I also do not have or use any news feeds. I do not wish to be spoon fed confirmation bias based upon monitored algorithms.
What pray tell, do you use to get news then? TV?⦠there is confirmation bias there as well. Or do you just use Truth Social? Most of your talking points seem to be driven by postings there. I hope you are not trying to paint yourself as an independent-thinker because you are far from that.
If you believe you are free from confirmation bias then you might be the only living person in America free from it.
Kurt, try running your comments through ChatGPT first...you get interesting stuff, like:
Yes, sanctuary cities are protected under constitutional law, primarily through the Tenth Amendment, which upholds the principle of federalism and limits the federal government's authority to compel state or local governments to enforce federal laws.
A recent example illustrating this protection is the April 24, 2025, ruling by U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick. In this case, the judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration's attempt to withhold federal funds from jurisdictions with sanctuary policies. Judge Orrick emphasized that the executive branch cannot unilaterally impose new funding conditions without congressional approval, as doing so violates the constitutional separation of powers and the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine. State Court Report+5The Washington Post+5Axios+5 This ruling aligns with the Supreme Court's decision in Printz v. United States (1997), which held that the federal government cannot commandeer state or local officials to enforce federal regulatory programs. Therefore, while sanctuary cities are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, their policies are supported by constitutional principles that protect state and local autonomy.Wikipedia Recent Developments on Sanctuary Cities and Federal Funding https://www.washingtonpost.com...https://www.axios.com/local/bo...
I do not use ChatGPT, in fact never have nor as I sit here, intend to do so anytime soon. I also do not have or use any news feeds. I do not wish to be spoon fed confirmation bias based upon monitored algorithms. Am I the only one here who does not use these things ? I want to do my own thinking and research, free range style. I see opposing views right here full of all the talking points I come across. They are pretty much monolithic here.
Regarding Sanctuary Cities and the 10th, it is one thing to commandeer local resources, but to obstruct and willfully interfere such as the judge in Wisconsin, is a whole nuther ball game. When a jurisdiction already has someone in custody, how is it going out of the way to hold them a little bit longer to turn them over federal authorities ? It is just simple cooperation between agencies. No one is being asked to go find and arrest someone. Instead local authorities are being willfully prohibited from cooperating with federal agencies. That is a big difference to me, at least. I guess that as usual, I'm the only one here who looks at it this way. Same as making the distinction between legal and illegal immigration which everyone here also refuses to do.
These local district judges are exceeding their intended authority by making these unilateral decisions on federal policies that affect the entire country beyond their local jurisdiction. More often than not, they are overturned for exceeding their authority. It is judge shopping, plain and simple. All they are is sand in the gears. Correcting this is already underway in Congress, who is in charge of what they can and cannot do. IIRC, the laws passed by Congress do allow for the withholding of funds from governments and agencies that do not comply with federal laws and policies. It is baked in the cake. No one has tried to do it so far on this scale until now. I believe that this judge will be overturned.
I don't know if you are old enough to remember ... when the federal government lowered the speed limit to 55 mph nationwide, federal funds were withheld from states that refused to comply with that. .
No, it settles the issue for all persons, just like it says in the 14th amendment. Did you even read the opinion you cited? The legal status of the parents has nothing to do with it.
Yes, these are opinions...from quora. Where you can find people with no qualifications but the ability to type spouting opinions as ignorant as yours. The issue was debated during the drafting of the 14th amendment and the intent of its authors is clear. You (and every other nativist) are intentionally obfuscating the law to try and fabricate a justification for a bigoted agenda.
Otherwise known as "Splitting Hairs on a Grizzly."
Ignoring the stupidity of the "Democratic Party" argument you appear to be making, there is a more fundamental parallel: The Constitution.
Sanctuary cities have the audacity to read the 10th Amendment. They know that states and local governments arenât just the federal governmentâs personal assistants, waiting on standby to enforce every federal policy, especially when it comes to immigration. The anti-commandeering doctrine? Thatâs just centuries of constitutional law saying the feds canât force local cops to do their bidding. Maybe they didn't teach states rights in California....rebels.
And then thereâs the 14th Amendment, with its pesky âequal protectionâ clause. Sanctuary cities have the nerve to suggest that treating everyone fairly-regardless of immigration status-is actually required by the Constitution. Imagine that: local officials refusing to turn their police departments into immigration dragnet squads, all in the name of public safety and constitutional rights.
So, do sanctuary cities âbreak the rule of lawâ? Only if you ignore the actual text of the Constitution and the Supreme Courtâs repeated reminders that local governments arenât federal puppets. But hey, why let the 10th and 14th Amendments get in the way of a cult mantra and Fox news entertainment value?
You swear you're a patriotic American, but more and more you are taking positions at odds with the founding document. You don't have to like it, but if you believe in the rule of law, you need to accept and defend it.
Let's face it, kurt is Pro-Constitution up until the point that it doesn't interfere with anything Trump wants done.
In a somewhat related note, the reason Kurt has previously said (but never articulated) what personal "line in the sand" Trump couldn't cross and still keep his support is that kurt well knows that Trump could easily cross it in the future (maybe even has crossed one in the past) and going on record with something like that would make it even tougher for him to support Trump here in the future.
Ignoring the stupidity of the "Democratic Party" argument you appear to be making, there is a more fundamental parallel: The Constitution.
Sanctuary cities have the audacity to read the 10th Amendment. They know that states and local governments arenât just the federal governmentâs personal assistants, waiting on standby to enforce every federal policy, especially when it comes to immigration. The anti-commandeering doctrine? Thatâs just centuries of constitutional law saying the feds canât force local cops to do their bidding. Maybe they didn't teach states rights in California....rebels.
