Jump to content
Invision Community
FORUMS BLOG/NEWS USER BLOGS USER MEDIA ADVERTS   ADD  MANAGE CHAT CLUBS & USER PERSONAL FORUMS LINK EXCHANGE
POLITICAL DATING & INSTRUCTION Political Dating Conservative Dating Site Progressive Dating Site Distance Degree Online Master's Degree Online Online Courses MBA Degree Online Online School Associate Degree Online

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Earlier
  2. Album dedicated to the Conferences and Conventions of the Liberal Party of Australia
  3. Album dedicated to the political choices of the former conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
  4. Album dedicated to everything concerning, in general, the Liberal Party in Ontario.
  5. Album dedicated to the Conventions, in general, regarding the Democratic Party of California
  6. Recently I have seen a couple of comments on LDV which state that ending relative poverty in the UK would be a difficult and complex thing to achieve. They are mistaken. The reason someone is living in relative poverty is because they don’t have enough money. The answer, therefore, is to ensure that benefit levels give them enough to pay all of their housing costs and have enough left over to be on the poverty line and not below it. As Philip Alston, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights in his report points out “employment alone is insufficient” to lift someone out of poverty. Already we have a system which reduces benefits by 63p for every pound earned, but 4 million workers live in poverty. This is because the gain from working is not enough to lift the person out of poverty. If they were already out of poverty when living only on benefits then no one working could be living in poverty. We need to ensure that those living on benefits have enough money to pay all of their housing costs. Scrapping the benefit cap helps, as would increasing Local Housing Allowance in line with local rents (both party policy). However, they don’t go far enough. Local Housing Allowance was introduced by the Labour government in 2008. It sets maximums for housing benefit depending on local rents, and sets out what type of accommodation different types of families can have. It is not liberal for the state to tell people how many rooms they can have to live in. It is not liberal for the state to force tenants into debt arrears. It is not liberal for the state to force someone to move house when they experience difficult times such as when they become unemployed. It is liberal for the state to pay 100% of the housing costs of those on benefit. Therefore we should have as our long-term aim scrapping the LHA and in the meantime increase its value above the bottom 30% of local rents. (I expect this is the main reason that 1.9 million pensioners are living in poverty). The least we should do is reduce the single person age down to 25 from 35, so a single person aged between 25 and 34 should no longer be forced to live in shared accommodation. After dealing with housing costs we need to turn to living costs. We need to ensure that those living on benefits are living at the national poverty level and not below it. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation in its report, “UK Poverty 2018”, states the following as the poverty line for different household types in 2016/17 excluding housing costs (amounts per week): Single person no children £148 Single person with two children £306 Couple with no children £255 Couple with two children £413 Before 2012, benefit rates were increased by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation rate each year. For the years after April 2016 these are 1% for April 2017, 3% for April 2018 and 2.4% for April 2019 cumulatively making 6.5%, see “House of Commons Briefing Paper CBP 8458”. The rates after being increased by inflation (CPI) for April 2019 are: Single person no children £157.62 Single person with two children £325.88 Couple with no children £271.58 Couple with two children £439.84 Therefore we need to increase the single person’s benefit level to £157.62 up from £73.10 a week; and the couple rate to £271.58 up from £114.85 a week (including the couple’s guaranteed pension rate currently £206.65 a week). From the above figures we can calculate how much benefit a person should receive for each child: £439.84 – 271.58 = 168.26; divided by 2 = £84.13 a week. Therefore the amount for each child should be increased from the existing various rates to £84.13 a week. Philip Alston recommends the following reforms to Universal Credit: Eliminate the five-week delay in receiving the first payment; Facilitate alternative payment arrangements; Examine if monthly assessment periods is the correct period. Our Federal Policy Committee will shortly be publishing a policy paper “A Fairer Share for All”. Hopefully, it will include all of these suggestions so we have a policy which will end relative poverty in the UK, but it is very possible they will not all be there to sufficient levels to end relative poverty in the UK. libdemvoice.org
