4 ms·

> Even if it's not, the FBI surely has carrots and sticks they can use to force participation. But some agencies will resist anyhow because they are anti-Fed.

by tabtab 5y ago

> Even if it's not, the FBI surely has carrots and sticks they can use to force participation. But some agencies will resist anyhow because they are anti-Fed. Many rural areas have a giant mistrust of the Federal gov't. Incentives will just make them double-down. You know, the Culture Wars. To get near 100% compliance would require both a strongly-worded law and strong enforcement.

rootusrootus 5y ago
Then take away any federal participation in their budgets and equipment, and let's find out just how committed they are to their anti-Fed ideology.
- User23 5y ago
  Congress controls federal spending, not the FBI. It's not impossible, but I think it would be difficult to get legislation to impair the states' sovereign police power through Congress and the inevitable court challenges in the unlikely event such a bill were passed. On a more important note though, perhaps you should back down a bit from your authoritarian stance. It's not a good thing when your first reaction to people disagreeing with you is coercion justified by a complete lack of empathy.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    You seriously just called me authoritarian for wanting to use the power of congress to compel police forces to provide more transparency so the public can know how well the system is or isn't working? Congress, the people we actually get to vote for, should have some ability to be a check on the power of the people we don't get to vote for but can shoot us dead or kick the crap out of us without consequences. That is a brazen redefinition of authoritarian.
    - User23 5y ago
      I don’t know where you live, but in my state sheriffs are elected and police report to elected officials. Your exceedingly emotional response indicates clouded judgment. You’re advocating for the federal government to seize authority that the sovereign states never granted it. It’s the textbook definition of authoritarianism.
      - rootusrootus 5y ago
        Emotional? Not even a little. Slightly flabbergasted, perhaps. The federal government gives away money and equipment to local police departments. Aside from the strawman tangent you went off on with regards to congress having to make some laws, all I suggested was that maybe the feds could just, you know, not give that money to the departments if they don't want to cooperate. That's not even a little bit authoritarian. The local departments are completely within their rights to finance their budgets the old fashioned way and continue to be unaccountable, or at least accountable to their local citizens. Which is how it ought to be anyway. Funneling it through the feds is a terrible way to have any accountability.
  - jonathankoren 5y ago
    Congresses can absolutely use the power of the federal purse to encourage policies at the state level. This is one the features of federalism and happens all the time. Most famously, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 removed 10% of federal transportation funds allocated to any state that did not raise the drinking age to 21. This was challenged and upheld by the SCOTUS in South Dakota vs Dole. This is is not authoritarianism.
    - User23 5y ago
      1984 was a long time ago. Jurisprudence on the subject has since developed. Here[1] is a case from this year limiting the federal government's ability to use funding to force compliance with federal policy. [1] https://www.sfcityattorney.org/2021/03/04/final-victory-for-san-francisco-in-sanctuary-city-case-against-trump-administration/ https://www.sfcityattorney.org/2021/03/04/final-victory-for-...

by tabtab 5y ago

rootusrootus 5y ago

Then take away any federal participation in their budgets and equipment, and let's find out just how committed they are to their anti-Fed ideology.

User23 5y ago
Congress controls federal spending, not the FBI. It's not impossible, but I think it would be difficult to get legislation to impair the states' sovereign police power through Congress and the inevitable court challenges in the unlikely event such a bill were passed. On a more important note though, perhaps you should back down a bit from your authoritarian stance. It's not a good thing when your first reaction to people disagreeing with you is coercion justified by a complete lack of empathy.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  You seriously just called me authoritarian for wanting to use the power of congress to compel police forces to provide more transparency so the public can know how well the system is or isn't working? Congress, the people we actually get to vote for, should have some ability to be a check on the power of the people we don't get to vote for but can shoot us dead or kick the crap out of us without consequences. That is a brazen redefinition of authoritarian.
  - User23 5y ago
    I don’t know where you live, but in my state sheriffs are elected and police report to elected officials. Your exceedingly emotional response indicates clouded judgment. You’re advocating for the federal government to seize authority that the sovereign states never granted it. It’s the textbook definition of authoritarianism.
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      Emotional? Not even a little. Slightly flabbergasted, perhaps. The federal government gives away money and equipment to local police departments. Aside from the strawman tangent you went off on with regards to congress having to make some laws, all I suggested was that maybe the feds could just, you know, not give that money to the departments if they don't want to cooperate. That's not even a little bit authoritarian. The local departments are completely within their rights to finance their budgets the old fashioned way and continue to be unaccountable, or at least accountable to their local citizens. Which is how it ought to be anyway. Funneling it through the feds is a terrible way to have any accountability.
- jonathankoren 5y ago
  Congresses can absolutely use the power of the federal purse to encourage policies at the state level. This is one the features of federalism and happens all the time. Most famously, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 removed 10% of federal transportation funds allocated to any state that did not raise the drinking age to 21. This was challenged and upheld by the SCOTUS in South Dakota vs Dole. This is is not authoritarianism.
  - User23 5y ago
    1984 was a long time ago. Jurisprudence on the subject has since developed. Here[1] is a case from this year limiting the federal government's ability to use funding to force compliance with federal policy. [1] https://www.sfcityattorney.org/2021/03/04/final-victory-for-san-francisco-in-sanctuary-city-case-against-trump-administration/ https://www.sfcityattorney.org/2021/03/04/final-victory-for-...