I imagine the sound was something like a turkey being hit by a tennis ball. The fury and horror derived curse/choke/squawk that the NSA’s listening devices picked up in my living room this afternoon was an entirely involuntary vocalization. It came from my mouth, though I doubt I could recreate it without seeing Maxine Waters in missionary.
This reaction was prompted by a headline blaring our latest chronicle of the Kritarchy. Specifically that a San Francisco judge has blocked Trump’s threat of withholding federal grants from cities that invite and harbor illegal aliens.
It’s pointless to mention that federal grants are neither entitlements nor unconditional when judges are in hot-pursuit of result-oriented expedients. Grants are, in fact, purposed specifically to incentivize local obedience to federal directives. That’s the only candid reason they exist; otherwise states and municipalities could simply use their own revenues as they wish, rather than shipping them to Washington to be returned ladled with strings. There is a long and eminently dishonorable history of DC using grants as alternating bribe and threat in bringing fractious hinterlands to heel. But now that practice won’t do at all.
The easiest recourse in this situation would be to have the inert suit-racks in congress (allegedly there’s a republican majority) pass a bill by Friday that bans all grants to sanctuary cities–and mandates a punitive missile strike for the trouble. But that would involve Paul Ryan running past his neocon choke collar, and so that possibility is foreclosed. Which is really all to save the time it would take a court to declare the law unconstitutional. I’m sure something in the do-everything 14th Amendment can be found. It’s truly the Constitution’s Shamwow. But whatever penumbras must be mined, the antifa judiciary just isn’t much interested in what other branches or the voting public have to say on the matter.
Though what most caught my eye from this San Fran Sanhedrin was the following passage:
Further, the Tenth Amendment requires that conditions on federal funds be unambiguous and timely made; that they bear some relation to the funds at issue; and that the total financial incentive not be coercive.
It should be considered an act of punishable desecration when oily liberals disinter the corpse of the 10th Amendment to pretend it is speaking by their ventriloquism. Like most of you, I did not realize the 10A “requires that conditions on federal funds be unambiguous and timely made; that they bear some relation to the funds at issue; and that the total financial incentive not be coercive.” But here’s where it says that:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
As you can see, the amendment is actually quite reserved in its pronouncements on federal funds to the states. This being a pardonable omission since such things didn’t exist at the time of its writing.
What did exist at the time, however, was Article One, Section Eight of the US Constitution, decreasingly referred to out of embarrassment as the Enumerated Powers. See where in that part you can find federal authority on such matters as gay marriage, segregation, black entitlement, or abortion among a riot of others. Normally I wouldn’t bother to pound a nail that’s already a foot deep in the plank. But to hear a prog actually cite this victimized provision as a premise to support limitless alien sanctuary is more duplicity than what our mortal flesh should have to bear.
And the judge wasn’t finished…
Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves.
That’s very heartening news. Because there’s much a man can extrapolate from that statement. For instance, presumably this judge would concur that federal funding (and more importantly federal troops) cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses a desegregation enforcement strategy of which the president disapproves.
What a disappointment to have had no Obama-appointed judges in Arkansas 1957 or Alabama 1965. In issuing their bayonet injunctions, these liberal courts would have certainly given Eisenhower and Johnson stern lectures about the 10th Amendment’s bright line limitations on federal authority and coercive actions.
Though perhaps the most gratifying part of all for the plaintiff urban catch-basins is that Trump’s solicitor conceded in court that the entire get-tough-on-illegals posture was nothing but a charade.
The government attorneys actually entered into the record that the President’s order is toothless by design. That is to say, Come on, judge. We’re not trying to upset the population replacement program. This is just gruel for the rubes, so how about a wink huh?
And somewhere in the dank courtroom recesses came the muffled cry of a turkey hit by a tennis ball.