  7. Responding to Cancer Research UK reporting that obesity now causes more cases of four common cancers in the UK than smoking, Liberal Democrat Health spokesperson Judith Jolly said: The reports that many cancers are more likely being caused by being overweight than smoking shows the need for Government to step up plans to tackle obesity in the UK to improve our health and life expectancy. It is therefore astonishing to hear that Boris Johnson doesn’t think it is worth his time extending the sugar tax and also wants an entire review of ‘unhealthy food taxes’. The fact he introduced his own version of the sugar tax in city hall when he was mayor of London shows how this is nothing more than another U-turn to woo Tory members. The sugar tax is working. It was the Conservative Government who announced in November last year that the sugar tax had raised a lot less money than expected because manufacturers of soft drinks had cut the amount of sugar in drinks to avoid paying the tax. Rather than cosying up to corporate interests, the Liberal Democrat would tackle the obesity crisis. We are committed to extending the sugar tax as well as reversing Tory cuts to preventive health services. It is the right thing to do – it is not just about reducing demand on our health service, but tackling this crisis will save lives. Lib Dems: Increase in SEND pupils will squeeze school budgets further Following today’s data release from the Department for Education, which revealed that the number of school pupils with special educational needs has risen for the third year in a row, Liberal Democrat education spokesperson Layla Moran MP said: Cash-strapped schools are struggling to support our children with the most complex barriers to learning. Teaching assistants and other support staff are being cut. Conservative cuts to schools and councils mean that more than 9 in 10 councils face a funding shortfall for pupils with high needs, and today’s figures show these budgets will be squeezed further. The Government is failing the children most in need. Liberal Democrats would reverse school cuts with an emergency cash injection and provide more money for children with the most complex needs, so that every child can get the best start in life. Welsh Liberal Democrats – Wales now a remain nation The Welsh Liberal Democrats have responded to a Beaufort Research poll for WalesOnline showing a ten-point lead for remain in Wales; claiming it is clear evidence that Wales is now a remain nation. The poll of 1,000 people showed that remain leads leave 55% to 45% in Wales, once those who don’t know or wouldn’t vote have been excluded. Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Wales Baroness Christine Humphreys said: This important poll confirms what we’ve long been saying; the people of Wales have changed their mind and Wales is now a remain nation. We’ve long said that no form of Brexit could be better than the current deal we have as full members of the EU. This poll is evidence that the Welsh people now agree with us and that our Exit from Brexit campaign continues to be successful. It would be an outrage if the people of Wales were dragged out of the EU against their will, losing their jobs and their freedoms in the process. We must give the people the final say and the opportunity to stop Brexit. Lib Dems: Overstretched school budgets are putting our children’s health at risk Responding to the Department for Education’s referral of nearly 700 schools in England to the Health and Safety Executive over concerns they are failing to safely manage asbestos, Liberal Democrat Education spokesperson Layla Moran MP said: The backlog of school building repairs is mounting. The referral of nearly 700 schools to the national health and safety body due to concerns over asbestos removal show that our schools are at breaking point. Even low levels of exposure to asbestos fibres can cause cancer decades later. In 2016, 44 per cent of UK students were taught in schools in which the head teacher reported inadequate infrastructure, such as poor-quality buildings and grounds. Years of Conservative funding cuts mean that school budgets simply do not stretch far enough. The Liberal Democrats would create a £17 billion infrastructure fund that would provide capital investment to expand and modernise our schools and hospitals, so that children can learn in safety. libdemvoice.org
  8. Plaid Cymru have announced that they will not be fielding a candidate in the Brecon and Radnorshire by-electiion. From the BBC Lib Dem leader Sir Vince Cable told the BBC the partnership between the two parties was “a very welcome development”, and it made sense that “the two strongest Remain parties in Wales are going to work together”. Adam Price, the leader of Plaid Cymru, said it was a “major step”, but it was “the right thing to do”. He added: “We are facing one of the most significant decisions, as to whether we are going to be seemingly yanked out of the European Union even without a deal. “Under those circumstances it is in Wales’s interest and our common interest to work together and coalesce the support for the Remain side in Wales.” Both leaders hinted this could be the start of further co-operation between the parties, but neither were willing to be specific. “There is no doubt that the co-operation that this is generating could well lead to wider measures,” Sir Vince said. Candidate, and Welsh LIb Dem leader Jane Dodds welcomed the move: "This is a historic and courageous decision in the interests of the progressive cause. In this by-election we are demanding better for local people and businesses, not just on Brexit (where farmers’ livelihoods are at serious risk) but on healthcare and vital rural services too". libdemvoice.org
