U.S. Supreme Court Rules President Trump CAN use Pentagon Funds for Border Wall Construction.

At least something is being done.

We've been spending money on detaining them (we should just send them back).

And democrats have sat on their hands out of spite. If they could have provided a viable alternative could have understood (like Everify and and temperary visa reform).

But they'd rather ignore it to spite Trump and the country.

I don't think the wall is the solution, but it's a start. No reason on screwing the country and using immigrants as pawns while they are detained.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Because the President hadn't declared a national emergency on January 29th, when Congress "grilled" Pentagon Officials. He declared it on February 15th.

He had been threatening to do it for months. It's what Mattis had to offer Trump to put an end to the disastrous government shut down or orchestrated.

Pentagon officials weren't behind the idea. They were telling Congress that there was no national security emergency at the southern border.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Because the President hadn't declared a national emergency on January 29th, when Congress "grilled" Pentagon Officials. He declared it on February 15th.

He had been threatening to do it for months. It's what Mattis had to offer Trump to put an end to the disastrous government shut down or orchestrated.

Pentagon officials weren't behind the idea. They were telling Congress that there was no national security emergency at the southern border.

Fortunately, as already pointed out, pentagon officials have no authority in the matter. If congress ignored that fact, thats their problem.

originally posted by: projectvxn
This should come as no surprise. The president had full authority to build the wall

There's nothing democrats can do anymore. It's over for them. They lost it all. Just waiting for them to realize it.

It’s gonna be a pretty funny news week when they realize it.
Or is that ‘reeeeeeeeeeealize’ it?

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Because the President hadn't declared a national emergency on January 29th, when Congress "grilled" Pentagon Officials. He declared it on February 15th.

He had been threatening to do it for months. It's what Mattis had to offer Trump to put an end to the disastrous government shut down or orchestrated.

Pentagon officials weren't behind the idea. They were telling Congress that there was no national security emergency at the southern border.

Fortunately, as already pointed out, pentagon officials have no authority in the matter. If congress ignored that fact, thats their problem.

Right. The president is Commander in Chief of the military, therefore Pentagon officials. That doesn't mean that Pentagon official are happy about this, or that Trump won't lose military votes over this.

And, keep in mind, SCOTUS didn't rule in Trump's favor here. SCOTUS ruled that the people bringing the lawsuit against the Trump administration lacked legal standing to sue.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Because the President hadn't declared a national emergency on January 29th, when Congress "grilled" Pentagon Officials. He declared it on February 15th.

He had been threatening to do it for months. It's what Mattis had to offer Trump to put an end to the disastrous government shut down or orchestrated.

Pentagon officials weren't behind the idea. They were telling Congress that there was no national security emergency at the southern border.

Fortunately, as already pointed out, pentagon officials have no authority in the matter. If congress ignored that fact, thats their problem.

Right. The president is Commander in Chief of the military, therefore Pentagon officials. That doesn't mean that Pentagon official are happy about this, or that Trump won't lose military votes over this.

And, keep in mind, SCOTUS didn't rule in Trump's favor here. SCOTUS ruled that the people bringing the lawsuit against the Trump administration lacked legal standing to sue.

That's it, keep the faith in the losing side. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Because the President hadn't declared a national emergency on January 29th, when Congress "grilled" Pentagon Officials. He declared it on February 15th.

He had been threatening to do it for months. It's what Mattis had to offer Trump to put an end to the disastrous government shut down or orchestrated.

Pentagon officials weren't behind the idea. They were telling Congress that there was no national security emergency at the southern border.

Fortunately, as already pointed out, pentagon officials have no authority in the matter. If congress ignored that fact, thats their problem.

Right. The president is Commander in Chief of the military, therefore Pentagon officials. That doesn't mean that Pentagon official are happy about this, or that Trump won't lose military votes over this.

And, keep in mind, SCOTUS didn't rule in Trump's favor here. SCOTUS ruled that the people bringing the lawsuit against the Trump administration lacked legal standing to sue.

Hmmm....

I don't think pentagon officials are any different than any other cross section of the population. I'm sure some are Republican, and some are Democrat. Being that they have spent their careers in service to their country, I would assume they realize the importance of having secure borders, and weigh many other things as well. In any case if they make their residence anywhere near the DC area, how they vote is irrelevant as it is a democrat stronghold, therefore it will not affect the electoral college in any way.

