right now and it ain't even close. They live in fantasy land and think they're fooling anyone with their bullshit. It's comical.
Take away the farm welfare and 70% of the Republicans on this board would scream like children.
This an older article but explains the issues of States vs Federal Law pretty well.
Yes, States Can Nullify Some Federal Laws, Not All
By Robert A. Levy
This article appeared in Investor’s Business Daily on March 18, 2013.
Rumblings from ardent states’ rights advocates grow louder in the wake of perceived federal overreach in such areas as health care, immigration reform, marijuana regulation and gun control.
Indeed, on March 13 the Oklahoma House voted overwhelmingly to invalidate President Barack Obama’s signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act. That process is known as nullification. But is it constitutional?
In a nutshell: (1) State officials need not enforce federal laws that the state has determined to be unconstitutional; nor may Congress mandate that states enact specific laws. But (2), states may not block federal authorities who attempt to enforce a federal law unless a court has held that the law is unconstitutional. And (3), individuals are not exempt from prosecution by the federal government just because the state where they reside has legalized an activity or pronounced that a federal law is unconstitutional; if convicted, individuals can attempt to vindicate their constitutional rights in court.
Fans of nullification count on the states to check federal tyranny.
Let’s examine each of those questions:
First, are states required to enforce federal laws and enact regulatory programs that Congress mandates? The answer on both counts is “No.”
In the 1997 case, Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not command state law enforcement authorities to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers.
In the 1992 case, New York v. United States, the Court ruled that Congress couldn’t require states to enact specified waste disposal regulations.
The second question is more difficult: Can a state impede federal authorities from enforcing their own law if the state deems the law to be unconstitutional. The answer is “No,” although more radical nullification proponents would disagree. They point to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, in which Thomas Jefferson and James Madison asserted a state’s right to nullify the Alien and Sedition Acts.
But consider those resolutions in context: Jefferson and Madison had argued that the states must have the final word because the Constitution had not expressly established an ultimate authority on constitutional matters.
Four years later in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall resolved that oversight. He wrote: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Since then, instead of 50 individual states effecting their own views regarding constitutionality, we have one Supreme Court establishing a uniform rule for the entire nation.
The Framers concurred. In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton had written: “\ limited constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution void.” Madison shared that view. He wrote: “(I)ndependent tribunals … will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive.”
Even before Marbury, the Virginia General Assembly had passed Madison’s Report of 1800. It acknowledged that states can declare federal laws unconstitutional; but the declaration would have no legal effect unless the courts agreed. Here’s what Madison wrote: State “declarations … are expressions of opinion, (intended only for) exciting reflection. The expositions of the judiciary, on the other hand, are carried into immediate effect.”
Madison also published Notes on Nullification in 1834. There, he wrote that an individual state cannot unilaterally invalidate a federal law. That process requires collective action by the states. Similarly, Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions had described nullification as an act by “the several states” that formed the Constitution.
Moreover, seven states rejected resolutions similar to Virginia’s and Kentucky’s; six states passed alternate resolutions holding that constitutionality was for courts to decide; four states took no action. No other state went along with Virginia or Kentucky.
Since then, nullification attempts have failed on three occasions: In 1828, South Carolina tried to nullify two national tariffs. President Andrew Jackson proclaimed nullification to be treason; Congress authorized Jackson to send troops, and the state backed down. In 1859, the Supreme Court rejected nullification in Ableman v. Booth.
Booth had frustrated recapture of a slave in violation of the Fugitive Slave Act. Wisconsin’s Supreme Court held the act unconstitutional, but the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the conviction. In 1958, after southern states refused to integrate their schools, the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Aaron held that nullification “is not a constitutional doctrine … it is illegal defiance of constitutional authority.”
Fans of nullification count on the states to check federal tyranny. But sometimes it cuts the other way; states are also tyrannical. Indeed, if state and local governments could invalidate federal law, Virginia would have continued its ban on inter-racial marriages; Texas might still be jailing gay people for consensual sex; and constructive gun bans would remain in effect in Chicago and elsewhere.
Finally, question #3: If a state deems a federal law to be unconstitutional, what’s the proper remedy? The answer is straightforward. Because the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority, the remedy is a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the suspect federal regulation or statute.
Yes, States Can Nullify Some Federal Laws, Not All
By Robert A. Levy
This article appeared in Investor’s Business Daily on March 18, 2013.
Rumblings from ardent states’ rights advocates grow louder in the wake of perceived federal overreach in such areas as health care, immigration reform, marijuana regulation and gun control.
Indeed, on March 13 the Oklahoma House voted overwhelmingly to invalidate President Barack Obama’s signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act. That process is known as nullification. But is it constitutional?
