Rahm Emanuel to sue Trump Administration
Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel announced his intention to sue the federal government because, he says, the Trump Administration is attempting to blackmail Chicago into abandoning their “sanctuary city” status, according to the Chicago Sun Times;
Emanuel, flanked by Chicago Police Supt. Eddie Johnson and U.S. Rep. Danny Davis, announced that Chicago will sue the Trump administration, claiming new requirements to receive federal money are unconstitutional.
The Justice Department fired back at Emanuel, pointing out the city’s growing problem with violent crimes.
“In 2016, more Chicagoans were murdered than in New York City and Los Angeles combined. So it’s especially tragic that the mayor is less concerned with that staggering figure than he is spending time and taxpayer money protecting criminal aliens and putting Chicago’s law enforcement at greater risk,” Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores told the Sun-Times.
Funny how, when local government shields criminals, crime increases exponentially.
“Chicago will not be blackmailed into changing our values, and we are and will remain a welcoming city,” Emanuel said.
“The federal government should be working with cities to provide necessary resources to improve public safety, not concocting new schemes to reduce our crime-fighting resources,” he added.
Yeah, that’s what grants are for – to make people/states comply with Federal guidelines. The Education Department has done that since the agency was founded under the Carter Administration. Last year, Chicago got $2.3 million – how did that reduce crime?
Category: Crime
Waiting for the Chicago teachers’ union to go on strike right after school starts up.
Mayor Rahmbo is a twit. He wants parties and concerts and pretty stuff, but never takes into account that the bike trails he so famously announced are targets for criminals to attack and rob people. He never notices the bad stuff, even when it’s half a block from his own front door.
Glad I left Chicago.
Why should he see the bad stuff? He has top-shelf professional armed bodyguards to keep it away. Too bad the rest of us don’t have that luxury…
Queer bathhouse boi is a P.O.S. why in hell even “chicago” would vote for that vermin? Set a team of investigators on his trail, and soon the a.h. would be in prison…imho!
Send in the National Guard, declare marital law, shoot the druggies & criminals (ok, that takes out 9/10ths of the Chicago political class, but…)
‘declare marital law’?? Sometimes, I do love typos, GB. Hmmm… where should I start?
LOL.
I plead insufficient coffee, y’honor.
And far be it from me to try to declare marital law without input from my better half…
“Marital law.” Coffee went everywhere; keyboard made its saving throw. 🙂
Marital law?!?!??
criminals are going to have to start taking out the trash, putting their clothes in the hamper, cleaning out the garage and get rid of those concert t-shirts from 20 years ago?
Sounds like an 8th Amendment violation….
nah, it’s easier to define than that: you’re always wrong.
Too many living in sin nowadays. That is what got this whole decline of Western Civ going….
Graybeard…the ASVAB waiver of the thread.
Sorry Graybeard, I did it to myself on another thread and it was too good to pass up.
Any laughs on a Monday are good laughs.
Such a perfect typo is worth it’s weight in coffee.
But – it is a good thing my spousal unit does not use the interwebz.
“The federal government should be working with cities to provide necessary resources to improve public safety”
Step 1: Enforce the law, dipshit!
State have no jurisdication or authority to enforce FEDERAL immigration laws.
It is literally a separation of power EXPLICITLY LISTED in the constitution.
That is why cooperation with immigration enforcement is voluntary and why states are not funded to participate in immigration enforcement and rarely reimbursed for any expenses incurred.
Lars,
Do you think it would make a difference if the Federal Government paid a bounty on every illegal that local law enforcement turned over?
In short that’s how it would be spun by the left when cities are compensated for man hours/ administrative costs of turning over illegals .
you are so blind hey commissar if you love the illegal criminal aliens so much then let them stay with you!! what part of illegal criminal alien don’t you get?
Jeffery D Monroe (RET) Infantry 5x Combat Veteran /CIB.
I thought Printz v. United States settled it, but here we are again with the Federal government telling local law enforcement to enforce Federal laws. But this time its a Republican government and the laws are immigration. In Printz it was a Democratic government and the law were gun control.
Excited to see very principled arguments diametrically opposed to where they stood on the proceeding case.
You missed the point. The interpretation here is that be ignoring the law, and refusing to allow federal immigration law enforcement to enforce the law, they are in a criminal conspiracy with the illegals. I get your point about making the local law enforcement agents of the federal government, but that ain’t the case. The City is violating federal law by aiding and abetting the illegal aliens IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW. That is a crime.
