|
Post by sandiegopete on Feb 14, 2019 20:44:02 GMT -8
It looks like the president is going to declare immigration a national emergency and take funds from other federal programs to pay for the wall. If he does as seems likely, it will result in a win-win for the Democrats. There are only 2 outcomes possible from such executive action: 1) the Court will disallow it; and 2) the Court will allow it. In the first instance the president will suffer a defeat. In the second instance the president will have set the table for a future Democrat president to use the national emergency path to circumvent the Constitution. After all, if the president can circumvent Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and determine how and what debts are to be paid then other Sections of the Constitution can be circumvented simply by the president declaring a national emergency. Such as the 2nd Amendment in a situation where the president declares gun violence a national emergency because so many foreign gangs have infiltrated the United States and are using the 2nd Amendment to arm themselves to prey on law-abiding citizens. However, I don't think the president's planed declaration of national emergency will withstand judicial review. The law allows the president great discretion. It does not allow the president unlimited discretion. Generally, the Court has not been kind to those who abuse executive discretion. Here is an article written by professors at Trump's alma mater: scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2717&context=faculty_scholarship
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Feb 15, 2019 9:11:59 GMT -8
It looks like the president is going to declare immigration a national emergency and take funds from other federal programs to pay for the wall. If he does as seems likely, it will result in a win-win for the Democrats. There are only 2 outcomes possible from such executive action: 1) the Court will disallow it; and 2) the Court will allow it. In the first instance the president will suffer a defeat. In the second instance the president will have set the table for a future Democrat president to use the national emergency path to circumvent the Constitution. After all, if the president can circumvent Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and determine how and what debts are to be paid then other Sections of the Constitution can be circumvented simply by the president declaring a national emergency. Such as the 2nd Amendment in a situation where the president declares gun violence a national emergency because so many foreign gangs have infiltrated the United States and are using the 2nd Amendment to arm themselves to prey on law-abiding citizens. However, I don't think the president's planed declaration of national emergency will withstand judicial review. The law allows the president great discretion. It does not allow the president unlimited discretion. Generally, the Court has not been kind to those who abuse executive discretion. Here is an article written by professors at Trump's alma mater: scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2717&context=faculty_scholarship If the emergency funding is denied by law along a screeching chorus of Democrat and RINO cats, Trump will have been seen to leave it all on the field toward fulfilling his campaign promises and the proponents of illegal immigration will be known to all in time for the 2020 election. It will be a net positive for Trump. If the emergency funding is approved by the SCOTUS, it will be a contentious issue in the 2020 election but Trump will have been seen to be a leader that delivers on his promises. So he will have extremely high numbers within his base and that is essential for re-election. With a good economy, his opponent will have to make his ploy to stop illegal immigration the key to their election. That primary contrast will dwarf everything else on the trail and the election turn on that issue. So that scenario is OK for Trump but not as good as the first one.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Feb 15, 2019 9:13:02 GMT -8
Mexico will pay for it
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Feb 15, 2019 10:32:15 GMT -8
USMCA-NAFTA=WALL Of course, because in that case, Mexico will pay for the wall as Trump has proposed, the Democrats will oppose approving USMCA. Hear that Rustbelt? Such Patriots!
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Feb 15, 2019 11:37:14 GMT -8
It looks like the president is going to declare immigration a national emergency and take funds from other federal programs to pay for the wall. If he does as seems likely, it will result in a win-win for the Democrats. There are only 2 outcomes possible from such executive action: 1) the Court will disallow it; and 2) the Court will allow it. In the first instance the president will suffer a defeat. In the second instance the president will have set the table for a future Democrat president to use the national emergency path to circumvent the Constitution. After all, if the president can circumvent Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and determine how and what debts are to be paid then other Sections of the Constitution can be circumvented simply by the president declaring a national emergency. Such as the 2nd Amendment in a situation where the president declares gun violence a national emergency because so many foreign gangs have infiltrated the United States and are using the 2nd Amendment to arm themselves to prey on law-abiding citizens. However, I don't think the president's planed declaration of national emergency will withstand judicial review. The law allows the president great discretion. It does not allow the president unlimited discretion. Generally, the Court has not been kind to those who abuse executive discretion. Here is an article written by professors at Trump's alma mater: scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2717&context=faculty_scholarship Anyone who thinks a National Emergency Declaration can eliminate a Constutional protection is FOS. Anyone who thinks illegal aliens enjoy the right to keep and bear arms under the 2A is full of sh*t. In fact it is illegal for illegal aliens to possess firearms within the borders of this country. Anyone who thinks illegally crossing the border is Constitutionally protected is full of sh*t. Any hack judge who tries to interfere with the executive in these matters is acting 'ultra vires' and Trump should simply flip him the bird. BUILD THE GODDAM WALL! NOW!
|
|
|
Post by sandiegopete on Feb 15, 2019 18:09:08 GMT -8
Its a national emergency!! The sky is falling!! Woe unto us!! Immediate action is required 6 weeks ago!!
