Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
A federal judge in California has blocked President Trump’s executive order to cut funding from sanctuary cities that don’t cooperate with U.S. immigration officials. The judge had previously put a temporary hold on the executive order.
U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick acted unconstitutionally, and there is no doubt that the ruling was politically motivated.
A federal judge in California has blocked President Trump’s executive order to cut funding from sanctuary cities that don’t cooperate with U.S. immigration officials. The judge had previously put a temporary hold on the executive order.
U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick acted unconstitutionally, and there is no doubt that the ruling was politically motivated.
There are no expressly enumerated authorities in the United States Constitution which grants to the judicial branch the power to block an executive order. If there is a problem with an executive order regarding its relationship to legislation, Congress may take care of it. If necessary, the States can.
As for the Sanctuary Status being claimed by the States that the Trump administration has decided to withhold some funding from, the Sanctuary State Status laws in question are all unconstitutional. As per Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, Congress has authority to make law to prohibit migrants from coming into the country for any reason they deem necessary. That means that all federal immigration law is constitutional. Article VI's Supremacy Clause disallows States from making laws contrary to federal laws made in pursuance of the U.S. Constitution.
Judge Orrick, then, has unconstitutional ruled without any constitutional authority in favor of the unconstitutional actions by States who have passed unconstitutional sanctuary laws in defiance of constitutional immigration laws.
On top of that, the federal spending machine's relationship with States, and the idea that States have to behave to get any money from the federal government is also unconstitutional. Where in the Constitution does it give the federal government the authority to fund anything within the States regarding internal State affairs? In fact, the fact that the federal government has most of that money in the first place is against the original intent of the U.S. Constitution. Internal issues are none of the federal government's business, and the money going to the federal government is supposed to be approved by the States in the first place, anyway.
Direct taxation violates Article I, Section 9; the 16th Amendment that eventually led to income tax and the IRS was never properly ratified; and 85% of federal spending is unconstitutional. 120 years ago federal spending was between three and four percent of GDP, and the budget for the federal government was based on oversight by the States, and a percentage determined by the census. There was no income tax, and because most of federal funding was constitutional, direct taxation was not needed.
If the Trump administration had any sense, they would tell Judge Orrick to stick it, and reduce federal funding to those States proclaiming sanctuary status, anyway. But, if the Republicans wish to show support for their president, congressional republicans would quit with their watering down of conservatism, pass an appropriations bill reducing monies to those States, as Trumps wants, and then the judge can't claim Trump acted on something without Congress.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment