The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
Sanctuary Cities and the Rule of Law
by Judge Andrew Napolitano
.
Napolitano: FBI Tactics On Manafort
‘Much More Aggressive’ Than On liar-Hillary
by Nick Givas
{dailycaller.com} ~ Fox News analyst Judge Napolitano said Thursday the FBI raid on Paul Manafort’s home was “much more aggressive” than tactics used in the liar-Hillary Clinton investigation... “This is so much more aggressive than the investigation of Mrs. liar-Clinton,” Napolitano said on “Fox and Friends.” “The investigation of Mrs. liar-Clinton didn’t even use a grand Jury.” Napolitano said there is most likely evidence of wrongdoing due to the rare nature of the pre-dawn raid. “They had to use this extraordinary tool of a pre-dawn raid, the most forceful thing the FBI can do to you, short of an arrest in the middle of the night,” he said. “Which they can only use when all other means of acquiring information have failed.”... http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/10/napolitano-fbi-tactics-on-manafort-much-more-aggressive-than-on-hillary-video/.
North Korea Threatens to Target 'Areas
Around Guam' With Ballistic Missiles – 'To Neutralize It'
by PATRICK GOODENOUGH
{familysecuritymatters.org} ~ North Korea on Tuesday threatened to target "areas around Guam" with ballistic missiles, in response to the deployment of Guam-based supersonic U.S. Air Force bombers for combined exercises with South Korean warplanes... The threat from a spokesman for the Strategic Force of the Korean People's Army (KPA) came on the same day President Trump warned that Pyongyang's threats "will be met with fire and fury, like the world has never seen." The spokesman cited two U.S. actions - the test-firing last week of an unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, and the appearance of B1-B Lancer bombers - or what the spokesman called "the air pirates of Guam" - in the skies over South Korea... http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/north-korea-threatens-to-target-areas-around-guam-with-ballistic-missiles-to-neutralize-it?f=must_readsby PATRICK GOODENOUGH
.
Democratic Senators Concerned About
Extremist Summer Camp for Palestinian Americans
by Rafael Medoff
{algemeiner.com} ~ Two prominent US senators are raising questions about an American-funded school in Ramallah, which is running an extremist summer camp for Palestinian teens from around the world — many of them Americans... The controversial summer program, called “Go Palestine,” is run by the Ramallah Friends School, a 148-year-old Quaker institution in the Palestinian Authority’s de facto capital. Its stated mission is to provide Palestinian teens from abroad with “introductions to Palestinian culture, cuisine, life and work, and the Arabic language.” But in addition to traditional summer camp fare, Go Palestine participants are immersed in anti-Israel films, and lectures by militants — some with terrorist connections... https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/08/10/democratic-senators-concerned-about-extremist-summer-camp-for-palestinian-americans/.
Mass-rape of white girls by Muslim gang
by Liam Clancy
{wnd.com} ~ Seventeen men and one woman were found guilty of a host of sexual crimes against young women – many of them children – after a massive “grooming gang” was uncovered in Newcastle, England... The gang, made up of mostly Muslim Middle Easterners and South Asians commonly referred to as just “Asian” in the U.K. preyed upon white British girls, plying them with alcohol, marijuana, mephedrone and other drugs. The victims of sexual abuse were between the ages of 13 and 25. They were drugged unconscious and then raped or pressured into sex through physical or emotional abuse... http://www.wnd.com/2017/08/easy-meat-mass-rape-of-white-girls-by-muslim-gang/.
liar-nObama Tools RICE, CLAPPER Urge Trump
“Do Nothing”, ACCEPT N Korea NUKES
by rickwells.us
{rickwells.us} ~ liar-nObama successes are measured in the degree of negative impact they hold. They were quite successful in the outcome of their hell-bent determined revival of Iran and in providing them a money-lined pathway to nuclear weapons... They were also successful in allowing North Korea enough time to nearly complete their nuclear weapons program through the continuation of the policies of their fellow globalists, liar-Bill Clinton and GW Bush, to ignore the North Korea problem and just wait for it to go away on its own. liar-Clinton dubbed it strategic patience, but burying your head in the sand and waiting while someone takes aim at your exposed rear end really isn’t much of a strategy. In an August 9th interview former DNI and globalist James Clapper completely ignored the passivity that brought us to this point under his watch as well as the other anti-Americans in the government, boasting regarding the threatening rhetoric from North Korea, ‘typically we ignore it,” chiding President Trump for threatening to take action in response. He also called for us to, in the future, just “accept the fact that they are a nuclear power.”... http://rickwells.us/obama-tools-rice-clapper-urge-trump-nothing-accept-n-korea-nukes/
.
