President Trump Says He May Declare a National Emergency to Get The US-Mex Border Wall Built.

There has already been an incident that was stopped before they were able to bring it to fruition.

It's classified and not a lot of people are aware of it.


Trump would be wise to declassify it. It would show people how serious this problem is.

a reply to: RazorV66

Not having basic cognitive abilities is a classic symptom of the Left’s mental illness.

Mentally ill person here and my cognition is fine, and just to add it's a two way street, some of these die hard right fans have the mental capacity and complex reasoning of a flat earther.

originally posted by: carewemust
Democrats are scrapping the bottom of the bucket to find an excuse for not building an American-protecting wall.

This Nancy Pelosi spokeslady says the Wall can't be built because of Artic Ice.
www.liveleak.com...

At the 30 secondish mark did Pelosi tell someone to shut her up? Wow Pelosi looks like she wants that woman to go away, but hey if they aare that worried about it maybe they can ask Jay Inslee to give up some of that 1.1 billion dollars for orca research to buy these ships so that the orcas can go there. Geeshs.

a reply to: Bhadhidar

And over the last 20 years, how many U.S. citizens have been murdered by their own countrymen?

You seem like a reasonably intelligent individual... I'd bet if you really, really put your head to it, you could come up with something even more irrelevant to the discussion. I don't see how, myself, but I have faith in you.

TheRedneck

a reply to: carewemust

The Constitution gives all military authority to the President. He can recruit them to a service that pertains to National Security. A defensive wall seems to match their roles and responsibilities.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." - U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2

constitutioncenter.org...

It's a Service to the United States and therefor a justified request.

a reply to: okrian

I completely agree with this tactic. The military shouldn't be used to defend someone else's border (which was the precedent set in WW1), they should be used to defend their own borders and sovereignty.

It will be glorious!

a reply to: abe froman

This is not ignorance:
Ignorance is the statement that the US government in it’s entire history has never declared martial law. Here are examples of such:
There have been times for regions, state and country, has been placed under martial law, as per a declaration of emergency that was made.
The first time was the Revolutionary War.
The war of 1812, and martial law was imposed in New Orleans before the battle of New Orleans.
The Illinois Mormon war of 1843. How about 1863, the Ex parte Milligan, where then President Lincoln, suspended Habeas corpus in the entire USA.
Colorado Coalfield war of 1914.
The territory of Hawaii, 1939 to 1945
The USA during World War II, where various cities and states were under martial law, for one reason or another.

Here is how it goes down:

The President declares a national emergency, and must then send such to the congress. This opens up a series of laws that give the President authority to do some actions, and suspend rights, that we do not consider or would, until they are gone.

So the President declares a national emergency, surrounding the boarder with Mexico, thus giving him the capacity to use the military to secure the area. That in itself is martial law, and then use the military, to start the building process, along with getting companies to join in. Those that refuse, well then he can put sanctions on the, all unchecked. And what of those whose land that the wall would go through? Well if they refuse, then he takes it, they are given a very small check for their loss, and that is all.

A declaration of a national emergency would result in the laws that protect being bypassed, suspended and areas of the country being placed under martial law. How else do you think he could do such with the US military, and avoid the posse comitatus?

originally posted by: okrian
Considering the precedent this would set, I'd be surprised if even the hard-line Trump supporters on ATS would back this. Even as a leftist, I wouldn't want the next Democrat president doing this to get their way.

So much for 'art of the deal'.

We have terrorists coming across according to DHS and Border Patrol...It's a matter of National Security...How could you guys not support this???

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Bhadhidar

And over the last 20 years, how many U.S. citizens have been murdered by their own countrymen?

You seem like a reasonably intelligent individual... I'd bet if you really, really put your head to it, you could come up with something even more irrelevant to the discussion. I don't see how, myself, but I have faith in you.

TheRedneck

Right.

What could be more “irrelevant” to this discussion than pointing out that not only would a border wall not prevent terrorism, in the form of a WMD; but that the threat posed by “illegals” murdering US citizens is far outweighed by the threat US citizens face at the hands of their fellow citizens?

The drugs will still flow.

The weapons will still flow.

The terrorists will still arise from the ranks of our own citizenry.

We will still murder more of our own each year than “illegal” immigrants ever have.

But more private land will be taken over by the government (so much for the “sovereignty” the right claims it defends), and, if 45 has his way, billions more in our tax dollars will have been poured into the pockets of government crony contractors (with all the associated graft, corruption, cost overruns, shoddy workmanship that comes with it) for a so-called solution to a “problem” that was over-stated and mis-defined.

A “solution” that, as I’ve pointed out above, cannot, by its very nature, solve the problem it was designed to address.

a reply to: Bhadhidar


You think sophisticated globally financed terrorists are going to be stymied by a wall? What in the world are we going to do about our open coastlines, the northern Canadian border, Alaska and Hawaii's borders, to protect against terrorists taking advantage of those open borders?

Don't we need checks and balances? Even if you think the wall is the best idea, It seems like going above congress may violate the notion of checks and balances. The wall is a long-term commitment. Not just a temporary patch for security.

Then again, I'm not extremely informed on this whole area.

a reply to: abe froman

i hope he does it and then releases his tax returns.

a reply to: SilentSaturn


I've seen some estimates that predict that wall's maintenance by year 7 will cost more than the wall's original construction costs. The problem with that is, they don't even have a design or plot map in place for this proposed "wall".

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No, I do not.

That was my point; read my comment on page 2 of this thread.

Unless your comment was sarcasm, in which case We seem to be in agreement.

It’s hard to express subtlety in print sometimes, isn’t it?

Double post

originally posted by: SilentSaturn
Don't we need checks and balances? Even if you think the wall is the best idea, It seems like going above congress may violate the notion of checks and balances. The wall is a long-term commitment. Not just a temporary patch for security.

Then again, I'm not extremely informed on this whole area.

There are checks and balances in place. If "Congress - Legislative Branch" doesn't like what the "President - Executive Branch" is doing they can turn to the "Supreme Court - Judicial Branch" to stop him. The Supreme Court must determine if he violated the U.S. Constitution with his actions. If they can't find a violation then they can't stop him. These three Branches of Government are the checks and balances we have within the U.S.

This Bill: www.congress.gov...

Was introduced into the U.S. Senate this week by Senator Ted Cruz. It proposes using seized funds from drug dealers, including "El Chapo", to shore up border security, including building a physical barrier on the US-Mex border.

Over $8 Billion is seized every year. The El Chapo seizure is well over $8 Billion.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

this is so true!

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
a reply to: Sookiechacha

No, I do not.

That was my point; read my comment on page 2 of this thread.

Unless your comment was sarcasm, in which case We seem to be in agreement.

It’s hard to express subtlety in print sometimes, isn’t it?

Okay!

You really think a freaking wall is going to protect us from anything!?!

Kindred minds..