Obama used the National Emergency legislation 13 times while in office. Six declarations remain in effect. As bad as I hate CNN, they got this graph right (Alpha loves graphs ). Anyway, here's something to ponder about this.
I personally think most of the push against the border barrier is from people making money off the illegals, juvenile sex trafficking, and the drug trade.
And more people died last year from Fentanyl overdose than died in the entire U.S. losses in the Vietnam War. Let that sink in........................ And most every sheriff in the 5 southernmost counties in Texas have been convicted of taking money from the drug cartels to allow illegals and drugs flow through their counties.
The fact is that Congress could end this mess with simple legislation. Anyone crossing the border illegally would be put on trial and convicted of violating immigration law. And anyone so convicted would be forever barred from entering the U.S. again, or face long prison sentence for doing so. Simple legislation.
“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer” ― Douglas Adams
The die is cast. Whether this survives judicial review or not, it's the only way President Trump could fulfill his primary campaign promise and for that alone I'm with him. Besides, the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.
If the SCOTUS agrees it's all legal, great! We get the Wall and that alone will motivate the Congress to entertain serious immigration reform. If it is struck down, I hope criminal illegal alien gang members and drug dealers move next door to everyone who opposed it. (just kidding - 2 or 3 doors down would be fine)
Nancy just wet her depends, that's good enough for me. Go Donald!
See, that's the problem. Pelosi and Schumer are not afraid of Trump. They consider themselves so elite that everyone is beneath them and they know more than everyone. They will stop at nothing to discredit Trump and that makes them more dangerous than him when he goes off in directions like this.
Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
I am not especially pleased that Trump chose this route, but let's get some objectivity into the mix. Sure, all of us here are about protecting the 2nd Amendment, and there appears to be some vulnerability here, in that regard. But does anyone doubt that the left will eventually challenge the interpretation of the 2A in court, anyway, if this radical left-wing takes over the Democrat Party?
Trump said, flat out, that the Supreme Court will eventually decide this emergency powers decision. He stated, correctly I think, that he will be sued in the Ninth Circuit, and lose. He also said that he will lose in the next appellate court, before it goes to the Supreme Court. Then, he believes he might win in the Supreme Court, but it is not a certainty, by any means. This will be a test of presidential power to declare such emergencies, and will set a precedent that future president's will have to abide by. That is not a bad thing. If he loses, he still has a chance in Congress, if the country gives him back the House and holds the Senate, should he win in 2020.
Further, if the Democrats win in 2020 and a new president declares gun violence a national emergency, the Republicans will sue in some appellate court that they deem to be Constitutionally friendly, and the Democrat suit will follow a similar path to the Supreme Court, which could have as many as six Constitutionalists ruling on a 2A issue that has been mostly agreed upon (officially speaking, that is) for over 200 years. During that circuitous path to the Supreme Court, many people will be educated on the true facts relating to gun issues, and those facts will support the RTKBA.
On the other hand, if Trump loses at the Supreme Court, we are no worse off, except that border security will remain the divisive issue it has already become, since Democrats now believe in open borders.
Pelosi's "threat" is what the democraps would do anyway, if they had a majority in congress and a demonrat president. They don't need Trump as an excuse for future actions. The latest "new deal" is an example, but they conveniently left out the part about gun bans. I guaranty this will be 1st on the list if they gain monopoly control of the government.
Well said. Some here (not you) are acting as if they hadn't the slightest clue that most Dems and RINO's are anti-gun and want to strip away our Constitutional rights. It's like watching people come out of caves and seeing sunlight for the first time.
I know there are thieves that want to steal my guns, but I don't invite them into my house, unlock my safe, and open the door so they can take them.
Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
Some of you: Turn off your televisions. You're getting a snoot full of MSM bias and fake-news panic and it appears you're falling for it.
