White House Announces 234-Mile Construction Of The Border Wall

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Aazadan

If this is allowed to stand, the executive branch will effectively take over the houses biggest responsibility, permanently.

Not really. The law states that Trump can do everything he has done. Legally, all a judge can do is declare the law itself unconstitutional... which would invalidate quite a few National Emergencies already in effect from Trump, Obama, Bush, etc.

Of course, legally has rarely stopped activist judges who think they are gods with no oversight.

Ironically, the law allowing this declaration also says that Congress not only can terminate this National Emergency, but that they must consider it! Trump can be stopped by a simple resolution from Congress.

Oh, wait... they can't even put a budget together... what was I thinking?

TheRedneck

Well, the declaration of emergency powers is a law in need of serious reform anyways, and has been widely used and abused by just about every administration to make power grabs. However, what Trump is doing here goes far beyond that, because his emergency is not an actual emergency. He has been threatening to do this for two years now, not based on border criteria being fulfilled, but as a way to circumvent an uncooperative Congress. Congress is a coequal branch of government, and they have the authority to oppose a Presidents spending plans if they so choose. Declaring an emergency to get around a Constitutional separation of powers, is blatantly illegal. If this stands, most of Congress essentially becomes irrelevant, if not immediately, then by the next administration, when they declare emergencies to reorganize the budget however they see fit each year.

Also, a resolution from Congress to stop a state of emergency is something the President can veto. As such, it requires a veto proof majority to stop. Meaning that if 1/3 of either house of Congress decides to side with the President, they cannot overturn it. Meaning, the President effectively gets absolute rule. If allowed to stand, this becomes the very definition of tyranny.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Aazadan

If this is allowed to stand, the executive branch will effectively take over the houses biggest responsibility, permanently.

Not really. The law states that Trump can do everything he has done. Legally, all a judge can do is declare the law itself unconstitutional... which would invalidate quite a few National Emergencies already in effect from Trump, Obama, Bush, etc.

Of course, legally has rarely stopped activist judges who think they are gods with no oversight.

Ironically, the law allowing this declaration also says that Congress not only can terminate this National Emergency, but that they must consider it! Trump can be stopped by a simple resolution from Congress.

Oh, wait... they can't even put a budget together... what was I thinking?

TheRedneck

Well, the declaration of emergency powers is a law in need of serious reform anyways, and has been widely used and abused by just about every administration to make power grabs. However, what Trump is doing here goes far beyond that, because his emergency is not an actual emergency. He has been threatening to do this for two years now, not based on border criteria being fulfilled, but as a way to circumvent an uncooperative Congress. Congress is a coequal branch of government, and they have the authority to oppose a Presidents spending plans if they so choose. Declaring an emergency to get around a Constitutional separation of powers, is blatantly illegal. If this stands, most of Congress essentially becomes irrelevant, if not immediately, then by the next administration, when they declare emergencies to reorganize the budget however they see fit each year.

Also, a resolution from Congress to stop a state of emergency is something the President can veto. As such, it requires a veto proof majority to stop. Meaning that if 1/3 of either house of Congress decides to side with the President, they cannot overturn it. Meaning, the President effectively gets absolute rule. If allowed to stand, this becomes the very definition of tyranny.

You can't say Trump hasn't learned a few things from the dem party. Like....."By any means necessary". He's just Taking care of business and Gettn' 'er done. Something the dems can't seem to figure out.

a reply to: mtnshredder

Trump getting things done at the expense of veterans and military personnel is not cool.

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: fencesitter85

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: xuenchen

All trump has done since declaring it is play golf, it’s clearly not a big enough emergency for him to actually spend time in the office

👆best joke so far lol☝️

He met with a 3-Star General from the Army Corps of Engineers later that day 😆

The Wall is Coming !!!!

Fence*

200 miles of it. Paid for by you.

Lol.

I love how you all continue to parrot his propaganda and call it a wall.

It's a fence.

He's a failed negotiator. He's failed miserably every step of the way.

234 miles of a fence and you're a doing a victory dance xD

I don't care what it is called - they can call it welcome mat as far as I am concerned.

All that matters is does it slow the illegals down and allow the border patrol to apprehend them.

You are reaching to try and declare Trump has failed over the word used to describe the barrier.

Nope. Sorry. Not buying it.

If you look at this objectively, anyone with any sense of rational thought whatsoever can see what he's doing by calling it a wall. He's trying to save face by continuing his propaganda.

And he FAILED because he SWORE to you that it would be a full length border wall paid for by Mexico.

And now he's managed to "negotiate" 200 miles of a fence paid for by you.

If you consider that a successful negotiation, then I'm glad you don't work for me.