  9. When I was 8 years old, I watched the tv series Roots. I was horrified at its depiction of slavery and it sparked in me a lifelong commitment to human rights, fairness, freedom and equality. The principle of one human being owning another was bad enough, but the brutality with which the slaves were treated shocked me to the core. So when Ann Widdecombe came out with her nonsense comparing Brexit to slaves attaining their freedom, I was angry. How dare she attack an institution that is so committed to peace, democracy and human rights? Chuka Umunna took her to task: "It is grossly offensive to equate the experience of slaves with that of British citizens being part of the EU. It illustrates a total lack of understanding of the appalling, brutal nature of slavery, nevermind ignorance of how the EU works and the benefits membership brings". libdemvoice.org
  10. Lib Dem MEP Martin Horwood was cheered in the European Parliament today as he gave his maiden speech, saying that Brexit was not inevitable and asking that the EU continue its policy of patience with our Government which, he waist, was acting like it was in Mr Bean or Monty Python. https://twitter.com/MartinChelt/status/1146754515938529281 Great to see our MEPs getting off to such a brilliant start and to hear that they are clearly held in so much affection by their European colleagues. libdemvoice.org
  11. I have just spent 3 days in Brecon and Radnorshire working out of the Llandrindod Wells Lib Dem Office. The reception on doorsteps is very good, but there are a lot of people who have yet to decide whether they will back Jane Dodds or to stay at home. What the campaign needs in the next few weeks is data and that means lots of people knocking on doors. Bluntly, not enough people are coming to help in this, the most likely Lib Dem by-election prospect of this Parliament. Jane Dodds, Leader of the Welsh Lib Dems is a top notch candidate and deserves much more support. We need hundreds of people to go. So my question to you, dear LDV reader, is when are you coming and how long can you stay? If you want us to win this seat, then YOU have to offer your help. There is lots of canvassing to do, there are thousands of leaflets to deliver, there is clerical work in both the Brecon and Llandrindod offices to do. I am utterly convinced we can win this seat. We held it almost continuously from 1985 to 2015 and the Welsh Assembly Member is Lib Dem Education Minister Kirsty Williams. The Tory candidate is the former MP who was found guilty of expenses irregularities and recalled by over 10,000 of his constituents. The Greens and possibly Plaid Cymru are not standing to boost the remain side and Labour haven’t won this seat for generations. The real threat probably comes from the Brexit Party, who may well mop up many of the Brexiteers as they did in the EU elections. To put no finer point upon it, this seat is ours to lose. Without YOUR help we may not be able to pull off the victory we deserve. I am coming back with my wife Ruth for the last 3 days of the campaign, because we can’t make it at other times. Please, cancel whatever you are doing and come to Brecon and Radnorshire. One final point. This seat can be reached easily by train and by car, even from London. I travelled from West Yorkshire and my mate Steve from Devon. YOU can come too. Accommodation can be found on booking.com and other travel sites for around £60 per night. If you want to be put up locally then there is a team seeking beds at supporters’ homes. See you on the by-election trail! libdemvoice.org
  12. The Governor’s May revise came out today, and it is big: $213 billion big. And his office is predicting a $21.5b surplus. The updated proposal unveiled Thursday builds on the $209 billion budget the governor laid out in January. It keeps in place spending to expand health coverage for undocumented immigrants and $1.75 billion to spur housing construction. And he has some big plans to help California families, including directing $130 million of the revenue raised from marijuana taxes to childcare. California’s generational changing of the guard showed in the governor’s office on Tuesday as Gov. Gavin Newsom rolled out proposals to lift taxes on diapers and menstrual products—ideas his predecessor vetoed—and reiterated his desire to spend billions of dollars from the state budget to expand services for kids. And he has some rather big goals on this front: additional maternity/paternity leave, expanding the EITC, and additional childcare spending. All that being said, he doesn’t have a way to pay for all of his “stretch goals”, apparently speaking in Kickstarter lingo. So the initial goal is to start by dipping a few toes in the water and seeing how he can incorporate something like 6 months of combine leave into a long term budget plan. Of course, all this will be changed once it passes through the legislature. But Gov. Newsom is probably a bit closer to the center of the Democratic Supermajority than former Gov. Brown, so we may see a little smoother process this time around. calitics.com
