probably a 10th amendment violation. See: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/12/28/states-dont-have-to-comply-the-anti-comandeering-doctrine/ … especially Independent Business vs Sebelius (2012 case)
-
-
omg
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
disagree?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @nmoryl @kimmaicutler
even worse, this is literally the subject of my Harvard Law School thesis.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
what was your argument?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @nmoryl
I devised a united conceptual approach to unconstitutional conditions precedent that was deemed inconsistent.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
what does that mean in non-legalese?
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @rabois
well, uncons cond doctrine is basically the govt can't condition receipt of benefit on waiver of constitutional rights
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @nmoryl @kimmaicutler
yes, but not sure a sanctuary city is sacrificing a constitutional right.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
NFIB v Sebelius focused mostly on “coercion” though. Yanking unrelated funding seems likely to fall under that
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
I don't know who you are @TenthAmendment but http://gph.is/1ysgJK1?tc=1
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler
Very nice to meet you
@kimmaicutler, very nice indeed.@rabois@nmoryl http://giphy.com/gifs/retro-fiend-retrofiend-funny-gifs-john-ritter-4Rjzkr8r2P6dq …0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.