Not exactly. Local law enforcement has never enforced Federal immigration law. Local law enforcement does not want to use resources to enforce immigration laws because it would overwhelm their holding facilities and hinder ability to enforce other laws because so many witnesses & victims would fail to co-operate or communicate.
That used to be a local choice.
Really? Local LEO’s have never enforced immigration law? Then all of the illegals I and my co-workers locked up for the feds were a figment of my imagination? And our facilities weren’t “overwhelmed”, we simply put them in the tank until Immigration showed up and hauled them off to several county jails in the area. you really should be wary of making statements of absolutes.
And, the illegal “witnesses and victims” don’t co-operate anyway.
The SCOTUS -did- approve withholding highway funds unless states enforced a 55mph speed limit, so there is a precedent.
They are withholding law enforcement grants unless the states refrain from aiding and abetting human trafficking and illegal entry of the USA.
The folks ignoring the law are armed,and defying Federal Law. (It is -not- legal to shelter criminals from law enforcement, just becasue you dislike it.) Trump could call it an insurrection if he chose to do so. The precedents fro enforcing -that- get ugly fast.
Eisenhower sent federal troops to ensure locals enforced Brown versus Board of Education. Lincoln sent federal troops etc, etc.
Once he uses the “i” word, there is almost nothing to hold back a shitstorm of unpleasantness. Some ar openly speaking of secession, again, as if they’re last grand scheme to maintain a permanent slave class did not occur, or did not fail disasterously.
And now they seek it again.
For our nation’s sake, the Left has to step back from formenting insurrection. They are -baiting- this sort of thing, because they think they can control it, and use it to end the current government, and replace it with one of their own preference. No longer willing to decide by ballot, because the -lose-, they think they can just re-write things their way, the Law and the People and ther Constitution itself be damned. Venezuela with a California motif. Smile as you obey, dude.
They are so badly wrong. SO very, very badly wrong.
They deny their coming arson, the whole time they are pouring gasoline everywhere.
That really doesn’t address what I said though.
Apples and oranges.
I’m pretty sure that the grants in question have to be applied for by the cities concerned. So in this case, the Federal government has broad latitude to set eligibility requirements.
As Jonn notes, the Department of Education does precisely the same thing with respect to individuals applying for Federal financial assistance. Individuals have to certify under penalty of perjury – and, in some cases, provide proof – that they’ve complied with certain requirements of Federal law. This isn’t assistance to law enforcement per se; it’s a condition of eligibility for the program.
Whether its the exact same would fall under the five part test in South Dakota v. Dole:
“The spending must promote “the general welfare.”
The condition must be unambiguous.
The condition should relate “to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.”
The condition imposed on the states must not, in itself, be unconstitutional.
The condition must not be coercive.”
As always, courts get to decide that before laymen. I could see a split ruling where law enforcement funding could be withheld, but (for example) food stamps could not.
We’ll see. As usual, the only winners will be the lawyers.
Dunno why you’re bringing up SNAP assistance (AKA food stamps), except perhaps as a red herring. Best I can tell, food stamps are not at issue here.
The only funds Rahm’s suing over are LE grant funds. As far as I know, those are the only funds the Federal government are threatening to withhold. They require voluntary application by the localities in question in order to participate in the program and received Federal money.
FWIW: the SCOTUS, in SD v. Dole, upheld the Federal government’s withholding of funds. They also appear to have held that the purpose of the grant funds in question (in SD v. Dole, highway construction funding) need not be directly connected to the Federal interest furthered by the conditions attached (banning alcohol sales to 18-20 year old individuals to avoid forfeit of 5% of those funds). So current SCOTUS precedent indicates Rahm’s simply pandering to the public for political reasons and that this is a case he has no chance of winning.
I bring up SNAP because of the exact reason you said – the withholding cannot be unconnected to the purpose of which the funds are being dispersed.
My understand is the law enforcement funds were not for immigration related matters. So it depends on how broad ‘related’ means.
And I’ve said many times, perhaps even here, that if the Federal government paid local jurisdictions to enforce immigration laws and hold criminal aliens none of this would be an issue.
Obviously, if they’re going to have to cover down for ICE the cities want more money to do it. The same way they do with ‘counter-terrorism’ and ‘drug enforcement’, which have both gone great.