President Trump is just spending money already appropriated by the Congress to various departments, to be spent as the need arises. Most of the money is coming from the DOD. It's is entirely within the administration's discretion to spend the money on new tires for army trucks instead of new bunks for army barracks. The Wall is as much of a national security, national defense consideration as spare parts for jets, or new furniture for the Pentagon. Spending however many billions on the Wall is neither illegal, or subversive of Constitutional intent or precedent.
To oppose this because a future progressive president might try to implement radical gun control using a declaration of national emergency is ridiculous. It's comparing apples and oranges. Trump is taking no rights away from American citizens, spending no money that hasn't been lawfully appropriated, in short, he's doing nothing illegal or wrong. After all, he's not suspending habeas corpus or rounding up Japanese-Americans or arbitrarily immunizing a million illegal aliens from prosecution. Trump is not setting any law aside by the phony-baloney ruse of prosecutorial discretion, nor is he seizing any powers not already granted the chief executive. All he's trying to do is secure the border - an obligation of any bona fide nation state.
If you're a never-Trumper, fine. To thine own self be true. But know that that sets you against legitimate authority, and aligns you with the denizens of the deep state establishment-swamp of progressives and RINOs whose policies got us into this immigration mess to begin with, and over the years has allowed it to fester and swell, and finally metastasize into a permanent and dangerous unassimilated occupation that has subverted our elections, laws and culture, victimized our people, stolen our opportunities and lifestyle, burdened our schools and hospitals, and sapped our treasury.
Let there be no confusion, the arguments against the Wall are bogus, and if you're fooling yourself with any of them, you are, by default, Nancy Pelosi's and Chucky Schumer's best friend, and, like it or not, an indirect and unintended co-conspirator with coyotes, drug cartels and sex traffickers. It's true that "they're not sending us their best."
President Trump is just spending money already appropriated by the Congress to various departments, to be spent as the need arises. Most of the money is coming from the DOD. It's is entirely within the administration's discretion to spend the money on new tires for army trucks instead of new bunks for army barracks. The Wall is as much of a national security, national defense consideration as spare parts for jets, or new furniture for the Pentagon. Spending however many billions on the Wall is neither illegal, or subversive of Constitutional intent or precedent.
If that is the case, there would be no need to declare a national emergency. The rest of your post? You seem to make a lot of general assumptions. If that is how you see the world, good for you. I can't make you open your eyes.
Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
I kind of figured we were talking about what he did. None of us or this discussion or any news sources will be consulted in court.
I figured he had the legal authority when I saw the news yesterday.
Lawyers and politicians manipulate and interpret law as a matter of strategic policy influence. This strategic manipulation and its future implications are the pervading contention here.
Failure to calculate future implications is the remaining question. In the spirit of attempted objectivity, the question in fact does remain unanswered, and will likely continue that way for some time.
All that requires is for the government to enforce laws already on the books! It Trump wanted to he could so that today by executive order by demanding ICE go after employers. No jobs, no driving force to come here.
Except a lot of illegal aliens aren't coming here for jobs. They're thugs in gangs, coming to deal in drugs, women and children. Or to have anchor babies to qualify for the benefits in our social safety net. Or, God forbid, they're terrorists.
I read the first two articles posted by Mike. The second, which is opinions provided by a number of law professors, struck me as extremely biased against Trump. The first was more objective in my opinion.
One of the sources of funding cited in the first article was seized or forfeited funds from illegal activities. If I recall, about $14 billion has been seized from El Chapo, and Ted Cruz is already pushing for that money to be used for funding the wall. If Trump were just to use that money, it seems to me he would be on perfectly legal grounds regarding the funding.
The legal challenges, though, are a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
Jerry
Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
A short video from the border you might find enlightening. I think people living on the border and dealing with the problem as it is carry more weight with their opinion on the situation than someone on the other side of the country.
NPR has been interviewing LEO people along the border all week. All claiming there's no emergency.
DW news interviewed some expert yesterday saying illegal immigration actually stimulates portions of the economy.
