The "National Emergency" Thread

[B-Man]

[row_33]

20 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

I love how everyone on the left is suddenly a Constitutional scholar.

 

They are always very bitter and always very resentful

 

 

[Koko78]

4 minutes ago, row_33 said:

They are always very bitter and always very resentful

 

Not to mention very wrong.

[Teddy KGB]

Dedicate this one to tibs ???

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

How Congress and President Obama Made Trump’s Wall Possible
 

Throughout the 2016 election, Donald Trump campaigned for president on the promise that he would build a wall along the southern border. Six weeks after his election in November 2016, Congress overwhelmingly passed a statute—codified as 10 U.S.C § 284—that authorized the secretary of defense to support the “construction of roads and fences and installation of lighting to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States.” On Dec. 23, 2016, a month before leaving office, President Obama signed the 973-page bill into law without any objection to this provision.
 

Today, the Trump administration has invoked this express statutory delegation of authority to do what the statute says: “construct ... fences ... across international boundaries of the United States.” Specifically, the president identified up to $2.5 billion under the Department of Defense funds that were designated for counterdrug activities.  This provision does not turn on the declaration of a national emergency pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 2808, which the president also invoked in a proclamation issued today. Critically, the White House stated that “these funding sources will be used sequentially and as needed.” The “emergency” funds may not be tapped till the other, less controversial funds are depleted. Plaintiffs may not have standing to challenge the diversion of “emergency” funds till those funds are in fact allocated. Through § 284, both Houses of Congress willingly gave President Trump a path to build at least part of the wall.
 

</snip>

[IDBillzFan]

10 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

This is about the place where AOC jumps in to say that being against the wall doesn't make her an anti-Semonite.

[row_33]

59 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Not to mention very wrong.

 

They watch sports just to get upset when they think a ref has missed a call, ignoring everything else

 

[Koko78]

21 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

This is about the place where AOC jumps in to say that being against the wall doesn't make her an anti-Semonite.

 

I'm thinking AOC is going to go more along the lines of it being too expensive and we just don't have the money for it. She's that tone deaf and stupid.

[Nanker]

1 hour ago, row_33 said:

 

They are always very bitter and always very resentful

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Koko78 said:

 

Not to mention very wrong.

 

And envious and greedy.

27 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

This is about the place where AOC jumps in to say that being against the wall doesn't make her an anti-Semenite.

I think she has a boyfriend though... 

5 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

I'm thinking AOC is going to go more along the lines of it being too expensive and we just don't have the money for it. She's that tone deaf and stupid.

She will probably say the money for the wall (all of it) should be used to fund high speed trains across the Great Lakes. 

Think of the prosperity that will bring! 

[HamSandwhich]

3 hours ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

From that WSJ piece above. A Pres­i­dent’s au­thor­ity is at its peak when he acts with the sup­port of Con­gress. It is some­what weaker if he acts on his own but Con­gress hasn’t spo­ken. But a Pres­i­dent’s power is “at its low­est ebb,” [quoting Justice Jackson from SCOTUS],when “the Pres­i­dent takes mea­sures in­com­pat­i­ble with the ex­pressed or im­plied will of Con­gress.”

 

Such is the clear case here. 

One justice, how many justices are there? 

[KD in CA]

12 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

I mean...there's a discussion that can be had about whether or not the situation at the border constitutes a "national emergency," or whether it's a greater national emergency than this. 

 

Maybe Obama was concerned about the hats

 

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/1d933ff9-e704-4c39-a39e-28f26c7c5ec5

[grinreaper]

12 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

I'm thinking AOC is going to go more along the lines of it being too expensive and we just don't have the money for it. She's that tone deaf and stupid.

Let's use the money NYS & NYC were going to give to Amazon.

 

Maybe we can get Amazon to pull out of a deal in say, Chicago and use that giveaway too.

 

Economics is easy.