TN,
I’m no expert, but it’s my understanding (and posted about by someone on this board with a long and direct involvement in such things, though i forget who) that once an ICE retainer is placed on an illegal, ICE does pick up the tab. As for the checking of status, that’d be another layer which may or may not have costs (since there’s already significant checks being done on people arrested)
I’m not an expert either, but every complaint about ICE holds and local immigration begins with the claim that the jail is crowded and they don’t have room to honor detainers. There is no reimbursement for detainers, I believe you’re thinking of when ICE basically rents-a-rack at a jail to hold someone. The other common complaint is that many times, after the 48 hour detainer has expired, ICE fails to pick up the individual and they release them anyway.
Its a broken system, but unlike many other broken systems, there is nothing here reallocation of resources and responsibilities cannot fix. But, as always, politics first.
Well, since I don’t know which of those scenarios is accurate, I’m not gonna take a side, other than to say if it’s the way you describe, I agree that it needs to be fixed on the fed side, as well as smacking down idiots like Rahm.. if it’s more toward my understanding, then the bulk of the fix should fall on the locals. So at least for me, no politics involved, just a problem that should be fixed
Doesn’t cost all that much to throw up triple strand concertina and some tents.
Fyrfighter, the comments you’re probably thinking of were by RM3(SS) on July 30. I’d agree they seemed more well-informed than what passes for the norm:
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=73681#comment-3019641
and
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=73681#comment-3019642
Thanks Perry, those were it! memory isn’t what it used to be, glad yours is better than mine
If those foodstamps and other federal funds are going to criminal illegals, actually, yes they could be withheld. And sanctuaries openly admit they hand this stuff out to people not legally entitled to them, yet another federal crime.
Might suggest you re-read amendment 2 to the Constitution, dude. By the way. much of Printz was based on ‘having state agencies enforce federal laws not under effective Presidential control.’ Isn’t it article 128 which gives the President direct control over immigration? I’m not an Austin lawyer, so I could be wrong.
Re: the government providing resources to fight crime – the government DOES, and in turn Chicago declines to prosecute federal gun law. So they are not effectively prosecuting federal or state law on either immigration or criminal gun laws. Is taking federal funds for law enforcement, then not using said funds appropriately, better classified as malfeasance or theft?
It depends on how much control the Federal government wishes to use on those grants. Some people love it when the Federal government dictates to local government how to do its job, others do not. Some people wait to see which tribe the government belongs to each time they make a decision.
So let’s load up the streets of every city and town with, say, Army folks to enforce federal law.
Nah, screw that whole Posse Commitatus bit, right?
Seems to me the key point is that National Guard, being state forces, are not subject to the whole posse comitatus argument. Think the first person to suggest putting the Army into it here is you.
In the past when we were involved in aiding DEA, Border Patrol, Local LEOs, we always had a lawyer and an FBI Agent as over-site/advisors and we never made the actual arrest..so by experience I guess getting around posse comitatus isn’t all that difficult.
Yep, as long as they stay under title 32, they are good to go. We did the same at the WTC site – several Guard along with 1 NYPD for arrest purposes.
Depends.
National Guard forces operating under STATE authority don’t trigger posse commitatus. Operating under Federal authority (e.g., when Federalized), they do.
This posed a problem during the 1992 LA riots. Prior to being placed under Federal control, CA National Guard troops could do a lot more to support civilian LE than they could afterwards.
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/rio.htm
Particularly when a regiment of Marfnes from Pendleton got sent in. That didn’t go over well.
As much as I hate to say it, the Nixon administration (which also gave us the EPA) forced the 55 MPH speed limit on the several states by threatening to withhold transportation funds. Some things never change except the names and faces (and motives) of the aggrieved.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nixon-signs-national-speed-limit-into-law
Omigod! That takes me back, cc senor!
And it was supposed to reduce deaths connected to traffic accidents, but when people ignore the speed limit signs, it doesn’t work too well. That was repealed a while back, too.
Have driven the width of the country multiple times at the double nickel… man, that is one law I don’t miss. The speed differential it created was unhealthy… traffic tends to flow at it’s maximum safe speed regardless of regulation (which is why the average speed on the supposedly speed-limitless autobahn is actually around 75mph) and the 55 limit was blown off by the usual folks who blow off limits, leaving a 20-30mph normal differential between main traffic streams – ‘way too much for comfort.
