I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The Oath of Office

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Oath-of-Office/

Today, Members of the House take an oath to uphold the Constitution in a group ... do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the ... been part of the official oath of office for non-presidential offices since 1862.

seems we have tons of congressmen supporting sanctuary cities which are illegal...where do we draw any lines today

"congressmen supporting sanctuary cities which are illegal"

https://www.pulj.org/the-roundtable/do-sanctuary-cities-violate-the-law

While the federal government can require or prohibit certain acts, they cannot force state and local governments to require or prohibit the same acts or force them to enforce federal law. One of the most basic tenets of federalism and the Tenth Amendment is that the federal government cannot commandeer states and cities by compelling them to actively enforce federal laws at their own expense. [

Unlike many other partisan issues these days, the law seems clear cut here: cities and states are perfectly entitled to set themselves up as sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants.

Carl is correct.

so what did the Kennedy brothers do in Alabama?   did they not force a state to en force a federal law.... Ido  not remember exactly

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27902/

"this is not bout Trump ... otherwise try to stay on topic."

this is not bout the Kennedys ... otherwise try to stay on topic.

Carl is right.  This is not  a debate about the constitutionality of state and local authorities aiding and abetting fugitives during the commission of federal crimes.

And it's not the time to debate what the 10th amendment says about the authority of the federal government to enforce federal laws on the state and local level..

The question is about whether a question pertaining to citizenship, which was included on the census until the 50's is constitutional. It is, and the left knows it, but including it could have a significant impact on census counts and their Congressional representation and their number of electoral votes. So the left has engaged in a cheap and obvious delaying tactic with full knowledge that they will likely not lose their argument until the census has been conducted.

And who knows what the courts, government and country will look like for the next census in 10 years?  Certainly nothing like they do now if the left continues to game the system with little/no restraint.