  13. While others debate whether to punch a neo-Nazi, Matt Schlapp and the American Conservative is seemingly questioning whether they can slap a socialist. Today they released their “conservative scorecard.” It’s hilarious. Let’s peek at a few of the bill descriptions: “Socializing Rideshare Services by Imposing a 5 Cent Tax on All Rides.” (SB 1376 – Hill) – Apparently a 5 cent tax to fund accessibility will bring the hellfire of socialism down upon us. “Expanding Automatic Voter Registration.” (AB 1407 – McCarty) Sure, sound innocuous enough, but you know how the Right hates when people vote. So, yeah, they hate when you make it easier for young people to vote, and this does just that by automatically registering them to vote when they get their first driver’s license. Their thoughts? “ACU opposes automatic registration programs which weaken ballot integrity and makes it easier to commit voter fraud”. Umm, what voter fraud? You mean this North Carolina Republican voter fraud? Yeah, automatic registration has nothing to do with that. “Interfering in Private-Sector Business Operations by Mandating Gender Quotas” (SB 826 – Jackson) – This one is the landmark legislation to require parity on corporate boards. But, to the ACU, progress on diversity is just the government trying to hold corporations back. So, yeah. All this is to say, guess what: Republicans are all very conservative! Democrats are all socialists. And they helpfully provided that their “best” Democrat was Rudy Salas, and that their “worst” Republican was Brian Maienschein. Except that Asm. Maienschein is now a Democrat, so, whoops. calitics.com
  14. The use of deadly force by police officers has a few bright lines. Most would agree that officers can use force when a suspect has a gun in a threatening position. And most would agree that officers shouldn’t shoot where no immediate danger exists. But between those borders exists a vast area in which to define reasonable use of force. California looked last year to become the first state to define that in legislation. However, that stalled and so the Legislature is back at it. As it currently stands, there are two separate proposals. One, backed by law enforcement groups, would require that each department have a defined policy on alternative forms of force and de-escalation. The other, backed by civil rights groups, would be far more strict: Last year’s police shooting of unarmed vandalism suspect Stephon Clark in Sacramento inspired the proposal that would allow officers to kill only if there is no reasonable alternative, such as verbal persuasion or other non-lethal methods of resolution or de-escalation. … But the committee’s chairman, Democratic Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer of Los Angeles, said a tougher standard will do little good without buy-in from law enforcement organizations. They’re supporting a radically different plan, which lawmakers also will consider, requiring that every department have policies on when officers should use de-escalation tactics and other alternatives to deadly force. It’s past time that . While the end result is likely to be somewhere in between, it is long past time that California engage in this conversation and find some action that will do something to reduce these incidents. calitics.com
  15. Prop 63, which was passed with highly visible support from Governor (then LG) Newsom, included a ban on high capacity magazines. That was struck down yesterday: A federal judge on Friday declared unconstitutional a key provision of California’s Proposition 63 that banned possession of high-capacity gun magazines often used in mass shootings, ensuring that the voter-approved prohibition will remain tied up in court for some time to come. SF Chronicle The opinion, which is sure to be appealed, reads like the opposite of what just happened in New Zealand. As in Australia, when encountered with the reality of a mass shooting, they responded with action to protect themselves. Here, the gun lobby will not permit that. The judge went on to call mass shootings rare, while emphasizing how many times women were saved from peril because they had more than 10 bullets. All this is despite the fact that guns when deployed in self-defense (real or imagines) do more damage to innocents and the owners themselves, than criminals. For more details, read this article on Politico citing actual examples, or this Scientific American article about the actual research on the subject. But the gun lobby wants to take it on faith that guns make us safer. They do not. And so they block sensible safety measures. And yet, we have all the evidence that mass shootings happen all too often. Nothing changes, and so we just continue the cycle. The bloodshed continues, the NRA and the gun manufacturers make more money while we continue to see gun violence. calitics.com
  16. Sen. Scott Wiener (D-SF) announced plans for a California estate tax to partially replace the one repealed by the Republican Congress in DC. Under the plan, the approximately $1 Billion would go towards income inequality issues, where California leading the nation in the dubious category. “It’s a way of not having a permanent nobility in the U.S.,” Wiener said. “We should help low-income, working families accumulate wealth so that they can send their kids to college, so that they can buy a home, so that they don’t go bankrupt if they have an unexpected medical expense.” (SF Chronicle) The estate tax does just that: it reduces the “monied families” of our nation, and is was one of our country’s most effective means of reducing income inequality. But alas, the Republicans crowed about family farms being lost to the estate tax, which is just an old debunked myth that they keep trotting out, and repealed the tax entirely in the Trump tax scheme to save his family some money. And the estate tax gets results. According to the CBPP, “evidence shows the estate tax likely has little or no impact on overall private saving, and it has a positive impact on overall national (private plus public) saving because of the revenues.” Unfortunately, those revenues are not to be after the Trump family rescue plan was passed, but Sen. Wiener and the Democrats here in California are hoping to put an estate tax on the ballot for the presidential election next year. It will not bring that money back, nowhere near it really, but at least California can do its own small part. calitics.com