[DC Tom]

3 hours ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

From that WSJ piece above. A Pres­i­dent’s au­thor­ity is at its peak when he acts with the sup­port of Con­gress. It is some­what weaker if he acts on his own but Con­gress hasn’t spo­ken. But a Pres­i­dent’s power is “at its low­est ebb,” [quoting Justice Jackson from SCOTUS],when “the Pres­i­dent takes mea­sures in­com­pat­i­ble with the ex­pressed or im­plied will of Con­gress.”

 

Such is the clear case here. 

 

The expressed will of Congress was to give the President powers to command the US military to take measures to combat drug smuggling, and to give him the power to declare a national emergency to fund those measures.  Those are the laws that Congress passed.

 

No amount of editorial moralizing changes that.  The only thing that will is Democratic venue-shopping for a friendly judge - and don't forget, Trump's been stacking the courts with literalists who actually read the laws that Congress passed, and don't moralize over them.

[Nanker]

21 hours ago, Crayola64 said:

 

I don’t think we are disagreeing on this.  My point was that if you took aid to illegal immigrants out of the equation, I’d be shocked if that money went to aid the homeless.  

What? You don't believe in the AOC model? Why money (in the form of taxes) not collected (deferred for several years) is the foundation of economic prosperity when the government then actually spends it (the non-existent cash) in a manner the Left adores. e.g., Amazon got a government coupon, now the Left wants to use the money that coupon represents to spend that amount in real money. 

 

21 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Maybe not. I'm pointing out the ease in which illegals get funding and protections pushed through the same city legislature that hesitates to do the same for it's own citizens, who are every bit as endangered or vulnerable as the illegals. But because of the nature of the programming in this country, "we MUST help the illegals!" gets voted quickly and passed for over a billion dollars while a similar bill to help homeless citizens is allowed to be debated and killed in committee rather than voted on. 

 

...And CNN/MSNBC/KTLA won't run story after story about how the city voted down protections/aid for homeless people. Yet they do and would if the same was done to the bill(s) to protect illegals. 

 

The priorities are clear: illegals come before our own homeless citizens in the eyes of the DNC in California (and nationally). 

 

Why?

 

Votes.

 

The Demi Citizens vote? I thought that was illegal. But to a Dem, no vote is illegal unless it's for a Republican.

 

20 hours ago, Jauronimo said:

If you did a modicum of research you might understand how illegal border crossings occur in the areas that are not covered by existing walls. But you haven't and yet you want to be taken seriously.  I'll give you a ***** hint, there aren't 5 lane super highways running across the Sonoran and Rio Grande which the border patrol simply doesn't know about.

 

If it can help "even 1" is the most asinine argument possible.  "Spend billions on a problem because if it helps even one person, isn't it worth it?" 

 

Please! Think of the Children! If just one child is saved, it's worth it. [/#ANTIGUNRANTERS]

 

 

 

[BeginnersMind]

3 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

The Commander in Chief... which means the President has an obligation to secure our borders.

Again, serious questions for the open border crowd in this thread: do you have a door on your house? Do you have walls in your house? Does your house or HOA have a barrier? If someone walked into your home uninvited, would you call the police? If you have answered "yes" to any of these questions why are you against securing our national border against people who would come into the United State illegally? 

 

Your questions are irrelevant to me. If a wall makes the most sense, I’m not against spending a measeley 6B to do it. 

 

But I am vehemently against extreme presidential overreach. 

[Teddy KGB]

5 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

But I am vehemently against extreme presidential overreach. 

 

When did that start ?   Can you write us a poem about it ? 

[BeginnersMind]

7 minutes ago, Teddy KGB said:

 

When did that start ?  

 

Never said anything differently. 

[BeginnersMind]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

The expressed will of Congress was to give the President powers to command the US military to take measures to combat drug smuggling, and to give him the power to declare a national emergency to fund those measures.  Those are the laws that Congress passed.

 

No amount of editorial moralizing changes that.  The only thing that will is Democratic venue-shopping for a friendly judge - and don't forget, Trump's been stacking the courts with literalists who actually read the laws that Congress passed, and don't moralize over them.

