What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Valmy]

Yes, quite often.

in 1868, it's Johnson, Macdonald & Juarez.

Benito Juarez is easily better than the three clowns we have now put together.

[dps]

What does that even mean? So if Columbus is a sanctuary city Ohio State would have all its research grants pulled?

Correct, depending on how the Trump administration defines sanctuary city and interprets the law.

I strongly suspect it won't go anywhere.  Way, way, way too much friendly fire.

'Sorry State Government, we will stop construction on this Interstate Highway project because it runs through a Sanctuary City for a few miles.'

It's actually been a fairly common Federal MO since states and municipalities started relying on Federal funding for a lot of their revenue.  The Feds put pressure on a state to change a low to what the Feds want or they'll cut off funds.  It's how we got a nationwide 55 MPH speed limit for about a decade, and how we got a nationwide age of 21 in order to legally buy alcohol.  It's not a model I like much because IMO it undermines the whole point of federalism. 

The difference here is that it's being done by executive order rather than legislative action.  Which, A), yes, is hypocritical if you do it after criticizing President Obama for governing through EOs, and B) is even worse than doing it through a law passed by Congress.

[Valmy]

It's actually been a fairly common Federal MO since states and municipalities started relying on Federal funding for a lot of their revenue.  The Feds put pressure on a state to change a low to what the Feds want or they'll cut off funds.  It's how we got a nationwide 55 MPH speed limit for about a decade, and how we got a nationwide age of 21 in order to legally buy alcohol.  It's not a model I like much because IMO it undermines the whole point of federalism. 

The difference here is that it's being done by executive order rather than legislative action.  Which, A), yes, is hypocritical if you do it after criticizing President Obama for governing through EOs, and B) is even worse than doing it through a law passed by Congress.

I also think the difference is that the state government (or a University) is being held responsible for a policy instituted by a municipality. That is different than holding a state government's feet to the fire to change a state policy.

[The Minsky Moment]

Santa Anna at various times overlapped with Van Buren, Tyler, and Pierce.  Don't know who led Canada back then but they would have to be truly awesome to counteract that.

[Razgovory]

It's actually been a fairly common Federal MO since states and municipalities started relying on Federal funding for a lot of their revenue.  The Feds put pressure on a state to change a low to what the Feds want or they'll cut off funds.  It's how we got a nationwide 55 MPH speed limit for about a decade, and how we got a nationwide age of 21 in order to legally buy alcohol.  It's not a model I like much because IMO it undermines the whole point of federalism. 

The difference here is that it's being done by executive order rather than legislative action.  Which, A), yes, is hypocritical if you do it after criticizing President Obama for governing through EOs, and B) is even worse than doing it through a law passed by Congress.

I also think the difference is that the state government (or a University) is being held responsible for a policy instituted by a municipality. That is different than holding a state government's feet to the fire to change a state policy.

Yeah, this is a tremendously blunt tool.  It's like trying to hammer nails in with a Buick.

[Valmy]

Santa Anna at various times overlapped with Van Buren, Tyler, and Pierce.  Don't know who led Canada back then but they would have to be truly awesome to counteract that.

True. I guess it has been awhile anyway.

[Berkut]

The Republican responded by saying he would starve such cities of federal funding, and has now signed this into law via a second executive order, signed on the same day and titled 'Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States'.

This EO is an extraordinary document; the section of "sanctuary cities" is a flagrant break with constitutional principles of federalism (reflected in one case in a landmark opinion by Justice Scalia).

Comes as no surprise but still kind of breathtaking to see the level of hyprocrisy after months of campaigning against Obama's so-called unconstitutional EOs.

But a EO doesn't have the power to create law, or even change law.

Unless there is some law somewhere that sources funds for Portland, and it says Portland only gets those funds if they do XY and Z, then a EO denying those funds to Portland seems trivially challengeable in court, right?

[dps]

It's actually been a fairly common Federal MO since states and municipalities started relying on Federal funding for a lot of their revenue.  The Feds put pressure on a state to change a low to what the Feds want or they'll cut off funds.  It's how we got a nationwide 55 MPH speed limit for about a decade, and how we got a nationwide age of 21 in order to legally buy alcohol.  It's not a model I like much because IMO it undermines the whole point of federalism. 

The difference here is that it's being done by executive order rather than legislative action.  Which, A), yes, is hypocritical if you do it after criticizing President Obama for governing through EOs, and B) is even worse than doing it through a law passed by Congress.

I also think the difference is that the state government (or a University) is being held responsible for a policy instituted by a municipality. That is different than holding a state government's feet to the fire to change a state policy.