  17. Perhaps we don’t get big high wooly hats like they do at Buckingham Palace, but today will see a big transition for California. As in 2017 when Kamala Harris replaced Sen. Boxer, the transition from Brown to Newsom will be more than one of age or style, but of a real change in California politics. Gavin Newsom is nobody’s radical. In many ways, he borrows a lot from Gov. Brown’s political style. A little from the left, and a little from the center(-right). A plan for a massive increase in funding for early childhood education, with a hard “sobering” look at high speed rail. That is not to say that Newsom isn’t generally progressive. When he takes office today, he will surely be pretty close to the most progressive governor in the nation. But like Brown, Gavin likes balance and a sound financial platform. Unlike Brown, Gavin Newsom likes a bit of flash and some excitement. He likes a grand sweeping vision. And he’ll have plenty of chances for grand action, in responding to climate change, the housing and homelessness crisis, and making healthcare more affordable. There are a slew of news stories about the differences between Gavin and Jerry, some more accurate than others. (SF Chronicle, AP, Politico, NPR, etc.) The press likes coming up with drama, and so a transition is a good source of clicks. And no doubt that the change from Brown to Newsom will bring changes, but the most profound will have to be a greater expectancy of a truly progressive state. The Governor elect’s job is now to follow up on that. Of course, he isn’t the only one being sworn into office today. We will also get the first statewide LGBT elected official in Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, and a full slate of Democratic leaders across the board. You can watch the Governor’s swearing in ceremony on many news websites, though he has already released excerpts of his speech. Incoming California Gov. Gavin Newsom will draw immediate battle lines Monday with President Donald Trump in his inaugural address, portraying California’s “progressive, principled” policies as the antidote to the White House’s “corruption and incompetence.” … “People’s lives, freedom, security, the water we drink, the air we breathe — they all hang in the balance,” Newsom plans to say, according to excerpts of his speech released by his office. calitics.com
  18. There are still over 4 million votes to count, but with what we have so far, the California results are looking outstanding. Of the six congressional districts that we were targeting most heavily, it looks like we will flip at least four. Steve Knight has conceded to Katie Hill. Harley Rouda is now up nearly four points over Putin’s favorite Congressman Rohrabacher, and Harder’s lead over Dehnam is growing. And Mike Levin defeated Diane Harkey. In the other two House seats, we are still waiting on Orange County. In Ed Royce’s seat, Young Kim still holds a small lead over Gil Cisneros. And Mimi Walters is around 2,000 votes ahead of Katie Porter. As of my last check, there are still well over 400,000 votes to count in Orange County. It is not entirely unlikely that one or both of these leads may vanish while these votes are counted. The California Congressional delegation could have single digits of Republicans. In the statewide close races, and now looks like Ricardo Lara is set to become the first LGBT statewide elected leader in California’s history. His lead has been growing and is now over 1.5%. Tony Thurmond, however, is still down a little less than a point. With over 4 million ballots to count, it is not on conceivable that he could yet go ahead of charter school fave Marshall Tuck. And Democrats won big elsewhere as well, winning all of the other statewide races and looking set for supermajorities in both legislative bodies. It is rather hard to argue that the GOP is going to be competitive any time in the near future either as we look like we see a lot more energy in fights within the Democratic party. But that’s for another day. calitics.com
  19. It’s Time to VOTE! You should have received your ballot in the mail already. Send it in at least a week early to ensure that your county has adequate time to verify your ballot before election day. As for who/what to vote for? Well, the Democratic endorsements are a pretty good place to start. And finish, for your statewide races. The statewide endorsed candidates are all well-qualified. A particular shout out to Ricardo Lara, who would be the first out LGBT statewide elected official, and Tony Thurmond, who is in a tough state superintendent race against the charter school candidate, Marshall Tuck. Lara is in quite a tough race as well, with Republican turned independent Steve Poizner. Poizner maybe found it tough to get traction with the extremists in the CA GOP, but he’s still very conservative, and we don’t need him back in statewide office. How about a nice table on how the parties endorsed on the ballot measures? You can find a lot more information on the very informative California Choices November summary page. A few of these deserve special mention: it is imperative that we vote NO on Props 5 & 6. Prop 5 would strengthen (!) Prop 13 in the state, despite sounding like a nice simple handout to seniors. Problem is that it mostly goes to wealthier seniors, and is paid for by younger homebuyers. Prop 6 is the gas tax referendum. While the gas tax measure wasn’t perfect, for a multitude of reasons, we need to ensure that it doesn’t get overturned at the ballot. Now, go find your local ballot measure pamphlet and start researching, the election is three weeks from tomorrow! calitics.com