And then thereâs the 14th Amendment, with its pesky âequal protectionâ clause. Sanctuary cities have the nerve to suggest that treating everyone fairly-regardless of immigration status-is actually required by the Constitution. Imagine that: local officials refusing to turn their police departments into immigration dragnet squads, all in the name of public safety and constitutional rights.
So, do sanctuary cities âbreak the rule of lawâ? Only if you ignore the actual text of the Constitution and the Supreme Courtâs repeated reminders that local governments arenât federal puppets. But hey, why let the 10th and 14th Amendments get in the way of a cult mantra and Fox news entertainment value?
You swear you're a patriotic American, but more and more you are taking positions at odds with the founding document. You don't have to like it, but if you believe in the rule of law, you need to accept and defend it.
Ignoring the stupidity of the "Democratic Party" argument you appear to be making, there is a more fundamental parallel: The Constitution.
Sanctuary cities have the audacity to read the 10th Amendment. They know that states and local governments arenât just the federal governmentâs personal assistants, waiting on standby to enforce every federal policy, especially when it comes to immigration. The anti-commandeering doctrine? Thatâs just centuries of constitutional law saying the feds canât force local cops to do their bidding. Maybe they didn't teach states rights in California....rebels.
And then thereâs the 14th Amendment, with its pesky âequal protectionâ clause. Sanctuary cities have the nerve to suggest that treating everyone fairly-regardless of immigration status-is actually required by the Constitution. Imagine that: local officials refusing to turn their police departments into immigration dragnet squads, all in the name of public safety and constitutional rights.
So, do sanctuary cities âbreak the rule of lawâ? Only if you ignore the actual text of the Constitution and the Supreme Courtâs repeated reminders that local governments arenât federal puppets. But hey, why let the 10th and 14th Amendments get in the way of a cult mantra and Fox news entertainment value?
You swear you're a patriotic American, but more and more you are taking positions at odds with the founding document. You don't have to like it, but if you believe in the rule of law, you need to accept and defend it.
Narrator:
It turns out the 'patriotic americans' didn't really care about the constitution at all, or America, or patriotism, they were mostly just angry and racist.
Kurt, try running your comments through ChatGPT first...you get interesting stuff, like:
âYes, sanctuary cities are protected under constitutional law, primarily through the Tenth Amendment, which upholds the principle of federalism and limits the federal government's authority to compel state or local governments to enforce federal laws.â
A recent example illustrating this protection is the April 24, 2025, ruling by U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick. In this case, the judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration's attempt to withhold federal funds from jurisdictions with sanctuary policies. Judge Orrick emphasized that the executive branch cannot unilaterally impose new funding conditions without congressional approval, as doing so violates the constitutional separation of powers and the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine. âState Court Report+5The Washington Post+5Axios+5
This ruling aligns with the Supreme Court's decision in Printz v. United States (1997), which held that the federal government cannot commandeer state or local officials to enforce federal regulatory programs. Therefore, while sanctuary cities are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, their policies are supported by constitutional principles that protect state and local autonomy.âWikipedia
I think he's already using it. But the prompt is something like "give me the least nonsensical response that still supports the trump administration while being only mildly hypocritical with the rest of my posting history"
Kurt, try running your comments through ChatGPT first...you get interesting stuff, like:
âYes, sanctuary cities are protected under constitutional law, primarily through the Tenth Amendment, which upholds the principle of federalism and limits the federal government's authority to compel state or local governments to enforce federal laws.â
A recent example illustrating this protection is the April 24, 2025, ruling by U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick. In this case, the judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration's attempt to withhold federal funds from jurisdictions with sanctuary policies. Judge Orrick emphasized that the executive branch cannot unilaterally impose new funding conditions without congressional approval, as doing so violates the constitutional separation of powers and the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine. âState Court Report+5The Washington Post+5Axios+5
This ruling aligns with the Supreme Court's decision in Printz v. United States (1997), which held that the federal government cannot commandeer state or local officials to enforce federal regulatory programs. Therefore, while sanctuary cities are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, their policies are supported by constitutional principles that protect state and local autonomy.âWikipedia
Ignoring the stupidity of the "Democratic Party" argument you appear to be making, there is a more fundamental parallel: The Constitution.
Sanctuary cities have the audacity to read the 10th Amendment. They know that states and local governments arenât just the federal governmentâs personal assistants, waiting on standby to enforce every federal policy, especially when it comes to immigration. The anti-commandeering doctrine? Thatâs just centuries of constitutional law saying the feds canât force local cops to do their bidding. Maybe they didn't teach states rights in California....rebels.
And then thereâs the 14th Amendment, with its pesky âequal protectionâ clause. Sanctuary cities have the nerve to suggest that treating everyone fairly-regardless of immigration status-is actually required by the Constitution. Imagine that: local officials refusing to turn their police departments into immigration dragnet squads, all in the name of public safety and constitutional rights.
So, do sanctuary cities âbreak the rule of lawâ? Only if you ignore the actual text of the Constitution and the Supreme Courtâs repeated reminders that local governments arenât federal puppets. But hey, why let the 10th and 14th Amendments get in the way of a cult mantra and Fox news entertainment value?
You swear you're a patriotic American, but more and more you are taking positions at odds with the founding document. You don't have to like it, but if you believe in the rule of law, you need to accept and defend it.
And then there is the Sanctuary City. The concept flies directly in the face of US law. No different than how the Confederate States of America acted against the Union. You cannot support Sanctuary Cities and States and also be for due process and the rule of law at the same time.
Dear God, have someone review your posts before you send them. There is absolutely no parallel between Sanctuary Cities and the Confederate States. It isn't even close to apples and oranges... it's like zebras to mushrooms.