I cannot confirm nor deny that I’ve done 95-100 on certain “thru-ways” in the US and still gotten passed by others going faster, without an accident happening.
one word: Camaro
I’ll see your Camaro, and raise you a ’68 Charger
Wasn’t a contest.
I know, just having fun.. young kids and fast cars.. I don’t know about you, but it’s a miracle I survived it.
It’s a miracle I survived even when I had a mini van. You can get those things moving. A cop pulled me over and I even used that, saying imagine what I’d do if I wasn’t in a minivan. He laughed….and ticketed me.
Should have offered him a donut?? lol On second thought, maybe not.. local Sheriffs deputies tend to hang in our parking lot, to do paperwork.. a couple of my guys went on the roof of the station with a fishing pole baited with donut holes… deputy didn’t really see the humor in that either..
OMG….that’s fukking awesome!
In defense of the Officer…he ticketed me, but he knocked it down to 69 in a 55…I was going considerably faster.
I paid a lawyer and got it reduced further to a non-moving violation, so no points ever even hit my license.
I’ll see your Camaro, and raise you a Camaro ZL1 1LE.
Nibble on that, Mustang boys… 😎
Two words = Charger SRT8
got one?
Opel Vectra, automatic, 4 cylinder – Munich to Vienna in 4 hours, top speed 155 mph :).
LOL! Another one word:
Montana
Hellz Yeah…I’d have to get better tires though.
Anyone else ever done triple digits in a Freightliner semi truck? It was long enough ago that the Statute of Limitations has run out so SCREW anyone wanting to rat me out on it!
I-95 north from the 45th parallel to the Canadian border. Any day of the week.
My pickup has a software limiter at 99 mph.
Oh god, 55MPH. A few less speed-related accidents.
A crapload more of asleep-at-the-wheel incidents. Oh, and basically shooting truck drivers, who are paid by the mile, in the foot.
Being able to go 70MPH legally again was like getting out of jail. 🙂
Sanctuary for whom? Crooked Chicago politicians?
Dan Madigan
Rod Blagojevich
Dennis Hastert
Jesse Jackson, Jr.
Wifey of Jesse Jackson, Jr.
…yeah, it mostly does provide it for them.
“Vote early! Vote Often!”
“Vote when you’re dead and buried!”
Go team alien!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/07/maryland-city-mulling-over-idea-to-let-illegal-immigrants-vote.html
“All your votes is belong to us!”
Rahma Lahma Ding Dong.
Trump should see his lawsuit and raise him criminal prosecution for violation of federal law. The DOJ needs to make an example of this dude.
As Rome burns …
“Mr. Mayor, 14 were shot and 6 killed last night.”
Mayor: “Quick, create a lawsuit against Trump.”
‘…and build another bike trail while you’re forming the lawsuit.’
Soooooo. . .
I can harbor a bunch of criminals in my house and benefit from their being there (votes would be the real life payoff in the analogy) and then when someone calls the cops on me, I get to sue them for. . . well. . . something?
The liberal mind is something to behold.
“The liberal mind I something to behold with a scanning electron microscope.”
FIFY.
His big city is going to pot adoo rahm rahm adoo rahmm rahm He’s a shithead you know what I mean, adoo rahm rahm adoo rahm rahm, someone called him a real big shmo, adoo rahm rahm adoo rahm rahm. This Would sound good singing this in a tiled men’s bathroom with a plaster celing to get the echo.
Anyone watch Bosch on Amazon? Man, that Rahm guy looks exactly like the actor who plays Detective Bosch. It’s uncanny.
The feds have been “blackmailing” recipients of federal funds for decades, just as conservatives warned. Grove City College is one example.
It’s somewhat gratifying to see left-wingers being “blackmailed” for a change. Hoist on their own petard.
“Chicago will not be blackmailed into changing our values, and we are and will remain a welcoming city,” Emanuel said.
Yes and I see how well your values have been working for your honest citizens and city in general Mayor.
I recently read an article about LA, another sanctuary city where around 25% of welfare payouts went to illegals. I wonder how much of Chicago’s failing finances could be helped by enforcement of immigration laws. That’s beside the law enforcement issues in that city being affected by illegals.
Trump administration will lose. Sanctuary cities are legal.
As I understand it, it’s not so much that they are explicitly legal as much as under state’s rights they are not specifically illegal.
