Pam Bondi announces that charges have been filed against the state of New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul and AG Letitia James for failing to enforce immigration law

[mspart]

1 minute ago, VakAttack said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/13/nyregion/danielle-sassoon-quit-eric-adams.html?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3gNaeBBYAK5LuwqqZ_QZ2mtP-YoBER-e41xiARMD4qLM1uvJD5gIuubeg_aem_fHmiFtCUaUFAPnbrwUTYLw

 

At least 5 other attorneys have now resigned over this issue, and Emil Bove, the former Trump defense lawyer/current higher up in DOJ has written in his letter accepting Sassoon's resignation that “In no valid sense do you uphold the Constitution by disobeying direct orders implementing the policy of a duly elected President,” which obviously just blatantly removes the idea of DOJ being independent from the President.

This is good.   Like the DOJ did not cook up charges against Trump due to Biden pressuring them to do so. 

https://www.nysun.com/article/biden-seethes-over-garlands-lack-of-swift-prosecution-of-trump-as-well-as-targeting-hunter-report

mspart

 

[VakAttack]

6 minutes ago, mspart said:

This is good.   Like the DOJ did not cook up charges against Trump due to Biden pressuring them to do so. 

https://www.nysun.com/article/biden-seethes-over-garlands-lack-of-swift-prosecution-of-trump-as-well-as-targeting-hunter-report

mspart

 

....do you really not understand the difference between what is happening here and what your article describes?

Also, even if it was the same (which it's not) you are basically making a whataboutism argument.

[Caveira]

8 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

....do you really not understand the difference between what is happening here and what your article describes?

Also, even if it was the same (which it's not) you are basically making a whataboutism argument.

Trump was attacked for political reasons.  Those charges were bogus and everyone knows it.  Now Adam’s is not being charged for helping Trump.  Same ish political situation just the other direction.   He should be charged imo.  

[Le duke]

23 minutes ago, mspart said:

Where in the Constitution does it require the federal government to provide money to states and city governments?

mspart

The 10th Amendment? Article I, Section 9, Clause 7?

Additionally, plenty of case law. SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that funding must NOT impact states' rights (10A), and that any conditions must be related to the purpose of the funding, and may NOT be coercive in any way. 

If that wasn't the case, the next administration could withhold funding to all states that didn't pass extremely restrictive gun laws, for example. That would be an infringement on the right of the state to pass their own gun laws. Super unconstitutional.

[Offthemat]

What’s the big deal?  She seems like a real dandy but I applaud her for resigning.  It’s certainly nothing new to drop or reduce charges, even grant immunity to defendants for aiding prosecutors.  She was ordered to dismiss, without prejudice, meaning the charges could be refiled later, charges that Adams received some airline seat and hotel room upgrades for rousting fire inspectors to do their job in time for a planned event.  Almost sounds like a matter for the International Criminal Court.  If she can’t bring herself to follow orders, she and anyone else who feels the same should resign.  It’s the honorable thing to do.  

[mspart]

14 hours ago, Le duke said:

The 10th Amendment? Article I, Section 9, Clause 7?

Additionally, plenty of case law. SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that funding must NOT impact states' rights (10A), and that any conditions must be related to the purpose of the funding, and may NOT be coercive in any way. 

If that wasn't the case, the next administration could withhold funding to all states that didn't pass extremely restrictive gun laws, for example. That would be an infringement on the right of the state to pass their own gun laws. Super unconstitutional.

Constitution Article I, section 9, clause 7:  No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

Constitution Amendment 10:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Calling your bluff.    What do these have anything in the world to do with the Federal government having to fund the states?   It doesn't.   So you are dead wrong.   Period.  You  are welcome to try again.   Anyone can spout some spot in the Constitution to support their claim but it would be wise to at least read those things to make sure they do what you say they do. 

What is coercive in removing DOJ funding?    They (NY) are not helping the DOJ, why should they get DOJ funding.   Rikers is reopening their ICE location after consultation with NYC Mayor Adams.   I would expect that NYC would not lose their DOJ funding.   But the rest of the state is not helpful and actively opposes the DOJ in removing illegal aliens, even those that are felons.   There is no reason the Federal government should give money for this kind of behavior. 

Try again,

mspart

 

 

[red viking]

30 minutes ago, mspart said:

Constitution Article I, section 9, clause 7:  No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

Constitution Amendment 10:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

Calling your bluff.    What do these have anything in the world to do with the Federal government having to fund the states?   It doesn't.   So you are dead wrong.   Period.  You  are welcome to try again.   Anyone can spout some spot in the Constitution to support their claim but it would be wise to at least read those things to make sure they do what you say they do. 