Immediately after declaring a national emergency Trump left Washington to pay golf. The only emergency is Trump's slice.
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Feb 16, 2019 11:26:10 GMT -8
Its a national emergency!! The sky is falling!! Woe unto us!! Immediate action is required 6 weeks ago!! Immediately after declaring a national emergency Trump left Washington to pay golf. The only emergency is Trump's slice. Well, I don't want to frighten you, but there are currently over 30 NEDs in effect. Most are rather innocuous compared to the hostile invasion of diseased parasites, criminals, and illegal voters assaulting the southern border. The current ones are flagged in green: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Feb 16, 2019 16:33:48 GMT -8
Its a national emergency!! The sky is falling!! Woe unto us!! Immediate action is required 6 weeks ago!! Immediately after declaring a national emergency Trump left Washington to pay golf. The only emergency is Trump's slice. Well, I don't want to frighten you, but there are currently over 30 NEDs in effect. Most are rather innocuous compared to the hostile invasion of diseased parasites, criminals, and illegal voters assaulting the southern border. The current ones are flagged in green: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_StatesObvious items of note: A President declaring a national emergency is not unconstitutional if the Congress passed a law that allows it. Also, I don't know how many times Dems and MSM idiots say "but illegal border crossings are down" and can not site the cause for the temporary reduction, can not guarantee that the temporary reduction will endure, do not want to cite the percentage that now enjoy "catch and release" where they used to be deported, can not reference the comparative time period for the temporary reduction, etc., etc. It is a irrelevant argument targeting the mental capacities of their vapid electorate.
|
|
|
Post by sandiegopete on Feb 17, 2019 17:55:46 GMT -8
Obvious items of note: A President declaring a national emergency is not unconstitutional if the Congress passed a law that allows it. Also, I don't know how many times Dems and MSM idiots say "but illegal border crossings are down" and can not site the cause for the temporary reduction, can not guarantee that the temporary reduction will endure, do not want to cite the percentage that now enjoy "catch and release" where they used to be deported, can not reference the comparative time period for the temporary reduction, etc., etc. It is a irrelevant argument targeting the mental capacities of their vapid electorate.
|
|
|
Post by sandiegopete on Feb 17, 2019 17:57:32 GMT -8
It looks like the president is going to declare immigration a national emergency and take funds from other federal programs to pay for the wall. If he does as seems likely, it will result in a win-win for the Democrats. There are only 2 outcomes possible from such executive action: 1) the Court will disallow it; and 2) the Court will allow it. In the first instance the president will suffer a defeat. In the second instance the president will have set the table for a future Democrat president to use the national emergency path to circumvent the Constitution. After all, if the president can circumvent Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and determine how and what debts are to be paid then other Sections of the Constitution can be circumvented simply by the president declaring a national emergency. Such as the 2nd Amendment in a situation where the president declares gun violence a national emergency because so many foreign gangs have infiltrated the United States and are using the 2nd Amendment to arm themselves to prey on law-abiding citizens. However, I don't think the president's planed declaration of national emergency will withstand judicial review. The law allows the president great discretion. It does not allow the president unlimited discretion. Generally, the Court has not been kind to those who abuse executive discretion. Here is an article written by professors at Trump's alma mater: scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2717&context=faculty_scholarship Anyone who thinks a National Emergency Declaration can eliminate a Constutional protection is FOS. Anyone who thinks illegal aliens enjoy the right to keep and bear arms under the 2A is full of sh*t. In fact it is illegal for illegal aliens to possess firearms within the borders of this country. Anyone who thinks illegally crossing the border is Constitutionally protected is full of sh*t. Any hack judge who tries to interfere with the executive in these matters is acting 'ultra vires' and Trump should simply flip him the bird. BUILD THE GODDAM WALL! NOW!
|
|
|
Post by sandiegopete on Feb 17, 2019 18:00:39 GMT -8
I tried to make a reply to the idiotic post of davesid and it went to ptsdthor instead. Evidently davesid blocked me. Good enough. I have blocked that person.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Feb 17, 2019 23:13:18 GMT -8
I tried to make a reply to the idiotic post of davesid and it went to ptsdthor instead. Evidently davesid blocked me. Good enough. I have blocked that person. The fact that some of these racist idiots can string enough words together to try to formulate a coherent argument to make sure brown people aren’t welcome in their country is telling enough that they are not just closed-minded or ill-informed, but are in fact racist pieces of sht. I can’t wait until old age takes them and I hope each and every one of them has to grapple with their offspring loving someone much more worthy of air than they are.
