O'Reilly Advocates Discrimination in Federal Funds Allocation
O'REILLY: Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds.In addition to the issue of indirectly threatening SF and perhaps incitement to violence (elsewhere in the broadcast--read AGITPROP), O'Reilly is advocating blatent discrimination in Federal funds allocation. Oh wait, that's nothing new.
Discrimination n.: The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
What is the category? A class of people holding a particular political belief. What is prejudicial about O'Reilly's remarks? The witholding of Federal money, not some...all Federal monies would be harmful to SF residents and inequitable in application.
Now...if it were the case that there was a law on the books stating that military recruiters must be allowed onto campuses or...no Federal money, then maybe you'd have a leg to stand on. But there is no such law, and if you believe differently, then I suggest you cite it.
In absence of that, your into the realm of social engineering. Vote the way we want, believe the way we want you to believe, or we'll hurt you until you do. Exactly the kind on nonsense that Repubicans howl about every time they sense it from coming from the left.
Incident to this power, Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds, and has repeatedly employed the power "to further broad policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal moneys upon compliance by the recipient with federal statutory and administrative directives." Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 474 (1980) (opinion of Burger, C. J.). See Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 569 (1974); Ivanhoe Irrigation Dist. v. McCracken, 357 U.S. 275, 295 (1958); Oklahoma [483 U.S. 203, 207] v. Civil Service Comm'n, 330 U.S. 127, 143 -144 (1947); Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937).
The breadth of this power was made clear in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 66 (1936), where the Court, resolving a longstanding debate over the scope of the Spending Clause, determined that "the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution."
Thus, objectives not thought to be within Article I's "enumerated legislative fields," may nevertheless be attained through the use of the spending power and the conditional grant of federal funds.
There is a clear place at which the Court can draw the line between permissible and impermissible conditions on federal grants. It is the line identified in the Brief for the National Conference of State Legislatures et al. as Amici Curiae: [483 U.S. 203, 216]
"Congress has the power to spend for the general welfare, it has the power to legislate only for delegated purposes. . . .
"The appropriate inquiry, then, is whether the spending requirement or prohibition is a condition on a grant or whether it is regulation. The difference turns on whether the requirement specifies in some way how the money should be spent, so that Congress' intent in making the grant will be effectuated. Congress has no power under the Spending Clause to impose requirements on a grant that go beyond specifying how the money should be spent. A requirement that is not such a specification is not a condition, but a regulation, which is valid only if it falls within one of Congress' delegated regulatory powers."
More is discussed by the SCOTUS on this issue in SOUTH DAKOTA v. DOLE, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).
Unless the U.S. Supreme Court isn't an adequate cite for you.
Well...I suppose it would be, if you'd actually addressed the issue at hand: Whether or not O'Reilly's remarks were discriminatory. But as it is, you just spent a whole lot of words justifying Congress' ability to put limits, regulations, or conditions on how money is spent. Yippee! No one disputes that.
Though, as it stands, there is no such condition, and Congress' imposition of one would fit the definition of discrimination. Just as it would be considered discriminatory for Congress to...say...withhold federal funds from the state of Texas for passing a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
You might want to try addressing the topic next time.
"Though, as it stands, there is no such condition, and Congress' imposition of one would fit the definition of discrimination. Just as it would be considered discriminatory for Congress to...say...withhold federal funds from the state of Texas for passing a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage."
Just like it's permissable for Congress to withhold federal funds from a state that keeps its legal drinking age below 21. And that was the case I cited for you. Congress can withhold funds for policy reasons and does it all the time.
And you're bending, twisting and stretching the hell out of the issue to try and find some way to tie O'Reilly's comments of withholding funds dor denying access to military recruiters to the fact that San Francisco has alot of gays... and thereby somehow pulling the "discrimination" card out of thin air.