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

Of course the Supreme Court of the Republican Party rubber stamped the Wall. Wasn't the whole point of gaming the court?

a reply to: Mach2

I would assume they realize the importance of having secure borders

Okay, but Pentagon officials briefed Congress, just 15 days before Trump made his declaration, that there was no national security emergency on the southern border.

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.

Since SCOTUS didn't rule on the action taken by the Trump administration but only on the plaintiffs standing to sue, the matter of bypassing Congress to get funding that they refused to supply is still unresolved. Perhaps the next time a president steals money from an agency, SCOTUS will rule differently.

a reply to: tabularosa

Want me to call the whaaaambulance?

Elections have consequences. It works both ways at times. For example the Roe v Wade ruling could have been different had the makeup of the SCOTUS been different at the time.



You are really going to be livid when Trump gets a couple more whacks at it over the next 6+ years.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: RazorV66
Get that thing up pronto!
Around the clock work on it is needed.

A lot of effort is going into making the George Bush sections higher/sturdier...and refurbishing. 600 miles, but only 8 to 10 feet high, with no sharp spikes at the top. Obama Admin didn't maintain them.

How many folks are illegally crossing the border each day?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Mach2

Okay, but Pentagon officials briefed Congress, just 15 days before Trump made his declaration, that there was no national security emergency on the southern border.

Like I already pointed out, that is not within the purview of the military's authority, so I fail to see your point.

Since SCOTUS didn't rule on the action taken by the Trump administration but only on the plaintiffs standing to sue, the matter of bypassing Congress to get funding that they refused to supply is still unresolved. Perhaps the next time a president steals money from an agency, SCOTUS will rule differently.

Like I already pointed out, it's a distinction without a difference. Unless a more tightly constrained definition of "national emergency" is ratified by congress (highly unlikely), that is the law. a law, which as it is currently written is not only fairly broad in scope, but backed by case law precedent.

you can whine about it all you like, and keep repeating the same things, but it doesn't change the reality.

The SCOTUS isn't going to swing left during President Trumps time in office, so you might as well accept it, and move on. This fight is done, and and now exists only in the annuls of history, and delusional minds.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Nope.

We don't want to be standing post in the middle of the desert when a wall and a few drones can do it.

You obviously don't know much about us folks in the military.

Yeah I was gonna say, I think you guys would prefer less posts like this if at all possible.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: carewemust

Although this doesn't have anything to do with food stamps, some of those contractors finding themselves out of expected work may be resorting to food stamps.

Funny thing about contractors, there's always work available for them in a strong economy.

originally posted by: watchitburn
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.

The money saved from providing freebies to illegal immigrants no longer in the country can be put towards those military projects.

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.

When someone on the other side of the Atlantic understands the process better...

a reply to: seagull

the Supreme's kinda are "above the law" in many ways...

Yes, they are. So is Congress. So is the President. It irks me every time I hear one of the fools ion Congress stating "no one is above the law, not even the President," because they all know they are above the law too!

There's a very good reason for that: the Founders didn't want a President who used his department to harass Congressmen over spurious Federal law infractions (true or not) to force them to do his will. The Founders didn't want the same thing happening to Supreme Court Justices. The Founders didn't want Congress using their power to try and imprison a sitting President over political disagreements. All three branches must be equal, and all three branches must answer to someone... even the Supreme Court, which only answers to Congress and then only by way of impeachment.

It's like the Progressives keep saying "We are a co-equal branch of government; now bow before us and do our bidding, all you other, lower branches!"

TheRedneck

a reply to: tabularosa

Why is it considered "gaming the court" when someone from a different political party than you does it, and "normal exercise of authority" when someone who agrees with you politically does it?

TheRedneck

a reply to: AnakinWayneII

How many folks are illegally crossing the border each day?

If we knew that, we might not need the wall.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: watchitburn
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.

The money saved from providing freebies to illegal immigrants no longer in the country can be put towards those military projects.

Isn't that something the congressional "power of the purse" should decide, or do you think the president should write an executive order or declare a national emergency to make that happen, too?

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: DBCowboy

Along with the electoral college.l

Because, well, reasons...

'Reasons' in this case equals unchecked and dictatorial power. The left will remove all obstacles to obtain that goal given the chance.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: watchitburn
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.

The money saved from providing freebies to illegal immigrants no longer in the country can be put towards those military projects.

Isn't that something the congressional "power of the purse" should decide, or do you think the president should write an executive order or declare a national emergency to make that happen, too?

Doesn't matter, if this hypothetical money saved is appropriated for those projects.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Does the congressional power of the purse matter, or not?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Do checks and balances matter, or not?

Do laws matter, or not?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Does the congressional power of the purse matter, or not?

Have you read the Constitution, and its amendments, or are you basically going along with Crusty Clown Network talking points?

It is pretty clear about the Executive branch's broad powers in times of emergency.

I really suggest you read the document sometime. Our founding fathers were quite impressive, and specific in setting the framework for the country.

They were also wise enough to build in checks and balances, as well as a precicely defined mechanism to alter the base document through the amendment process.

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Does the congressional power of the purse matter, or not?

Have you read the Constitution, and its amendments, or are you basically going along with Crusty Clown Network talking points?

It is pretty clear about the Executive branch's broad powers in times of emergency.

I really suggest you read the document sometime. Our founding fathers were quite impressive, and specific in setting the framework for the country.

They were also wise enough to build in checks and balances, as well as a precicely defined mechanism to alter the base document through the amendment process.

For many on the left, that is an outdated piece of paper that they would gladly wipe their backsides with even if they had a full roll of TP in front of them.

It's good to see that gaming the Supreme Court of the Republican Party works. This simply proves that our courts are just another cog in corruption on Capitol Hill, that they are not the bastions of objectivity and justice as claimed. Sad that it reached SCOTUS too.