YOU WON’T BELIEVE The Reason WHY Seattle is SUING TRUMP


Seattle suing Trump

Seattle just announced Wednesday they were suing the Trump administration for its efforts to strip sanctuary cities of their federal funding. City Mayor Ed Murray said that the executive order directing the Justice Department to withhold funds was an unconstitutional breach of federal authority.


The openly gay Mayor, Ed Murray said in a press conference that Trump was constitutionally forbidden from using the federal government to force cities into compliance, “yet that is exactly what the president’s order does. Once again, this new administration has decided to bully.” The mayor insisted that by stripping Seattle of Department Of Justice grants, Trump was only making life more dangerous for Seattle citizens.

“Things like grants helping us with child sex trafficking are not connected to immigration,” Murray said. “It is time for cities to stand up and ask the courts to put an end to the anxiety in our cities and the chaos in our system.”

In other words; it’s time for the federal government to get out of states business. Gee, that is exactly what we conservatives have said for years. We are the ones who want the government to acknowledge states’ rights. There is only one big hitch in all of this. The one thing the U.S Constitution gives the federal government power over states is in its borders, and security.  That is the one thing President Trump is alleging.

I don’t believe Seattle Suing Trump has any standing in law. The lawsuit comes only days after Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a statement threatening to pull federal funds from cities that do not cooperate with deportation efforts. The Justice Department responded to the lawsuit in a statement, correctly insisting the administration is both legally and morally correct in their position.

“Failure to deport aliens who are convicted of criminal offenses makes our nation less safe by putting dangerous criminals back on our streets,” said a DOJ representative.

Not a States rights issue:

Although the law is on President Trumps’ side, judges don’t seem to care what the law says. Every time the presidents’ administration has been challenged in court, the decision has gone to the suing plaintiffs. The travel ban is an example of that. Any sensible Constitutional attorney or scholar can tell you the president is firmly within his constitutional boundaries. All rulings to the contrary have been a political joke.

Trump’s threats to de-fund sanctuary cities are on shakier ground than his travel ban. There is a legitimate “states’ rights” argument there. There is federal funds dependency, hanging in the balance. If Seattle wins this lawsuit, it will nullify Trump’s attempts to get those sanctuary cities to comply with ICE agents.

Who knows? Maybe the Justice Department has a really strong legal argument to make in this case, but I am not holding my breath for a favorable judgement. Maybe President Trump should just do as President Andrew Jackson did. I heard President Trump say he was reading a book on Andrew Jackson. That’s the president who is most known for not accepting the Supreme Court’s opinion as a decision. As a matter of truth and fact neither did Abraham Lincoln, yet we don’t hear too much about that.

President Abraham Lincoln famously ignored Chief Justice Roger B. Taney’s order finding unconstitutional Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus rights in 1861, early in the Civil War. They were not executed until after the Supreme Court had upheld the president’s power to set up the military commission.

What’s your opinion? Does Seattle suing Trump for states rights reasons have any legal standing to beat the Federal government in this case? Post your comment below. I would love to hear what you think about this case.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.