.
by Judge Andrew Napolitano
{townhall.com} ~ Earlier this week, the Trump Department of Justice told the mayor of Chicago that it would cease funding grants to the Chicago Police Department that had been approved in the liar-nObama administration because Chicago city officials were not cooperating with federal immigration officials.
The DOJ contended that Chicago officials were contributing to lawlessness by refusing to inform the feds of the whereabouts of undocumented foreign-born people, thereby creating what the feds derisively call a "sanctuary city," and Chicago officials have argued that their police officers and clerical folks are not obligated to work for the feds.
Who is correct?
The concept of a sanctuary city does not mean it is a place where federal law is unenforced by the feds. Rather, it is a place where local authorities have elected not to spend their tax dollars helping the feds to enforce federal law. The term "sanctuary city" is not a legal term but a political one. The Trump administration has used the term to characterize the governments of towns and cities that have created safe havens for those who have overstayed their visas by refusing to tell the feds who these folks are and where they can be found.
Can local authorities refuse to help the feds enforce federal law? In a word, yes. There is no legal obligation on the part of local authorities to help the feds with manpower or resources or data to enforce federal law within the jurisdiction of those local authorities.
During the liar-Clinton administration, when Congress passed legislation that directed local law enforcement to enforce a federal gun registration scheme, the Supreme Court invalidated the statute. It ruled that the feds cannot commandeer local and state officials and compel them to enforce federal laws; the feds can enforce their own laws.
The federal compulsion, the court held, violated the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution, which guarantees a representative form of government in every state. If the feds could enter a state and nullify the will of elected state officials not to spend state tax dollars, that would unconstitutionally impair representative government in those states.
Can the feds withhold federal funds from cities that refuse to cooperate in the enforcement of federal law? Yes and no. In the post-World War II era, Congress began purchasing state compliance with its wishes in areas that the Constitution did not permit it to regulate. Stated differently, since Congress can spend money on any matter it wishes, as long as it is arguably for the general welfare, but it cannot regulate for the general welfare, it has used its power of the purse as a way around the constitutional limitations on its regulatory powers.
This is legalized bribery of the states.
In the Reagan administration, Congress offered hundreds of millions of dollars to the states to repave federal highways if the states lowered their maximum speed limits to 55 miles per hour. South Dakota objected. Its government wanted the federal cash for the highway repaving but did not want to lower its speed limits.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the feds. It held that South Dakota is free to reject federal dollars, but if it accepts them, it must accept the strings that accompany them, as long as those strings are clearly spelled out before the cash flows and rationally related to the expenditure of the federal funds. Because repaving highways and the maximum speeds that vehicles would travel on them were rationally related, South Dakota had to choose between its cherished liberal speed limits and federal cash. No surprise, it chose the cash.
Now back to sanctuary cities. When the liar-nObama administration offered Chicago and other cities cash to purchase new police communication equipment, it attached strings to those offers -- but compliance with federal immigration authorities was not among them. Chicago's complaints about DOJ threats are constitutionally sound because federal strings can be imposed only by Congress and they cannot be imposed retroactively.
Thus, federal funds awarded in the liar-nObama administration without the string of cooperation with immigration authorities attached may not be interfered with by the Trump administration. If the feds do withhold committed funds that lack a cooperation condition attached, a court will invalidate that withholding.
Is the refusal to cooperate with the feds a form of nullification? In a word, yes. Federal law is superior to local law in areas that are primarily or exclusively federal, and immigration is unambiguously federal. Yet having pockets throughout the country without local cooperation with the feds fosters what the courts have called "laboratories of democracy."
Stated differently, if the local government in Manhattan or Chicago or Seattle aggressively protects undocumented immigrants who live there in return for the purchasing power and cultural diversity that immigrants bring, that may relieve social and legal pressure on governments elsewhere and will be a social experiment -- a laboratory of democracy -- worthy of cultural and political scrutiny and perhaps even indifference when it comes to the feds.
Many Trump supporters see in the president a champion who will rid the country of those they see as unlawfully here, and they also see in liberal big-city mayors politicians pandering to interest groups. But there is a rich history to federalism, and there are two sides to its coin. The rich history is that of state and local resistance to the tyranny of the majority in Washington -- a resistance as old as the country itself. The refusal of Massachusetts authorities to cooperate with the feds in the enforcement of the federal Fugitive Slave Act comes to mind.
The other side of the coin is unthinkable to my conservative brethren. If liar-Hillary Clinton had been elected president along with a Democratic Congress and it had offered state and local governments federal funds with strings attached requiring cities to make abortions available on demand, they all would be whistling a very different and very federalism-based tune.
