3 ms·

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 polic

by 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 User23 5y ago

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-...