Absolute disaster of a negotiator. He's failed miserably. Your response, and the "stars" from equally deluded sycophants is textbook cognitive dissonance. No two ways about it. He's failed you yet again.

He also golfs way more than Obama did.

Useless.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: mtnshredder

Trump getting things done at the expense of veterans and military personnel is not cool.

No it's not and neither is Mueller spending over 25 million chasing unicorns in Russia or the cost of the government shut down, but here we are.

Do you have any links showing what veteran benefits are being cut as a result of the wall?
Just curious, I haven't looked or seen any stats or numbers related to vet cuts.

Our Vets should be a top priority. They've taken care of us, we should make sure they're taken care of, at any cost.

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: mtnshredder

Trump getting things done at the expense of veterans and military personnel is not cool.

No it's not and neither is Mueller spending over 25 million chasing unicorns in Russia or the cost of the government shut down, but here we are.

Do you have any links showing what veteran benefits are being cut as a result of the wall?
Just curious, I haven't looked or seen any stats or numbers related to vet cuts.

Our Vets should be a top priority. They've taken care of us, we should make sure they're taken care of, at any cost.

Mueller' unicorns may pose a nasty surprise in someone's back end.

a reply to: Aazadan

First - It means that the President can issue through an EO declaring an emergency, a reorganization of any national budget from here on out. Furthermore, as long as the President controls at least 1/3 of a single house of Congress, this cannot be overturned, as an act of Congress to overturn the EO would not have a veto proof majority.

No.

Congressional resolutions are not required to be signed by the President; only legislative bills need his signature. 50 USC § 1622(a) specifically states that a joint resolution by Congress is all that is needed to terminate a National Emergency. This also means that the legislature acts as a check and balance to the power of the President to declare a National Emergency.

Second - This hasn't really been tested by the courts. The idea is that an emergency declaration can only be used in an actual emergency, but there doesn't seem to be a specific definition as to what an emergency is. The spirit of the law is very clear, but the letter of the law is not.

This part is fair enough. However, the law, as passed by Congress, specifically states in 50 USC § 1621 that the President is authorized by Congress to make the decision as to what constitutes a National Emergency. Trump could declare a National Emergency to pay for someone to spray the White House lawn for weeds if he so chose, and Congress could pass a resolution to terminate that order the next day.

What that means legally is that any judgement of whether or not this is an actual emergency is a usurpation of the law itself; Congress did not give the right to declare a National Emergency to the Judiciary. A Federal judge could indeed strike down 50 USC § 1621-1651, but doing so would also strike down the multiple National Emergencies already in existence. The simple fact is that since no one challenged previous National Emergencies, that lack of challenge is itself a precedent.

For a law to be striken, it generally has to be either in conflict with other laws or the US Constitution. Were 50 USC § 1621-1651 in conflict with the US Constitution, it would typically be a case where the balance of power was out of line with the Constitution, as in the situation you incorrectly describe above (a lack of checks and balances). 50 USC § 1622 specifically addresses this by requiring Congress to consider a resolution to terminate any National Emergency.

All that said, we have seen activist judges operate outside legal constraints before, so it is quite possible there may be a legal battle ahead. I am not saying otherwise; I only point out the stretches of law required to make such a battle legitimate.

TheRedneck

a reply to: InTheLight

Trump getting things done at the expense of veterans and military personnel is not cool.

No, it's not, and it's also not happening. Here's the breakdown:

• $1.375 billion from the recent Congressional appropriations bill, which is available immediately without question.
  
• $600 million from drug forfeitures, which requires only an Executive Order, not a National Emergency.
  
• $2.5 billion from the military Drug Intervention program, again requiring only an Executive Order.
  
• $3.5 billion from the military Construction Fund, which is the only item requiring a National Emergency

Exactly where in that list do you see the VA or the military personnel budget?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight

Trump getting things done at the expense of veterans and military personnel is not cool.

No, it's not, and it's also not happening. Here's the breakdown:

• $1.375 billion from the recent Congressional appropriations bill, which is available immediately without question.
  
• $600 million from drug forfeitures, which requires only an Executive Order, not a National Emergency.
  
• $2.5 billion from the military Drug Intervention program, again requiring only an Executive Order.
  
• $3.5 billion from the military Construction Fund, which is the only item requiring a National Emergency

Exactly where in that list do you see the VA or the military personnel budget?

TheRedneck

It is premature debating what may or may not happen, let's wait and see.

a reply to: Aazadan

Well, the declaration of emergency powers is a law in need of serious reform anyways, and has been widely used and abused by just about every administration to make power grabs.

