It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump declares national emergency over wall

page: 19
28
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
uscode.house.gov...@title50/chapter34/subchapter3&edition=prelim


§1631. Declaration of national emergency by Executive order; authority; publication in Federal Register; transmittal to Congress When the President declares a national emergency, no powers or authorities made available by statute for use in the event of an emergency shall be exercised unless and until the President specifies the provisions of law under which he proposes that he, or other officers will act. Such specification may be made either in the declaration of a national emergency, or by one or more contemporaneous or subsequent Executive orders published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.


thats it
the potus has this power
unencumbered



You missed this part:
"no powers or authorities made available by statute for use in the event of an emergency shall be exercised unless and until the President specifies the provisions of law under which he proposes that he, or other officers will act."

His two options are


One allows the secretary of defense to start a military program if it is needed to support armed forces. The problem here is that there is no real evidence that the armed forces need a wall to support them. Instead, the reverse may be true, you need armed forces to build a wall.

The second statute allows the secretary of the Army to direct troops and resources “that are essential to the national defense.” Here, again, we have a problem. There is scant evidence to indicate that a border wall is in fact essential to the national defense.


It doesn't feel like this is a rational discussion about how national emergencies are implemented.




posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris

He can use the military construction budget unfettered

Quit with the lies



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris

Why would the cic have to justify anything to the sec def or the sec army?
They follow his orders.
Why are you making this all backwards?

He can declare an emergency.
He can direct the military to build the wall.

Congress can pass a bill to end his emergency.
Potus can veto the bill.
Congress can overide the veto.

This is not really complicated.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 01:57 PM
link   
This will set a bad precedent. I don't see it holding up in court. In the meantime, he'll probably build like here's no tomorrow



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Extorris


The Constitution rests the sole power to appropriate funds with Congress.

National Emergencies are reserved for sudden changes in the Security and Safety of the nation like Natural Disasters or Terrorist Attacks with mass casualties.

Only in those scenarios is the President afforded the option to skip congress. "Emergent" situations that require immediate response where waiting on congressional deliberations would cost thousands of lives.

By all statistics the threat of illegal immigration does not qualify and as far as it can be quantified, the threat has decreased over the past 10 years. No sudden threat to National Security or Safety.


So when Obama did a National Emergency against organized crime to include Mexico what do you call that. When President said he is basically piggy backing on Obama's national Emergency already in place and active, what do you call that?



Do you want to be specific? Or does that not help you?

you mean this?



July 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Transnational Criminals was in response to the rise in crime by specific organizations: Los Zetas (Mexico), The Brothers’ Circle (former Soviet Union countries), the Yakuza (Japan), and the Camorra (Italy).


obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...

This is using the National Emergency code to seize assets and block US banking transactions of Criminal cartels and individuals.

It is NOT an expenditure of taxpayer dollars which is expressly congresses constitutional authority.
It is NOT something that can be addressed through congress or standing banking laws.
It DOES reflect emerging threats as Criminal Orgs Evolve, change names and Principle members often.

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...

Blocking Transactions and Assets of Criminal orgs is something congress has approved of since it fits the legal description of National Emergency:

"which cannot be properly addressed by the use of other law."
and
"situation beyond the ordinary"
and
It does not unconstitutionally usurp congressional authority in appropriations of spending.


Excellent point....



It is NOT an expenditure of taxpayer dollars which is expressly congresses constitutional authority.


Without looking it up, I too believe that it's a violation of constitutional law for Trump to bypass Congress and appropriate monies for a "wall".

If the 9th circuit court blocks the appropriations, Trump will fight it all the way to the Supreme Court. Ultimately, his will test the courts resolve to uphold constitutional law.

...and we wait.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris

Why would the cic have to justify anything to the sec def or the sec army?
They follow his orders.
Why are you making this all backwards?

He can declare an emergency.
He can direct the military to build the wall.

Congress can pass a bill to end his emergency.
Potus can veto the bill.
Congress can overide the veto.

This is not really complicated.



You're forgetting about the third branch of government, the Judiciary. Congress doesn't need to pass a bill when the courts can simply block the appropriations. You're right, it's simple.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
he did exactly what the Dems wanted him to do. He rejected offer after offer for less wall money than he wanted, ultimately signed a budget agreement with almost no wall money (about 55 mile worth, but you know it will be less) and now he's moved to the "national emergency" which will be held up for years in litigation.

Art of the Deal my ass.

I just don't know what I'm supposed to believe from the right. Is there a crisis at the border, or are illegal crossings at all time lows? They tout both claims...