 

It’s not that simple in this case and even you know it. Congress is responsible for spending in the Constitution. They just decided not to spend on this. 

 

First we will see if the Senate wants to check this move. Then we will see if the Supremes do. It will set an interesting precedent. But the tide from both the left, for whom it is currently convenient, and the right, who may see the problems in the future, could finally be high enough to push back on the extension of the executive. 

 

Next we can go after the commerce clause and it’s gross overextension. 

 

The building of the wall is not a high priority for either party from a practical santdpoint. The money is not that much and the Rs had time to get this done before if it was urgent. 

Edited February 16, 2019 by BeginnersMind

[grinreaper]

I came across this group of women who are presently protecting guys like you and me and The_Dude. I feel very safe in their arms.

 

https://thechive.com/2019/02/16/beautiful-badasses-in-and-out-of-uniform-7/

 

 

[Foxx]

1 hour ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Your questions are irrelevant to me. If a wall makes the most sense, I’m not against spending a measeley 6B to do it. 

 

But I am vehemently against extreme presidential overreach. 

lol! irrelevant he said.

side steps questions asked of him and proceeds to create his strawman.

[BeginnersMind]

4 minutes ago, Foxx said:

lol! irrelevant he said.

side steps questions asked of him and proceeds to create his strawman.

 

She asked mostly rhetorical questions. And I support sensible border protection steps including a wall. The price is low. The impact seems overstated but if it’s a good way to spend the money so be it. 

 

The Congress, however, couldn’t pass it. They couldn’t even compromise. 

 

So im against the president then making up an emergency to override Congress’s spending authority...that it just used not to build the wall. 

 

Extreme oresidential overreach wasnt a strawman when Obama did it, and he did it more. And it’s not a strawman now. 

 

You might be a strawman though.

Edited February 16, 2019 by BeginnersMind

[Foxx]

4 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

She asked mostly rhetorical questions. And I support sensible border protection steps including a wall. The price is low. The impact seems overstated but if it’s a good way to spend the money so be it. 

 

The Congress, however, couldn’t pass it. They couldn’t even compromise. 

 

So im against the president then making up an emergency to override Congress’s spending authority...that it just used not to build the wall. 

 

Extreme oresidential overreach wasnt a strawman when Obama did it, and he did it more. And it’s not a strawman now. 

 

You might be a strawman though.

what do you think about 9/11?

 

[BeginnersMind]

6 minutes ago, Foxx said:

what do you think about 9/11?

 

 

AQ trained terrorists crashed planes in NY and DC. When some of the NY buildings fell they damaged other buildings. And they had another plane on the way but it was taken down by heroic Americans like you and me.  

 

You?

Edited February 16, 2019 by BeginnersMind

[bilzfancy]

27 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

She asked mostly rhetorical questions. And I support sensible border protection steps including a wall. The price is low. The impact seems overstated but if it’s a good way to spend the money so be it. 

 

The Congress, however, couldn’t pass it. They couldn’t even compromise. 

 

So im against the president then making up an emergency to override Congress’s spending authority...that it just used not to build the wall. 

 

Extreme oresidential overreach wasnt a strawman when Obama did it, and he did it more. And it’s not a strawman now. 

 

You might be a strawman though.

I can actually agree with this, take the 1.5 billion, start the wall and try again in September 

[/dev/null]

34 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

You might be a strawman though.

 

[B-Man]

Excellent explanation of who/what to be upset with if you don’t like emergency declaration. . . . Everyone should read.

 

Why Trump will win the wall fight

by Jonathan Turley

 

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, “If my fellow citizens want to go to hell, I will help them. It is my job.” He was expressing the limited role of courts in challenges to federal law. It is not the task of judges to sit as a super legislature to question the agendas of the political branches. They will gladly send Congress to hell. It only needs to point to the destination.