True, but municipalities are "creatures of the states" and I'd think that would apply to public universities as well. 

[The Minsky Moment]

It's actually been a fairly common Federal MO since states and municipalities started relying on Federal funding for a lot of their revenue.  The Feds put pressure on a state to change a low to what the Feds want or they'll cut off funds.  It's how we got a nationwide 55 MPH speed limit for about a decade, and how we got a nationwide age of 21 in order to legally buy alcohol.

There was a Supreme Court case on that -  South Dakota v. Dole - and while the condition was upheld it was done so on narrow grounds.  Two limitations are relevant here are that the sanction can't be too severe or punitive, and that it has to bear a reasonable relation to the funding.  What Trump is proposing would violate both limitation.  In particular, the one funding stream that could legitimately be targeted is law enforcement support - and that happens to be the one stream the EO exempts.  It's completely backwards.

[Zanza]

You are the richest and most technologically advanced country in the history of mankind. Lesser countries were able to introduce ID schemes. What you lack is a will to reasonable governance, not capability.

Or the US lacks the will to unreasonable governance, depending on how important you think it is that the state be able to deny services to anyone who cannot prove themselves entitled to it.

The US has few government services where the distinction between citizens and non-citizens is important, so few in the US believe that the 'show me your papers' approach to government services is worthwhile. YMMD, but you are arrogant to assume that your country's system is the only one that represents "reasonable governance."

The context this came up in was disenfranchisment due to voter suppression based on lack of ID. I do in face believe that the only reasonable governance in a democracy is to make participation in election as easy and as general as possible and if issuing an ID is the way to do it, then yes, I find that there is only one reasonable governance option. You may call that arrogant, but I stand by it. It's not really about my country, but rather how I see democractic countries in general though.

[Berkut]

It's actually been a fairly common Federal MO since states and municipalities started relying on Federal funding for a lot of their revenue.  The Feds put pressure on a state to change a low to what the Feds want or they'll cut off funds.  It's how we got a nationwide 55 MPH speed limit for about a decade, and how we got a nationwide age of 21 in order to legally buy alcohol.

There was a Supreme Court case on that -  South Dakota v. Dole - and while the condition was upheld it was done so on narrow grounds.  Two limitations are relevant here are that the sanction can't be too severe or punitive, and that it has to bear a reasonable relation to the funding.  What Trump is proposing would violate both limitation.  In particular, the one funding stream that could legitimately be targeted is law enforcement support - and that happens to be the one stream the EO exempts.  It's completely backwards.

But that case, if I understand correctly, was limited to denying funds appropriated by legislative act based on terms *within* that legislative act, and even THEN it was decided on narrow grounds.

This is a EO denying funds allocated by legislation outside of the legislation entirely. That cannot possibly be legal on any grounds at all.

If Congress passes a law that says that cities get a million dollars each to replant trees in their parks, how can the President just create a EO saying "No, they don't get those funds" or "No, they don't get them unless they do XY and Z"?

I don't think he can, and I don't think these EOs mean anything at all. A four year old could challenge them in court.

[Valmy]

If this EO becomes a bill before congress I am curious how the 'Freedom Caucus' of narrow constructionist highly principled defenders of all constitutional issues will react.

[Admiral Yi]

I wonder how one determines if cooperation is being provided or not in this case.

[The Minsky Moment]

The "sanctuary city" term is IMO unfortunate.  Because it makes it sound like some sort of underground resistance movement.  The reality is that the key driver is more prosaic.  Many cities have lots of law enforcement responsibilities but limited resources.  From the POV of the municipality the enforcement of federal immigration laws may appear an unnecessary extravagance, and one that if assumed is likely to raise community tensions in areas the police want and need cooperation from residents.    The attitude is: the Feds have plenty of money and manpower - let them take care of it, we're not going to do their paperwork and dirty work for them.

[Admiral Yi]

The "sanctuary city" term is IMO unfortunate.  Because it makes it sound like some sort of underground resistance movement.  The reality is that the key driver is more prosaic.  Many cities have lots of law enforcement responsibilities but limited resources.  From the POV of the municipality the enforcement of federal immigration laws may appear an unnecessary extravagance, and one that if assumed is likely to raise community tensions in areas the police want and need cooperation from residents.    The attitude is: the Feds have plenty of money and manpower - let them take care of it, we're not going to do their paperwork and dirty work for them.

So your narrative is that all the fruitcake mayors and city councils of left coast cities issued these orders out of hard-headed cost benefit considerations? 

Read the other day that 10% of California's work force is illegal.