So 55 miles is OK but 275 is immoral...this is what he is dealing with...lol



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Blarneystoner

Sure they can

Who is damaged?



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Blarneystoner

Sure they can

Who is damaged?


To me it's now a matter of due process. I don't think a POTUS should be allowed to violate the constitution to appropriate funds... Republican or Democrat. What Trump is doing appears to be a violation of constitutional law and should be blocked.

But that's just like... my opinion man...

We'll see what the courts say...



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Good. He did what he needed to. He exposed the dems for not caring at all about the border and in the end, got them to give money (albeit a pittance of 1.37b) when they said they wouldn't give a dollar. They got played. We get the wall, they get nothing but a bunch of claptrap that lasts a year.

I'll admit this bill he's signing sucks, but sometimes you have to lose a battle to win the war. That's what Trump has done here. He's given them some feel good garbage on bed caps and welcome committees in exchange for a permanent solution at the border.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Blarneystoner

That would be accurate if congress hadn't explicitly given the president the power to do just that. They won't overturn it either (the emergency act) because to do so would upset so much of the stare decisis apple cart. If congress can't delegate their power to the president in this case, because of the constitution, why would they be able to ever?



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Having heard this and given this thought the following can be stated:

The President declaring a national state of Emergency is nothing new, as has been stated, it has happened before.

However, this time there is a strong difference of opinion if this issue qualifies as an emergency.

There will be a court case on this, of that there is no doubt. And there will be bills passed in Congress, forcing this issue to the forefront and be in the news.

If congress passes the bill, it will stop this from happening, and thus what is left?

If it does not then it comes down to the court case, and that is what to watch. If the congress wins, then it is back to the arguments and bickering.

However, if the President wins, then here is the thing to consider, it sets a precedent that will come back to haunt many who would support the current President, and that is that any President can thus do such, including on issues like say gun violence, and there will be nothing to stop that sitting president.

You sure you want this to go through?



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

...got them to give money (albeit a pittance of 1.37b) when they said they wouldn't give a dollar. They got played....


Except the 1.37b specifically dis-includes using the money for a 'wall'.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

LOL. Stop listening to Pelosi. She's crazy. She would have to address gang violence if she wanted a ne on gun violence, since that makes up like 90% of it. What are the demographics of gangs? Yeah, dems won't be doing that.

But again her statement makes a nice contrast. Republicans view foreigners abusing our border and citizens as a national emergency, dems view the constitution and Americans as a national emergency. You sure you support the right side here?



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: yuppa

and they have the power to sue him over it. LOL....

You all seem to fail to remember they are equal branches of the government.


If this was a republic that obeyed the constitution they couldnt. Anyway this will go to the SC and trump will get a win.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Doesn't matter, with the emergency the wall will be mostly done by 2020 elections. It'll be his re election campaign, to finish the wall. He's already started it. We all know that no dem or other republican would finish it, so trump has ensured his re-election as of today.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

...got them to give money (albeit a pittance of 1.37b) when they said they wouldn't give a dollar. They got played....


Except the 1.37b specifically dis-includes using the money for a 'wall'.


That was if he signed the bill first before the emergency. Or he still has funds other than that 1.37 6 bill is enough.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Wayfarer

Doesn't matter, with the emergency the wall will be mostly done by 2020 elections. It'll be his re election campaign, to finish the wall. He's already started it. We all know that no dem or other republican would finish it, so trump has ensured his re-election as of today.


Whether it matters or not is irrelevant, I was correcting your error and corresponding supposition.
edit on 07pm19fpmFri, 15 Feb 2019 15:05:36 -0600America/ChicagoFri, 15 Feb 2019 15:05:36 -0600 by Wayfarer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

...got them to give money (albeit a pittance of 1.37b) when they said they wouldn't give a dollar. They got played....


Except the 1.37b specifically dis-includes using the money for a 'wall'.


That was if he signed the bill first before the emergency. Or he still has funds other than that 1.37 6 bill is enough.


Well, sure, I mean the whole thing is a boondoggle that won't be finished before he's out of office most likely, but you are correct insomuch as he still got something on the order of 6 billion from the DoD and drug asset forfeiture (which would normally fund anti-drug operations).

That being said, am I the only one who recognizes the humor in Trump raiding anti-drug operations money under the guise of stopping the flow of drugs?



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Being English, I dont really have an iron in this fire.

But I do wonder how you all would feel when the next democratic president , which there will be at some point, invokes state of emergency powers for gun control or healthcare.

Trump is opening a bit of a Pandoras box I feel.
edit on 15-2-2019 by maxey because: (no reason given)







 
28
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join