since on their face the benefit of the Amendments inure to the state and not the consumer), but also a political statement of condemnation on the designated countries, particularly the Republic of Cuba. See Faculty Senate of Florida International University, 574 F.Supp.2d at 1848 (finding that the fact the Act restricts the use of “non-state” funds, as well as state funds used to administer non-state funds, demonstrates the law is more than just a state spending decision, but a political statement); Miami Light Project, 97 F.Supp.2d at 1180 (stating that because the “stated purpose of [a county ordinance was] to protest and condemn Cuba’s totalitarian regime,” it was outside the scope of the county’s power); see also Tayyari v. N.M. State Univ., 495 F.Supp. 1365, 1879-80 (D.N.M.1980) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, the Sponsor of the Travel Act
holding the request to represent oneself to be untimely because it was made only after a motion for substitute counsel and new trial was denied holding that a university regulation entitled the substitute motion which denied admission or readmission iranian students to new mexico state university was unconstitutional because the true purpose in enacting the substitute motion was to make a political statement holding that the university was not a political subdivision of the state because it had no power to tax or cause taxes to be levied holding that the challenge to a university regulation was moot because the regulation had been substantially amended holding state university is not a person under  1983