I don't advocate those positions or their sources. I know there's as many or more links available in our debates here citing just the opposite.
If it was up to those in diametric opposition here, we'd have portions of barrier being erected and be back to arguing over what screws are best to use for pegboard in the outhouse.
The President and his antagonists are having a power struggle. The struggle itself has eclipsed the people's business, and made the halls of legislative policy an arena of contest. We the spectators are egged on to fanatical support of our team and demonized caricature of the opposition. If it goes on long enough, someone will ask about the wall one day and hear a resounding "what?" in response.
President Trump is just spending money already appropriated by the Congress to various departments, to be spent as the need arises. Most of the money is coming from the DOD. It's is entirely within the administration's discretion to spend the money on new tires for army trucks instead of new bunks for army barracks. The Wall is as much of a national security, national defense consideration as spare parts for jets, or new furniture for the Pentagon. Spending however many billions on the Wall is neither illegal, or subversive of Constitutional intent or precedent.
If that is the case, there would be no need to declare a national emergency. The rest of your post? You seem to make a lot of general assumptions. If that is how you see the world, good for you. I can't make you open your eyes.
There are a lot of the usual breathless assertions about people needing to "open their eyes," and that "no president should have that much power," or that this is "an outrageous abuse of presidential power," etc. Those are all well-worn exclamatory phrases that don't really matter, even if they are true. Every president with any balls at all has been accused of it, and most of them were guilty, as charged. This particular one is doing nothing that the last Democrat president did not also do. It may even be why Donald Trump jumped into the presidential race, because he saw Obama getting away with it, and wanted to wield some of that amazing power, himself.
What it really is, is just another president using every tool at his disposal to overcome a lazy, dishonest, and incompetent Congress that cannot or will not do anything worthwhile. A president may be doing it for the right reasons, or he may be doing it for his own personal reasons. Historians will weigh in with their opinions, eventually, when it doesn't matter...because, after all, people only peruse the parts of history that they like, anyway.
The anti-Trumpeters conveniently ignored horselips comments on liberal icons that have done much worse. Lincoln did it when he suspended habeas corpus because he thought saving the union was more important than protecting the sovereignty of the individual states. Roosevelt did it when he imprisoned American citizens of Japanese descent, because public opinion seemed to demand it. Obama did it because Congress was gridlocked and wouldn't pass his agenda. Now Trump is doing it for the same reason, but since he is an ****, it has to be terribly wrong.
Here is a fact - all presidents will do it, if they think they can get away with it, for two reasons. (1) they are sure that the solution they have decided on will succeed, and that their political opposition will wither away, once the public sees that it has succeeded, or (2) the media will protect them by changing the subject before the rhetoric gets out of hand and the lynch mobs start to form.
If you really think about it, why would anybody want to walk through the fires of hell to get elected president, if they didn't intend to wield the power? We are playing with fire, every time we elect anyone that actually wants this job, in the current environment.
I didn't ignore those comments. I figured he had this authority as soon as I heard the news.
Presidential candidates are not characterised in perception with altruistic motives. Its big profitable and powerful business including liberal neocon office holders.
Realistically, the debate at this point centers not on this being a stratagem of contention. It becomes a question of is this issue worthy of this stratagey and it's future consequences??? Of course the media focus remains on the former, but in my mind its already done.
Even the back and forth of the necessity of the wall becomes somewhat irrelevant in light of missed opportunity to execute barrier construction without the extravagant show to accompany it.
NPR has been interviewing LEO people along the border all week. All claiming there's no emergency.
DW news interviewed some expert yesterday saying illegal immigration actually stimulates portions of the economy.
I don't advocate those positions or their sources. I know there's as many or more links available in our debates here citing just the opposite.
If it was up to those in diametric opposition here, we'd have portions of barrier being erected and be back to arguing over what screws are best to use for pegboard in the outhouse.
