There's an old saying, "Two wrongs don't make a right." We've all heard it; we've all said it at some point. And, more than likely, many have lived it. Is there a scenario where two wrongs converge to somehow create an end result that is right? Who knows? But, in the united States of today, that scenario continues to play out in hopes of producing "a right."
As an example of this, a federal judge blocked an executive order by President Trump that withheld funding to "sanctuary cities" that have enacted policies preventing local law enforcement cooperation with immigration authorities. However, a US appeals court ruled the judge issuing the order exceeded his authority while ruling Trump's executive order unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, Chief Judge of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals, Sidney Thomas, stated, "Absent congressional authorization, the administration may not redistribute or withhold properly appropriated funds in order to effectuate its own policy goals."
An email to a spokesman for the U.S. Justice Department was not immediately returned.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick said in November that the order threatened all federal funding and that the president did not have the authority to attach new conditions to spending that was approved by Congress.
The ruling came in lawsuits filed by two California counties — San Francisco and Santa Clara. The executive order potentially jeopardized hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to the two counties, Orrick said, citing comments by Trump and U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions as evidence of the order's scope.
The Trump administration said the order applied to a relatively small pot of money that already required compliance with immigration law.
Government attorney Chad Readler had told Orrick that the order applied to only three Justice Department and Homeland Security grants that would affect less than $1 million for Santa Clara and possibly no money for San Francisco.
And, so begins the "two wrongs trying to make a right" scenario.
According to the Constitution for the united States of America, Congress is limited to spending on only those powers the Constitution authorizes Congress to possess. Those powers are enumerated in Article I, Section 8 and Section 9, with a few housekeeping powers such as payroll for government officials, etc. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize any type of "funding" through direct means or indirect means, such as through "grants", to any city, town or municipality or any State for that matter by any department or office of the federal government.
US District Judge William Orrick claimed Trump's executive order threatened "all federal funding" and the president had no authority to add new conditions to "spending that was approved by Congress."
While Congress approves spending for the departments and offices in the federal government authorized in the enumerated powers granted by the Constitution, those expenditures were for the operation of those offices and departments to perform their authorized duties. Moreover, the federal government was limited in the money it received in order to operate – Article I, Section 10. The framers never intended for Congress to appropriate money for those departments and offices in order to provide "grants" to cities, towns, municipalities, or the States. The Constitution guaranteed each State a republican form of government, meaning each State provided for its own needs based on the consent of the people. No money from the federal government was to be "granted" to any State. In fact, when the federal government exceeded its financial obligations, it was to petition each State in the form of "direct taxes" upon the States, based on the population of the State, to cover the difference.
In allowing certain departments to issue "grants" to cities, towns, municipalities, and States, the federal government uses money it receives through the theft of individuals from all States in the form of taxes upon wages to award those entities who petition for it. In other words, you, the taxpayer, are paying for grants to "sanctuary cities" that violate the law. The congressional appropriation of funds to these departments, agencies and offices are for their operational expenses, not to provide grants to States, cities, towns or municipalities.
The flow of money to the federal government, authorized by the Constitution, was not intended to be "free" from obstacles, done through taxation of wages, or without discretion by the States. It certainly was not intended to flow up, then back down at the discretion of the federal government or one of its authorized departments. Therefore, what we see here is the awarding of money by federal government agencies, departments and offices to cities, towns, municipalities, and States using money appropriated from Congress in an unconstitutional manner. This would include all other funding, along with those grants.
So, what we have is the unconstitutional funding of cities, towns, municipalities and States by the federal government through any money by any department, including grants.
During arguments before the 9th Circuit in April, Thomas asked what the court was supposed to make of statements by Trump and his administration about wanting to withhold money from sanctuary cities.
Thomas also questioned whether the order would be constitutional if it applied to all types of funding, as the lower-court judge found.
Readler said the order was much narrower, and the judges should not focus on comments by the president or other administration officials.
The executive order is part of a push by the Trump administration to crack down on cities and states that generally don't comply with U.S. immigration authorities.
Judge Thomas questioned the constitutionality of an executive order upon unconstitutional spending by federal departments using funds appropriated by Congress. But, Judge Thomas ignored whether the funds appropriated by Congress for any reason were constitutional in nature and whether or not the departments funded were spending constitutionally. Does not the mere use of the word "sanctuary" imply a foregoing of enforcement of law?
According to Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution for the united States of America, the president is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Would this not include those contained in the Constitution, since it is the supreme law? The Constitution does not authorize Congress or any federal department to provide any type of "funding" to any State, city, town or municipality, meaning doing so is in violation of the Constitution therefore unconstitutional. Does it not fall to the president to faithfully execute the law? If the Constitution does not authorize the government to do something, it is unconstitutional for the government to do it.
Now, what responsibilities do the States hold or what concurrent jurisdiction or coequal authority do States hold with the federal government? Publius Huldah explained this thoroughly, along with exclusive jurisdiction of both the federal government and the States in her piece, "The Arizona Illegal Alien Law & The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution: Exclusive and Concurrent Jurisdiction Explained." To summarize using Ms. Publius's statement, "Even where the Constitution delegates a power to the federal government, the Sovereign States retain a concurrent and coequal authority over the same matter unless the Constitution specifically prohibits the States from exercising that power." One area where the Constitution delegates the federal government exclusive authority is the "establishment of a uniform rule of naturalization." Read the entirety of Ms. Publius's piece to understand that sovereign States may turn over illegal alien invaders to the federal government, prosecute illegal aliens for violating the laws of the State, and keep troops and engage in War when invaded, which invasion by illegal aliens is what is happening to States and the States along the southern border.
According to Newsmax.com:
The administration has sued California over three laws aimed at protecting immigrants in the country illegally. It also has moved to block a key public safety grant from going to sanctuary cities and states.
The Trump administration says sanctuary jurisdictions allow dangerous criminals back on the street. San Francisco and other sanctuary cities say turning local police into immigration officers erodes the trust needed to get people to report crime.
So, the question is, "Can the president issue an executive order to withhold funds to States, cities, towns, and municipalities that operate as 'sanctuaries' for illegal alien invaders?" Then, the next question becomes, "does the judicial branch have any jurisdiction over determining constitutionality regarding executive orders?" In answering either question, the Constitution is clear.
Because this republic has strayed so far from adhering to the Constitution, issues have become so convoluted that each branch tries to make a right from two or more wrongs. The convolution comes from trying to take unconstitutional actions and make those actions fit together into something termed "constitutional." It is unconstitutional for the federal government to issue money back to the States for any reason. It is unconstitutional for States to shirk their sovereign duty to protect the people from invasion and crime by criminals. It is unconstitutional for the judicial branch to determine constitutionality when the judicial branch was not given that authority in the Constitution. It is constitutional for the president to "take care the laws are faithfully executed"; if the president does not do so, Congress may impeach the president. All of these are in play when the judicial branch of the federal government is determining if an executive order pertaining to ending unconstitutional appropriation of funds is "constitutional" while ignoring what the Constitution has determined regarding the issues at hand.
God help us all!Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.