Sanctuary Cities and the Rule of Law
{townhall.com} ~ Earlier this week, the Trump Department of Justice told the mayor of Chicago that it would cease funding grants to the Chicago Police Department that had been approved in the liar-nObama administration because Chicago city officials were not cooperating with federal immigration officials.
The DOJ contended that Chicago officials were contributing to lawlessness by refusing to inform the feds of the whereabouts of undocumented foreign-born people, thereby creating what the feds derisively call a "sanctuary city," and Chicago officials have argued that their police officers and clerical folks are not obligated to work for the feds.
Who is correct?
The concept of a sanctuary city does not mean it is a place where federal law is unenforced by the feds. Rather, it is a place where local authorities have elected not to spend their tax dollars helping the feds to enforce federal law. The term "sanctuary city" is not a legal term but a political one. The Trump administration has used the term to characterize the governments of towns and cities that have created safe havens for those who have overstayed their visas by refusing to tell the feds who these folks are and where they can be found.
Can local authorities refuse to help the feds enforce federal law? In a word, yes. There is no legal obligation on the part of local authorities to help the feds with manpower or resources or data to enforce federal law within the jurisdiction of those local authorities.
During the liar-Clinton administration, when Congress passed legislation that directed local law enforcement to enforce a federal gun registration scheme, the Supreme Court invalidated the statute. It ruled that the feds cannot commandeer local and state officials and compel them to enforce federal laws; the feds can enforce their own laws.
The federal compulsion, the court held, violated the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution, which guarantees a representative form of government in every state. If the feds could enter a state and nullify the will of elected state officials not to spend state tax dollars, that would unconstitutionally impair representative government in those states.
Can the feds withhold federal funds from cities that refuse to cooperate in the enforcement of federal law? Yes and no. In the post-World War II era, Congress began purchasing state compliance with its wishes in areas that the Constitution did not permit it to regulate. Stated differently, since Congress can spend money on any matter it wishes, as long as it is arguably for the general welfare, but it cannot regulate for the general welfare, it has used its power of the purse as a way around the constitutional limitations on its regulatory powers.
This is legalized bribery of the states.
In the Reagan administration, Congress offered hundreds of millions of dollars to the states to repave federal highways if the states lowered their maximum speed limits to 55 miles per hour. South Dakota objected. Its government wanted the federal cash for the highway repaving but did not want to lower its speed limits.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the feds. It held that South Dakota is free to reject federal dollars, but if it accepts them, it must accept the strings that accompany them, as long as those strings are clearly spelled out before the cash flows and rationally related to the expenditure of the federal funds. Because repaving highways and the maximum speeds that vehicles would travel on them were rationally related, South Dakota had to choose between its cherished liberal speed limits and federal cash. No surprise, it chose the cash.
Now back to sanctuary cities. When the liar-nObama administration offered Chicago and other cities cash to purchase new police communication equipment, it attached strings to those offers -- but compliance with federal immigration authorities was not among them. Chicago's complaints about DOJ threats are constitutionally sound because federal strings can be imposed only by Congress and they cannot be imposed retroactively.
Thus, federal funds awarded in the liar-nObama administration without the string of cooperation with immigration authorities attached may not be interfered with by the Trump administration. If the feds do withhold committed funds that lack a cooperation condition attached, a court will invalidate that withholding.
Is the refusal to cooperate with the feds a form of nullification? In a word, yes. Federal law is superior to local law in areas that are primarily or exclusively federal, and immigration is unambiguously federal. Yet having pockets throughout the country without local cooperation with the feds fosters what the courts have called "laboratories of democracy."
Stated differently, if the local government in Manhattan or Chicago or Seattle aggressively protects undocumented immigrants who live there in return for the purchasing power and cultural diversity that immigrants bring, that may relieve social and legal pressure on governments elsewhere and will be a social experiment -- a laboratory of democracy -- worthy of cultural and political scrutiny and perhaps even indifference when it comes to the feds.
Many Trump supporters see in the president a champion who will rid the country of those they see as unlawfully here, and they also see in liberal big-city mayors politicians pandering to interest groups. But there is a rich history to federalism, and there are two sides to its coin. The rich history is that of state and local resistance to the tyranny of the majority in Washington -- a resistance as old as the country itself. The refusal of Massachusetts authorities to cooperate with the feds in the enforcement of the federal Fugitive Slave Act comes to mind.
The other side of the coin is unthinkable to my conservative brethren. If liar-Hillary Clinton had been elected president along with a Democratic Congress and it had offered state and local governments federal funds with strings attached requiring cities to make abortions available on demand, they all would be whistling a very different and very federalism-based tune.
Comments