The "National Emergency" Thread

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

BUT THE NARRATIVE: 

 

Obama’s Border Patrol Chief Says Trump Isn’t Making Up Border Emergency.

 

 

He blames the issue on "identity politics?"

 

 

Gee.

 

So odd.

 

Dems are usually so honest and straight forward with their assessment of things.

 

[#34fan]

On ‎2‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 11:10 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

Surveillance and detection are included. But, "muh talking points"

 

Not a single original thought. Just regurgitating partisan talking points because that's all 34 is capable of. 

 

Kudos to the right for originality!

 

Even back in 1165 A.D. when this sort of idea was popular, any moron with a shovel or a rope ladder could have figured out a wall.

 

[Foxx]

https://twitter.com/POTUSPress/status/1097683878582632448

 

[Nanker]

On 2/16/2019 at 2:29 AM, Doc Brown said:

Yup.  He's often his own worst enemy (the Lester Holt interview after firing Comey is the perfect example).  I don't recall a president proclaiming a national emergency because Congress (who has the power of the purse) refused to fund one of his policy goals.  If he declared a national emergency his first week on the job to build a border wall citing serious problems like human trafficking, drug smuggling, etc... it would make his case stronger.  However, signing multiple spending bills without wall funding when Republicans had the majority in both Houses makes his case for a national emergency at this time dubious.

 

It's worth pointing out that we'd never be at this juncture if both parties over the years kept kicking the can down the road when it came to the problem of illegal immigration.

Congress has abdicated their responsibility for decades to craft and pass a budget to fund the running of the government. 

Instead we get these horseshit string of contuing resolutions that fund sectors of the government. 

 

No POTUS can sign a bill or budget that isn’t presented to them. None of the CR’s he previously signed had anything to do with the DHS which is where the wall funding item resides. 

 

Most of our representatives in Washington believe their Job One is to get re-elected. They don’t want to be held accountable by getting skin in the game on controversial, thorny, and tough issues like immigration reform, Social Security, and Medicare reform. 

The last politician with the intelligence and gravitas to tackle a thorn bush like this was Senator Moynihan’s reform of Social Security. There are no players on the stage now that come close to being his peer. 

 

The he above might be a repost. 

 

With at least 10,000,000 people here illegally and some say as many as 30,000,000 and there are people who don’t think this is a national emergency? I agree. It’s a national CRISIS. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 hour ago, Foxx said:

https://twitter.com/POTUSPress/status/1097683878582632448

 

States can now dictate how federal funds are allocated?

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Foxx]

[Tiberius]

Is Trump's national emergency and border wall thing "Constitutional"?

 

How about the Libertarians on here? Let's here it. Yes or No

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Is Trump's national emergency and border wall thing the National Emergency Act "Constitutional"?

 

How about the Libertarians on here? Let's here it. Yes or No

 

Fixed it for you, you raving ****head.

 

Trump's emergency declaration is legal under current law.  Current law justifying it is unconstitutional.  The best thing that could come out of this is striking down the NEA.  What will likely come out of it is validating it, because dumbasses like you can't differentiate law from executive action.  Know the difference, you ***** turnip.

[Tiberius]

Will be interesting (sickening) to see how Gorchesch, Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh argue against this:

Quote

As a result, they allege:

Defendants have violated the United States Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine by taking executive action to fund a border wall for which Congress has refused to appropriate funding. The 2019 Appropriations Act is an explicit denial of the President’s requested funding for a border wall. Defendants have further violated the separation of powers doctrine—specifically the Presentment Clause—by unilaterally diverting funding that Congress already appropriated for other purposes to fund a border wall for which Congress has provided no appropriations. . . . Congress has not authorized or appropriated the funding that President Trump has declared he will use towards the construction of a border wall. Defendants have therefore violated the Appropriations Clause by funding construction of the border wall with funds that were not appropriated for that purpose.

 

 

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

Fixed it for you, you raving ****head.

 

Trump's emergency declaration is legal under current law.  Current law justifying it is unconstitutional.  The best thing that could come out of this is striking down the NEA.  What will likely come out of it is validating it, because dumbasses like you can't differentiate law from executive action.  Know the difference, you ***** turnip.

So it's unconstitutional, thanks.

 

You sound like you have a really bad hangover again. Maybe try drinking it off...again

[B-Man]

 

 

.

[Koko78]

9 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

.

 

Eh, the suit by the various states shouldn't last long. They're trying to manufacture standing by complaining about the loss of money for their respective National Guard units for drug intervention, which has two really big problems:

 

1.) Federal law pretty clearly allows Trump the discretion to move the money around; and

2.) The national emergency declaration wasn't necessary for Trump to move that money around.

 

The suit involving the Texas property owners, as well as the possibility of the House filing suit, is a bit more interesting from an Article III standing argument, but I don't see the courts intervening in what is a clearly a national security/political branch issue. It simply is not for the Courts to decide what constitutes a national emergency.

 

I wonder if the national emergency declaration is nothing more than a distraction to keep the liberals chasing their tails in court.

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Eh, the suit by the various states shouldn't last long. They're trying to manufacture standing by complaining about the loss of money for their respective National Guard units for drug intervention, which has two really big problems:

 

1.) Federal law pretty clearly allows Trump the discretion to move the money around; and

2.) The national emergency declaration wasn't necessary for Trump to move that money around.

 

The suit involving the Texas property owners, as well as the possibility of the House filing suit, is a bit more interesting from an Article III standing argument, but I don't see the courts intervening in what is a clearly a national security/political branch issue. It simply is not for the Courts to decide what constitutes a national emergency.

 

I wonder if the national emergency declaration is nothing more than a distraction to keep the liberals chasing their tails in court.

 

That's what it seems like to me.

[Deranged Rhino]

[row_33]

Roberts will vote as Nancy tells him to

[Hedge]

53 minutes ago, row_33 said:

Roberts will vote as Nancy tells him to

 

I don't think Roberts cares about Nancy's opinions at all. There are heads higher up the totem pole.

[Tiberius]

8 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

.

The scumbag everyone said was a partisan hack? Ya, we remember him. Gees, he even looks drunk in that pic.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

[bilzfancy]

16 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Is Trump's national emergency and border wall thing "Constitutional"?

 

How about the Libertarians on here? Let's here it. Yes or No

Was it unconstitutional when Barry Soetoro sent Iran 150 billion without congressional approval? Of course that money went to fund terrorism, now doesn't that make him complicit? 

[3rdnlng]

23 minutes ago, bilzfancy said:

Was it unconstitutional when Barry Soetoro sent Iran 150 billion without congressional approval? Of course that money went to fund terrorism, now doesn't that make him complicit? 

To be fair, Obama sent the Mullahs 1.5 billion in cash, but released 150 billion of Iran's own money to them. I wouldn't have done either but that's just me.