The President and his antagonists are having a power struggle. The struggle itself has eclipsed the people's business, and made the halls of legislative policy an arena of contest. We the spectators are egged on to fanatical support of our team and demonized caricature of the opposition. If it goes on long enough, someone will ask about the wall one day and hear a resounding "what?" in response.
"The President and his antagonists are having a power struggle".
It is more like a literal "Mexican Standoff"! Compromise is not an option. POTUS not only has legal authority concerning immigration but the responsibility to use it if necessary.
US CODE-2011-title8-chap12-subchapII-partII-sec1182
Even the back and forth of the necessity of the wall becomes somewhat irrelevant in light of missed opportunity to execute barrier construction without the extravagant show to accompany it.
With regard to the "extravagant show," I assume you mean the speech at El Paso, in which Trump made his case for declaring the emergency?
I am not an authority on how to properly compete against a media whose 'news' reports and comments are over 90% negative about Donald Trump, all day, every day. But I am sure that he uses that venue, as well as social media, to try to offset that. Whether or not that is the reason that he somehow manages to keep his head above water on the 'approval ratings,' I can't say.
I have already given my opinion on whether declaring an emergency is the correct strategy, and whether the political consequences will be any different because of it. To be more clear about it, I will simply say that I don't think it is the best strategy, but I also don't think it will have dire consequences for Republicans, down the road.
The reason it was a close call (for me) on whether to do it, is that no border security bill would have been allowed by a Democrat controlled House, without the shutdown threat being present. There will be no further border security bills allowed in the House, from here on out. Basically, this was the last bill of any consequence that will be passed in the House, except for the party line bills like the "New Green Deal," which are DOA when they go to the Senate. The remainder of this Congressional term will be nothing but political posturing on both sides, because neither side will support the other. Surely you will agree on that point.
If you accept my analysis of that, the emergency declaration does make more sense, from a purely pragmatic (but not political) point of view. Whatever the Supreme Court eventually rules, it will set a standard for the use of that presidential power, and for what tests have to be met by anyone who challenges it.
In my opinion, it will favor constitutional integrity, whichever way it goes in the SC. Even if the court upholds the order, the next emergency that is declared by any president, will still have to meet the criteria given by the court for upholding this one, and that is a good standard. To me, it means that Democrats will have to prove that man-made global warming is an emergency, or that guns are capable of randomly jumping out of the underwear drawer and killing innocent children.
The Sunday morning news shows are having a field day with this. If Trump wants some interpretive media influence, he's got it now, even more contrary to him than before.
It does seem that time will shift the spotlight and diminish this executive action to the scope of a future footnote. We'll see.
The Sunday morning news shows are having a field day with this. If Trump wants some interpretive media influence, he's got it now, even more contrary to him than before.
It does seem that time will shift the spotlight and diminish this executive action to the scope of a future footnote. We'll see.
I watched Fox News Sunday. I found Miller's Tap Dancing routine repetitive and boring. Wallace finally going full rabid liberal was much more entertaining.
Replies
― Douglas Adams
If the SCOTUS agrees it's all legal, great! We get the Wall and that alone will motivate the Congress to entertain serious immigration reform.
If it is struck down, I hope criminal illegal alien gang members and drug dealers move next door to everyone who opposed it. (just kidding - 2 or 3 doors down would be fine)
There IS a legal precedent for that.
I know there are thieves that want to steal my guns, but I don't invite them into my house, unlock my safe, and open the door so they can take them.
President Trump is just spending money already appropriated by the Congress to various departments, to be spent as the need arises. Most of the money is coming from the DOD. It's is entirely within the administration's discretion to spend the money on new tires for army trucks instead of new bunks for army barracks. The Wall is as much of a national security, national defense consideration as spare parts for jets, or new furniture for the Pentagon. Spending however many billions on the Wall is neither illegal, or subversive of Constitutional intent or precedent.