In a nutshell: (1) State officials need not enforce federal laws that the state has determined to be unconstitutional; nor may Congress mandate that states enact specific laws. But (2), states may not block federal authorities who attempt to enforce a federal law unless a court has held that the law is unconstitutional. And (3), individuals are not exempt from prosecution by the federal government just because the state where they reside has legalized an activity or pronounced that a federal law is unconstitutional; if convicted, individuals can attempt to vindicate their constitutional rights in court.
Fans of nullification count on the states to check federal tyranny.
Let’s examine each of those questions:
First, are states required to enforce federal laws and enact regulatory programs that Congress mandates? The answer on both counts is “No.”
In the 1997 case, Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not command state law enforcement authorities to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers.
In the 1992 case, New York v. United States, the Court ruled that Congress couldn’t require states to enact specified waste disposal regulations.
The second question is more difficult: Can a state impede federal authorities from enforcing their own law if the state deems the law to be unconstitutional. The answer is “No,” although more radical nullification proponents would disagree. They point to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, in which Thomas Jefferson and James Madison asserted a state’s right to nullify the Alien and Sedition Acts.
But consider those resolutions in context: Jefferson and Madison had argued that the states must have the final word because the Constitution had not expressly established an ultimate authority on constitutional matters.
Four years later in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall resolved that oversight. He wrote: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Since then, instead of 50 individual states effecting their own views regarding constitutionality, we have one Supreme Court establishing a uniform rule for the entire nation.
The Framers concurred. In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton had written: “\ limited constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution void.” Madison shared that view. He wrote: “(I)ndependent tribunals … will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive.”
Even before Marbury, the Virginia General Assembly had passed Madison’s Report of 1800. It acknowledged that states can declare federal laws unconstitutional; but the declaration would have no legal effect unless the courts agreed. Here’s what Madison wrote: State “declarations … are expressions of opinion, (intended only for) exciting reflection. The expositions of the judiciary, on the other hand, are carried into immediate effect.”
Madison also published Notes on Nullification in 1834. There, he wrote that an individual state cannot unilaterally invalidate a federal law. That process requires collective action by the states. Similarly, Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions had described nullification as an act by “the several states” that formed the Constitution.
Moreover, seven states rejected resolutions similar to Virginia’s and Kentucky’s; six states passed alternate resolutions holding that constitutionality was for courts to decide; four states took no action. No other state went along with Virginia or Kentucky.
Since then, nullification attempts have failed on three occasions: In 1828, South Carolina tried to nullify two national tariffs. President Andrew Jackson proclaimed nullification to be treason; Congress authorized Jackson to send troops, and the state backed down. In 1859, the Supreme Court rejected nullification in Ableman v. Booth.
Booth had frustrated recapture of a slave in violation of the Fugitive Slave Act. Wisconsin’s Supreme Court held the act unconstitutional, but the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the conviction. In 1958, after southern states refused to integrate their schools, the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Aaron held that nullification “is not a constitutional doctrine … it is illegal defiance of constitutional authority.”
Fans of nullification count on the states to check federal tyranny. But sometimes it cuts the other way; states are also tyrannical. Indeed, if state and local governments could invalidate federal law, Virginia would have continued its ban on inter-racial marriages; Texas might still be jailing gay people for consensual sex; and constructive gun bans would remain in effect in Chicago and elsewhere.
Finally, question #3: If a state deems a federal law to be unconstitutional, what’s the proper remedy? The answer is straightforward. Because the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority, the remedy is a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the suspect federal regulation or statute.
There is truth there. IMO, the bigger issue is so much government aid is hidden that many voters don't realize they are subsidized. When the folks hitting retirement age went to the University of Iowa, the government paid the majority of the cost, but they don't feel that they were on welfare because they didn't have to do anything to receive that aid, it was automatic. The same sort of wealth transfer happens in every small town in America where funds are collected in the city and reinvested into rural utilities, infrastructure and services that the rural folks couldn't afford on their own. Again they all feel like they are independent because they don't see where the money for their electricity or water or sherif really comes from.
I understand that. It's called cooperation which we need between all law enforcement.
So, when the locals use the US Marshal Service to help them out, they shouldn't do that either??
I am lost, are they all part of the same team or not.
If they already have someone in Jail, it seems they are already there for something so god forbid you hold on to them.
Says the Clown fan whose football program relies on welfare. How can we take you seriously?
Look it up. I was just at a USDA presentation yesterday and the graph show 11 percent to farmers and this was a USDA presentation. I'll be honest I was surprised at that number.
Last edited:
Oh this is ****ing laughable. I'm remembering a time when NYC went bankrupt. I'm remembering times when California was gasping for air financially and begging for help.
The USDA is in charge of quite a bit. Food stamps and school lunch program as well.
It is in a power point and I am sure if you went down to the local USDA office you could probably see what the breakdown is.