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Feb 18, 2019 9:14:41 GMT -8
I tried to make a reply to the idiotic post of davesid and it went to ptsdthor instead. Evidently davesid blocked me. Good enough. I have blocked that person. The fact that some of these racist idiots can string enough words together to try to formulate a coherent argument to make sure brown people aren’t welcome in their country is telling enough that they are not just closed-minded or ill-informed, but are in fact racist pieces of sht. I can’t wait until old age takes them and I hope each and every one of them has to grapple with their offspring loving someone much more worthy of air than they are. So its Racism attributed to others based on the skin color of the voluntary participants, eh? So now you know who you are when you support Pro-Abortion laws and the Abortion industry that primarily targets African Americans. The American left/Democrats, as the primary proponent of Abortion rights, has done that, on purpose, from its philosophical beginnings. Racist pieces of sht. Margaret Sanger would be proud!
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Feb 18, 2019 11:33:37 GMT -8
I tried to make a reply to the idiotic post of davesid and it went to ptsdthor instead. Evidently davesid blocked me. Good enough. I have blocked that person. I have never blocked anyone. Not you nor anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Feb 18, 2019 11:37:01 GMT -8
I tried to make a reply to the idiotic post of davesid and it went to ptsdthor instead. Evidently davesid blocked me. Good enough. I have blocked that person. The fact that some of these racist idiots can string enough words together to try to formulate a coherent argument to make sure brown people aren’t welcome in their country is telling enough that they are not just closed-minded or ill-informed, but are in fact racist pieces of sht. I can’t wait until old age takes them and I hope each and every one of them has to grapple with their offspring loving someone much more worthy of air than they are. Nobody is welcome to enter the country illegally. But you be you....
|
|
|
Post by sandiegopete on Feb 18, 2019 13:41:43 GMT -8
Anybody who thinks a president can circumvent the provisions of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution be declaring a fake emergency is FOS.
Anybody who thinks a Supreme Court decision that allows a president to circumvent any section of the Constitution by declaring a fake emergency does not open the door for a president to circumvent all other Constitutional provisions is FOS.
Anybody who claims a significant amount of illegal drugs is carried through any area where the wall is to be built is FOS.
Anybody who claims a wall needs to be built on our Southern border is engaging in 100% political B.S.
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Feb 18, 2019 14:19:15 GMT -8
Anybody who thinks a president can circumvent the provisions of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution be declaring a fake emergency is FOS. Anybody who thinks a Supreme Court decision that allows a president to circumvent any section of the Constitution by declaring a fake emergency does not open the door for a president to circumvent all other Constitutional provisions is FOS. Anybody who claims a significant amount of illegal drugs is carried through any area where the wall is to be built is FOS. Anybody who claims a wall needs to be built on our Southern border is engaging in 100% political B.S. There is no circumvention of the Constitution. National emergencies declarations are authorized by 50 USC 1601-51. The law does not authorize any annulment of Constitutional provisions. Whether it's an emergency or not is up to the President. Not you. DoD and DHS funds have been identified which have been appropriated and can be used for various purposes including defense and border security. Trump will probably let it go through the court system, but I don't think he has to do that. And you don't know how much in the way of contraband comes across the border in unsecured areas. No one really knows. You can howl all you want to, but if a wall is going to cut into your business or fun, well, nasty break. legalinsurrection.com/2019/02/trump-border-emergency-proclamation-there-is-no-constitutional-crisis-and-trumps-likely-to-win/#more
|
|
|
Post by sandiegopete on Feb 18, 2019 16:20:15 GMT -8
Of course conservative blogger Jacobson is going to try his best to support Trump. He completely dodged the central issue: whether a president can appropriate federal funds for purposes that Congress expressly refused to fund. The Constitutional question is whether Congress can by passing a law abdicate its authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Feb 19, 2019 10:53:05 GMT -8
It will end up with SCOTUS. Let them uphold his executive order and set the precedent. Then the next Democratic President can declare a national emergency and mandate Medicare for all. Works for me.
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Feb 19, 2019 11:04:39 GMT -8
Of course conservative blogger Jacobson is going to try his best to support Trump. He completely dodged the central issue: whether a president can appropriate federal funds for purposes that Congress expressly refused to fund. The Constitutional question is whether Congress can by passing a law abdicate its authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The president did not "appropriate" any funds. The funds coming from DoD were appropriated by Congress for construction, and the funds coming from DHS were appropriated by Congress for illicit drug interdiction. If Congress disapproves of an NED, Congress can override it under the same code sections that authorizes presidents to declare them (50 USC 1601 et seqq). If you think those code sections are unconstitutional, good luck with that. They've been around since President Ford signed them into law in 1976.
|
|