That's like saying Trump will suffer if he pisses of Californians. It doesn't matter. He's not winning Cali in any case. Me thinks you are tilting at windmills.

As to the SC ruling, it's a distinction without a difference. As a matter of law, no one has legal standing to sue. It is, in reality, a congressional matter. Good luck with that, as the Senate is not turning blue anytime soon.

a reply to: Mach2

Do you find it concerning that there were 4 dissenting opinions on something that seems pretty clear cut as a matter of law?

I found it disturbing that the case was not immediately thrown out by the first judge to look at it. The entire statute concerning National Emergencies (50 USC § 1601-1651) concern the President's authority to act in his official capacity when dealing with international emergencies. The wall is an international, not a domestic, agenda. The National Security of the United States takes precedence over domestic issues.

We have a situation throughout the court system that allows for activist judges. The Founding Fathers never imagined that someone respected enough to be a judge could also be so biased and have such disregard for the law as to try and insert into that law a political agenda. Yet, here we are. We need some way for lower court judges to be held accountable for making decisions in direct contradiction to the Constitution or Federal law. I don't have an answer for that, but it is an issue that needs to be addressed.

I consider any judge who rises to that level and yet disrespects their office to be guilty of sedition and conspiracy to defraud the United States. They are criminals who have found a way to be above the law and need to be stripped of their position, their tenure, and their freedom, even moreso than other types of criminals.

What really amazes me is that somehow the ACLU (Anti-Christian litigation Unit) has put out a statement that this is not over. Uh, yes it is. The United States Supreme Court is the highest legal authority in existence, and they just decided. You're done. Go home.

TheRedneck

The Left should cheer this.

But they wont.

What I want to know is how the Left can put our nation's security, be it societal, economic or cultural, BEHIND the needs of immigrants.

Yes, I'm sure it'd be nice to be able to bring them here without affecting those categories, and if I were left wing I'd be happy with the extra votes for sure.

But why doesn't the country come first for them? Don't they have a moral backbone to put country before party?

This wave of illegals must end.

Now, Let's Build This Wall!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

There's always money to be found somewhere for any given project. It's just a matter of shuffling it around from one pot to another.

Another good sign associated the Supreme Court's decision yesterday. SCHUMER and PELOSI are hopping mad.

www.foxnews.com...

The angrier they are, the better for America any given SCOTUS decision is.

a reply to: carewemust

DNC lessons learned ////......

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: carewemust

Doesn't Congress control spending as stated in the Constitution?

The constitution does not state that.

Congress agrees the budget.
Spending is done by the Executive Branch according to the agreed budget.

The ruling by the Supreme Court makes it clear that the Executive Branch can move funds in the case of an emergency.

Congress' last option to stop him is to pass new law, but to do so the House will have to get the Senate to agree.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Because the President hadn't declared a national emergency on January 29th, when Congress "grilled" Pentagon Officials. He declared it on February 15th.

He had been threatening to do it for months. It's what Mattis had to offer Trump to put an end to the disastrous government shut down or orchestrated.

Pentagon officials weren't behind the idea. They were telling Congress that there was no national security emergency at the southern border.

Fortunately, as already pointed out, pentagon officials have no authority in the matter. If congress ignored that fact, thats their problem.

Right. The president is Commander in Chief of the military, therefore Pentagon officials. That doesn't mean that Pentagon official are happy about this, or that Trump won't lose military votes over this.

And, keep in mind, SCOTUS didn't rule in Trump's favor here. SCOTUS ruled that the people bringing the lawsuit against the Trump administration lacked legal standing to sue.

It's very unlikely that any action is now going to stop the use of those funds.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Yep. However, the President does have enormous discretionary powers where retasking of funds are concerned.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Yes, that'd do it. Built with gates that allow all sorts of people to enter legally! That's the way it's supposed to work.

You want to immigrate to the U.S.? Cool. Do it legally. Via the proper channels. By channel, I don't mean the Rio Grande channel.

a reply to: carewemust

Actually...

When you think about it...the Supreme's kinda are "above the law" in many ways...

a reply to: carewemust


So this means that the left wants to abolish the Supreme Court now?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Along with the electoral college.l

Because, well, reasons...

a reply to: seagull



You got my train of thought!

The Electoral College didn't swing their way, eliminate it.

ICE arrests illegals, eliminate ICE.

The Supreme Court didn't rule their way, abolish it.


Just out of curiosity, I did a search for that "topic" and there are already articles out on it, none recent, but 2018.