I cannot argue with that opinion; however, I can mention that is it Congress' responsibility to reform any Constitutional law in need of reform, not the Executive or the Judiciary's role. if one wishes to talk uncontrolled tyranny, that would be allowing an appointed judge to make law as he deems fit over a political disagreement.

However, what Trump is doing here goes far beyond that, because his emergency is not an actual emergency.

According to the law, it is an emergency because the President says it is an emergency. The law states that Congress can terminate any National Emergency with a joint resolution, but it does not give the Congress the same kind of "advise and consent" authority the Constitution gives the Senate on treaty ratification or appointments.

Also, a resolution from Congress to stop a state of emergency is something the President can veto.

No.

A President has no veto power over a Congressional resolution, because a Congressional resolution is not a law. It carries no legal weight, except in this case it is specified to have certain effects by law. The President had the power to veto 50 USC § 1621-1651 before it became law, but once it did it prevented a Presidential veto from being applicable to terminate a National Emergency.

The "Green New Deal" is also veto-proof, since at this stage it is only a resolution. It cannot become law without a Presidential signature or a veto override. Only laws are subject to the veto power of the President.

TheRedneck

a reply to: InTheLight

It is premature debating what may or may not happen, let's wait and see.

OK, I'll wait.







...







...







....








OK, it happened.

That breakdown is already specified in the National Emergency. It happened the instant the National Emergency was declared. A National Emergency, as per USC 50 § 1631, specifies where any funds are coming from and what they are to be used for:

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.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: AProudLefty
a reply to: DBCowboy

You sure?

Obama ordered BP to stand down
www.dailywire.com...

m.washingtontimes.com...

www.liveleak.com...

www.nytimes.com...

Please do not confuse not enforcing law and not having enough BP agents to apprehend those crossing, with an actual reduction of people crossing the border

a reply to: RsaWarhawk

None of those articles show that Obama has been lax with the border security.

Please do not confuse not enforcing law and not having enough BP agents to apprehend those crossing, with an actual reduction of people crossing the border

Well in the first link you provided, the article said that the immigrants were already apprehend and detained.

a reply to: AProudLefty

Yeah, they literally all do. Maybe you should read them.

a reply to: TheRedneck

No, it's not, and it's also not happening.
Here's the breakdown:
$1.375 billion from the recent Congressional appropriations bill, which is available immediately without question.
$600 million from drug forfeitures, which requires only an Executive Order, not a National Emergency.
$2.5 billion from the military Drug Intervention program, again requiring only an Executive Order.
$3.5 billion from the military Construction Fund, which is the only item requiring a National Emergency Exactly where in that list do you see the VA or the military personnel budget?
TheRedneck

IMO even the 9th won't take action on this "lawsuit".
Isn't the first remedy for this to come from congress?
Isn't that spelled out in the act sited by the POTUS?
How will anyone have standing or be damaged prior to congress attempting its legislated remedy?
Will the 9th render the whole national emergencies act unconstitutional?

Lots of infotwisting 😀

a reply to: TheRedneck

Still waiting ...

According to the law, the defense secretary has to decide whether the wall is militarily necessary before money from the military construction budget can be used.

“We always anticipated that this would create a lot of attention and since moneys potentially could be redirected, you can imagine the concern this generates,” Shanahan told reporters traveling back with him from his trip to Afghanistan, the Middle East and Europe.

“Very deliberately, we have not made any decisions, we have identified the steps we would take to make those decisions,” Shanahan said.

www.reuters.com...

originally posted by: AProudLefty
a reply to: RsaWarhawk

None of those articles show that Obama has been lax with the border security.

Please do not confuse not enforcing law and not having enough BP agents to apprehend those crossing, with an actual reduction of people crossing the border

Well in the first link you provided, the article said that the immigrants were already apprehend and detained.

He wasn't, other than not following through.

Obama, Clinton, Schumer and 23 other Democratic senators voted in favor of the act when it passed in the Senate by a vote of 80 to 19.

www.politifact.com...

Context, not just for breakfast anymore.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Yeah, they literally all do. Maybe you should read them.

Already did. No need to reread. The immigrants have already been apprehended and detained, contrary to the poster's claim of Obama allowing immigrants to just waltz in.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Toothache

The problem is, this isn't even close to a national emergency. It's Trump being a bully and baby to get what he wants.

I'm sorry; are you the President?

You must be, since the law is written so that the President makes the decisions on what does and does not constitute a National Emergency. Please forgive me; all this time I thought Donald Trump won the election.

TheRedneck

LOL! That doesn't mean the president can't be an idiot and make the wrong call. I know damn well he's got the power to do it, but it's not a real emergency by a long shot.

Imagine the insanity if Obama shut down the government and declared national emergency over mass shootings? Y'all would be saying the same thing.