That’s why the fed has to use alternate measures to dissuade states from allowing such behaviors even though it amounts to aiding and abetting, misallocation of funds, hazarding the citizenry, abdication of legal responsibility, etc etc.
In American if is not explicitly illegal, then it is legal.
I know a lot of members of this board would rather live under more authoritarian regimes that prefer “illegal” activities be a grey term that can be applied to anything they don’t like.
But we still live and a generally free society where things are only illegal if they are explicitly made illegal.
“In American if is not explicitly illegal, then it is legal.”
Try to tell that to the IRS, EPA, etc.
If you are basing this on the separation of powers rationale you floated below, any other Federal law would not be enforceable at a state or local level. So as an example, no city cop would ever need to make a heroin arrest. Sorry, but I am pretty sure there is a court decision or two which support the view that Federal law trumps state law. No pun intended.
Marijuana is still a Schedule One Drug and illegal under federal law. 20 something states have decided to violate federal law.
Wrong again. They violate federal immigration and other federal laws. When they refuse to allow federal agents into their cities to enforce those laws, it is a federal crime, actually more than one. When they actively aid and abet illegals, it is again another series of federal crimes. Why the DOJ does not go after those committing the crimes is surprising to me.
I guess I shouldclarify my meaning. They are Constitutional and not merely legal. In fact they are in accordance with the seperation of powers.
The reason this so different than withholding other grants is because typically the feds withold grants to coerce states to do things that are state powers and responsibilities.
In this case they are coercing the states to do something that is a federal responsibility and states have no actual actual authority or jurisdiction to do. That is why the cooperative agreements and voluntary.
Federal funding to the states in this matter could also be viewed as something earned by obeying laws and contributing positively to the U.S. and its citizens as a whole.
Want to act contrary to the general welfare of U.S. citizens, then why should the taxpayers be sending you money to do so?
Still incorrect. There is no constitutional right to violate the law. The federal laws regarding immigration exist. They MUST be followed. The Supremacy Clause ensures this. State have no option. Thus all “sanctuary” cities who knowingly support and protect illegal aliens are committing multiple violations of federal law. period. It isn’t complicated. While the federal government cannot make local law enforcement do their bidding without at least funding them, the rest is black letter law.
Rahm Emanuel has always been Obummer’s boy.
And he has always been a dishonest turd who could care less about crime.
He might care if it paid him more directly, but the grant money takes a while to siphon his share off the top.
Hence, the more crime, the more grants.
Also, the people hate him, especially the impoverished because he cannot control the police either.
A double-ended turd covering down on all bets.
Classic Liberal.
Before he was the JEF’s bytchboi, he was Billy Jeff’s bytchboi.
I wounder how many funerals Rhambutt has been to to console the families of the fallen?
If (not) mayor Rahmbo actually gave a flying fart in space about Chicago and stopping crime in the neighborhoods, he’d have done what Jayne Byrne did when she was da Maire. She moved into Cabrini Green, which was projects housing put up to house low income families. It didn’t stop the crime-ridden crap in the projects but it did draw more attention to it. Before that, it was ignored as ‘the projects’, including those that were built down along the southern shore of Lake Michigan. None of that worked to stop or reduce crime, but it was at least concentrated in those cesspools. Then Richie Daley decided to tear down the projects and put up gentry housing instead, mostly to increase tax revenues, and the people in the projects moved into neighborhoods that were lower income but not as bad as Englewood. Now it’s everywhere, including my old neighborhood, and will rahmbo get off his bony political ass and put a stop to it by moving into a bad neighborhood like Jayne Byrne did? Oh, hellz no! He couldn’t be dragged out of Ravenswood even if his own son was held up 50 feet from the front porch. Oh, wait – that already happened! No, rahmbo is a stump-sucking libidiot political clown who has run Chicago’s finances into the frakkin’ ground with bike trail construction and other glad-handing sack of shit projects, because he’s an incompetent libidiot assholio political worm. His mother should have thrown him back. The most effective force in Chicago is Eddie Johnson, who is on the spot every time something goes sour. He is hands-on. Somehow, he got the city to hire another 1500 police officers – don’t know whether or not that has come to pass – but I think he knows that he’s working for an incompetent ass and while a bit beleaguered by the level of violence, is encouraging the people in the neighborhoods to be activists instead of hiding. The Chicago women who are currently members of a gun club on the South Side are NOT getting any flak from Johnson. It… Read more »