To oppose this because a future progressive president might try to implement radical gun control using a declaration of national emergency is ridiculous. It's comparing apples and oranges. Trump is taking no rights away from American citizens, spending no money that hasn't been lawfully appropriated, in short, he's doing nothing illegal or wrong. After all, he's not suspending habeas corpus or rounding up Japanese-Americans or arbitrarily immunizing a million illegal aliens from prosecution. Trump is not setting any law aside by the phony-baloney ruse of prosecutorial discretion, nor is he seizing any powers not already granted the chief executive. All he's trying to do is secure the border - an obligation of any bona fide nation state.
If you're a never-Trumper, fine. To thine own self be true. But know that that sets you against legitimate authority, and aligns you with the denizens of the deep state establishment-swamp of progressives and RINOs whose policies got us into this immigration mess to begin with, and over the years has allowed it to fester and swell, and finally metastasize into a permanent and dangerous unassimilated occupation that has subverted our elections, laws and culture, victimized our people, stolen our opportunities and lifestyle, burdened our schools and hospitals, and sapped our treasury.
Let there be no confusion, the arguments against the Wall are bogus, and if you're fooling yourself with any of them, you are, by default, Nancy Pelosi's and Chucky Schumer's best friend, and, like it or not, an indirect and unintended co-conspirator with coyotes, drug cartels and sex traffickers. It's true that "they're not sending us their best."
― Douglas Adams
― Douglas Adams
I figured he had the legal authority when I saw the news yesterday.
Lawyers and politicians manipulate and interpret law as a matter of strategic policy influence. This strategic manipulation and its future implications are the pervading contention here.
Failure to calculate future implications is the remaining question. In the spirit of attempted objectivity, the question in fact does remain unanswered, and will likely continue that way for some time.
I read the first two articles posted by Mike. The second, which is opinions provided by a number of law professors, struck me as extremely biased against Trump. The first was more objective in my opinion.
One of the sources of funding cited in the first article was seized or forfeited funds from illegal activities. If I recall, about $14 billion has been seized from El Chapo, and Ted Cruz is already pushing for that money to be used for funding the wall. If Trump were just to use that money, it seems to me he would be on perfectly legal grounds regarding the funding.
The legal challenges, though, are a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
― Douglas Adams
DW news interviewed some expert yesterday saying illegal immigration actually stimulates portions of the economy.
I don't advocate those positions or their sources. I know there's as many or more links available in our debates here citing just the opposite.
If it was up to those in diametric opposition here, we'd have portions of barrier being erected and be back to arguing over what screws are best to use for pegboard in the outhouse.
The President and his antagonists are having a power struggle. The struggle itself has eclipsed the people's business, and made the halls of legislative policy an arena of contest. We the spectators are egged on to fanatical support of our team and demonized caricature of the opposition. If it goes on long enough, someone will ask about the wall one day and hear a resounding "what?" in response.
Presidential candidates are not characterised in perception with altruistic motives. Its big profitable and powerful business including liberal neocon office holders.
Realistically, the debate at this point centers not on this being a stratagem of contention. It becomes a question of is this issue worthy of this stratagey and it's future consequences??? Of course the media focus remains on the former, but in my mind its already done.
Even the back and forth of the necessity of the wall becomes somewhat irrelevant in light of missed opportunity to execute barrier construction without the extravagant show to accompany it.
"The President and his antagonists are having a power struggle".
It is more like a literal "Mexican Standoff"! Compromise is not an option. POTUS not only has legal authority concerning immigration but the responsibility to use it if necessary.
US CODE-2011-title8-chap12-subchapII-partII-sec1182
It does seem that time will shift the spotlight and diminish this executive action to the scope of a future footnote. We'll see.
I watched Fox News Sunday. I found Miller's Tap Dancing routine repetitive and boring. Wallace finally going full rabid liberal was much more entertaining.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/answer-my-question-fox-news-host-grills-defiant-stephen-miller-on-trumps-national-emergency/ar-BBTIRu9?li=BBnb7Kz