What is coercive in removing DOJ funding?    They (NY) are not helping the DOJ, why should they get DOJ funding.   Rikers is reopening their ICE location after consultation with NYC Mayor Adams.   I would expect that NYC would not lose their DOJ funding.   But the rest of the state is not helpful and actively opposes the DOJ in removing illegal aliens, even those that are felons.   There is no reason the Federal government should give money for this kind of behavior. 

Try again,

mspart

 

 

2 biggest problems I see (there are many):

1) congress appropriated money. Musks freezing of funding violates the constitution. Founding fathers are rolling over in their graves. 

2) a lot of the money to the states is based upon delegated authority. States get money to enforce federal law and programs,  because they can do it more efficiently. 

[Caveira]

3 minutes ago, red viking said:

2 biggest problems I see (there are many):

1) congress appropriated money. Musks freezing of funding violates the constitution. Founding fathers are rolling over in their graves. 

2) a lot of the money to the states is based upon delegated authority. States get money to enforce federal law and programs,  because they can do it more efficiently. 

Are they enforcing it?

[Husker_Du]

15 hours ago, Le duke said:

The 10th Amendment? Article I, Section 9, Clause 7?

Additionally, plenty of case law. SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that funding must NOT impact states' rights (10A), and that any conditions must be related to the purpose of the funding, and may NOT be coercive in any way. 

If that wasn't the case, the next administration could withhold funding to all states that didn't pass extremely restrictive gun laws, for example. That would be an infringement on the right of the state to pass their own gun laws. Super unconstitutional.

so why does anyone care about abortion being sent down to the states? 

[red viking]

8 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

so why does anyone care about abortion being sent down to the states? 

That's not a funded program. It's a fundamental right granted by the Constitution and Founding fathers. 

[ionel]

10 minutes ago, red viking said:

That's not a funded program. It's a fundamental right granted by the Constitution and Founding fathers. 

reference? 

[Husker_Du]

1 hour ago, red viking said:

That's not a funded program. It's a fundamental right granted by the Constitution and Founding fathers. 

lmfao

 

[Husker_Du]

17 hours ago, Le duke said:

 

any conditions must be related to the purpose of the funding

and helping/not helping isn't related to the funding?

wtf are you talking about?

are you trying to say states get federal assistance for a program even if they are directly defying or not participating in the program?

it sounds like you're reaching way too hard. 

it's pretty basic

comply with federal program and you get federal aid.

don't and don't. 

[mspart]

18 hours ago, VakAttack said:

....do you really not understand the difference between what is happening here and what your article describes?

Also, even if it was the same (which it's not) you are basically making a whataboutism argument.

I am saying that Biden pressured his DOJ to go after Trump and was upset that it took so long.   That is going after a political enemy which most on here decried when Trump asked Ukraine to look into the Bidens. 

The article is the best I could find to describe what Biden did.   No he never ordered the DOJ to prosecute Trump but pressured them to do so and wondered out loud about having even nominated his AG, Garland.  

And dropping the charges with prejudice keeps the charges on the books against Adams, just that the DOJ will not now pursue it.    It is an election year for Adams and the DOJ has a working rule that they don't mess with elections.  Something the DOJ seems to have forgotten. 

mspart

[Le duke]

and helping/not helping isn't related to the funding?
wtf are you talking about?
are you trying to say states get federal assistance for a program even if they are directly defying or not participating in the program?
it sounds like you're reaching way too hard. 
it's pretty basic
comply with federal program and you get federal aid.
don't and don't. 

SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that the executive branch cannot deny states funding for failure to meet conditions that were not part of the funding bill/law. I.e., Obama couldn’t deny Medicare funding to a state that failed to expand coverage, because that wasn’t part of the law (the ACA) as written. See: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.

The current law funding states doesn’t contain any requirements for states to help with immigration enforcement (Mostly because of 10A). Therefore, there is no legal recourse for the administration to penalize states by withholding funding.

Also, the federal government funds the states with a formula, based on population, poverty, unemployment, transportation infrastructure, etc. It cannot make arbitrary and capricious decisions to penalize states.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Caveira]

38 minutes ago, Le duke said:

 

SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that the executive branch cannot deny states funding for failure to meet conditions that were not part of the funding bill/law. I.e., Obama couldn’t deny Medicare funding to a state that failed to expand coverage, because that wasn’t part of the law (the ACA) as written. See: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.

The current law funding states doesn’t contain any requirements for states to help with immigration enforcement (Mostly because of 10A). Therefore, there is no legal recourse for the administration to penalize states by withholding funding.

Also, the federal government funds the states with a formula, based on population, poverty, unemployment, transportation infrastructure, etc. It cannot make arbitrary and capricious decisions to penalize states.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

This scotus?   The one team blue cries about being to conservative?