  20. We still have twelve weeks before the 2018 election, but a coalition of labor, community organizations, business leaders, and elected leaders are already thinking about 2020. Today, they filed 860K signatures, far more than the 575K requirement to get to the ballot. Even assuming a higher failure rate that is typically encountered when using a mostly volunteer signature gathering process, this seems like it is on the road to the ballot. In short, it is a split roll measure, which would split the personal property roll from commercial and industrial property. It is difficult to imagine that as they were watching ads about granny losing her home, voters were thinking about how much an office building or factory was worth. And that’s exactly the point here, the state is basically giving a huge tax boost to large companies. Maybe that’s what we would want to do, but we should be upfront about the transfer of wealth from school teachers to real estate conglomerates. “Over the last 40 years, California has lost hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue, leading to chronic underfunding of schools, services, and local communities along with poor local land use decisions, and a spiraling housing crisis,” said Helen Hutchison, President of the League of Women Voters of California. ”Schools and Communities First is the first structural and equitable tax reform in four decades. It will reclaim over $11 billion robbed every year from schools and local communities, shaping a new legacy of investment in the people of California.” Of course, you will see people screaming about “job killers.” But, alas, this is simply not true. In a recent study, UC-Santa Cruz researches came to the conclusion that fair assessments of real property would actually strengthen the state’s economy by incentivizing better land use. We will have a long time to talk about this split roll measure, but it is a conversation that has been necessary for a long time. Prop 13 reform is overdue, and maybe 2020 will be the year we actually get some real reform. By the by, don’t be fooled again by this granny in the streets canard. The CA Realtors are trying it again with Prop 5, and it will be an uphill climb to defeat it at the ballot. But don’t fall for it, it will cost the state and municipalities billions of dollars. calitics.com
  21. In a 60 page decision, Federal District Judge John Mendez denied an injunction on all parts of SB 54, California’s Sanctuary State legislation relating to state and local governments. However, Judge Mendez did issue an injunction over accompanying legislation, AB 450, which dealt with private employers, and their willingness to hand over records without a warrant or allow federal immigration agents access to nonpublic areas of their businesses. For the most part, the logic of the Court was that the state has no obligation to use state policing resources to provide assistance to federal immigration forces. [The Federal Government] argues that requiring a judicial warrant or judicial finding of probable cause is irreconcilable with the INA, which establishes a system of civil administrative warrants as the basis for immigration arrest and removal. … The Court disagrees and instead finds that California’s decision not to assist federal immigration enforcement in its endeavors is not an “obstacle” to that enforcement effort. Plaintiff’s argument that SB 54 makes immigration enforcement far more burdensome begs the question: more burdensome than what? The laws make enforcement more burdensome than it would be if state and local law enforcement provided immigration officers with their assistance. But refusing to help is not the same as impeding. If such were the rule, obstacle preemption could be used to commandeer state resources and subvert Tenth Amendment principles. Federal objectives will always be furthered if states offer to assist federal efforts. A state’s decision not to assist in those activities will always make the federal object more difficult to attain than it would be otherwise. Standing aside does not equate to standing in the way. (Page 43) Of course, this is just a motion for a preliminary injunction, but Judge Mendez did use the opportunity to add another point about the immigration debate: [T]his Court joins the ever-growing chorus of Federal Judges in urging our elected officials to set aside the partisan and polarizing politics dominating the current immigration debate and work in a cooperative and bi-partisan fashion toward drafting and passing legislation that addresses this critical political issue. Our Nation deserves it. Our Constitution demands it. (Page 60) calitics.com
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...