 

In the matter of the border wall, Congress could not have been more clear where it was heading. It put itself on the path to institutional irrelevancy, and it has finally arrived. I do not agree there is a national emergency on the southern border, but I do believe President Trump will prevail. This crisis is not the making of Donald Trump. This is the making of Congress.

 

For decades, Congress frittered away control over its authority, including the power of the purse. I have testified before Congress, warning about the expansion of executive power and the failure of Congress to guard its own authority. The two primary objections have been Congress giving presidents largely unchecked authority and undedicated money. The wall funding controversy today is a grotesque result of both of these failures.

 

Start with the National Emergencies Act of 1976. Presidents have long declared emergencies based on their inherent executive authority. The use of that authority produced some conflicts with Congress, the most famous seen in the case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company versus Charles Sawyer, in which the Supreme Court declared that the federal seizure of steel mills during the Korean War was unconstitutional because Congress had never granted President Truman that authority.

 

However, Congress later gave presidents sweeping authority under the National Emergencies Act of 1976. While this law allows for a legislative override by Congress, the authority to declare national emergencies is basically unfettered. It is one of many such laws where Congress created the thin veneer of a process for presidential power that, in reality, was a virtual blank slate. At the same time, Congress has continued to give the executive branch billions of dollars with few conditions or limitations.

 

That is why President Obama was able not only to go to war in Libya without a declaration but to fund the entire war from billions of undedicated funds. At the time, neither House Speaker Nancy Pelosi nor most of the current Democratic leadership made a peep of objection. Democrats have indicated they will rely on the ruling in House of Representatives versus Sylvia Burwell, in which a court not only ruled that the House of Representatives had standing to sue over executive overreach but that Obama violated the Constitution in ordering the payment of billions to insurance companies without authorization from Congress.

 

I was the lead counsel for the House of Representatives in that case. Ironically, Pelosi vehemently opposed the litigation as a frivolous and unfounded challenge to presidential authority. We won. Superficially, the Burwell case may look like the current controversy. Obama sought funds from Congress and, when unsuccessful, acted unilaterally. The difference is that Obama ordered the money directly from the Treasury as a permanent appropriation, like the money used annually to pay tax refunds. Congress never approved such payments.

 

Conversely, Trump is using appropriated funds. Like the authority under the National Emergencies Act, Congress gave this money to the executive branch without meaningful limits. Trump now has more than $1.3 billion in newly approved funds for border protection. He has identified about $8 billion in loosely dedicated funds for military construction, drug interdiction, and forfeitures. Even if a court disagreed with the use of some of this money, Trump has the authority and funds to start major construction of the wall.

 

Congress has yielded more and more power to the executive branch over decades. In many areas, it has reduced the legislative branch to a mere pedestrian in government, leaving real governing decisions to a kind of “fourth branch” of federal agencies. For their part, presidents have become more and more bold in circumventing Congress. When Obama gave a State of the Union address proclaiming his intention to circumvent Congress after it failed to pass immigration and other measures, Democrats applauded rapturously.

 

Many of them, like Pelosi, denounce this unilateral action by Trump yet ecstatically supported the unilateral actions by Obama, including his funding of critical parts of the Affordable Care Act after Congress denied any funds. Democrats insist Trump can be challenged on his use of emergency authority since they do not believe an emergency exists on the border. They will fail in spectacular fashion if the case gets to the Supreme Court. While the source of funding can be challenged, there is no compelling basis to challenge the declaration itself.

 

The reason? Congress has never been particularly concerned over past declared emergencies, which have continued with perfunctory annual renewals. Most such emergencies are entirely unknown to the vast majority of Americans. Indeed, the first proclamation of a national emergency occurred under President Wilson in 1917, “arising from the insufficiency of maritime tonnage to carry the products of the farms, forests, mines, and manufacturing industries of the United States.”

 

MUCH more at the link: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/430335-why-trump-will-win-the-wall-fight

 

 

 

.

[Buffalo_Gal]

47 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

She asked mostly rhetorical questions. And I support sensible border protection steps including a wall. The price is low. The impact seems overstated but if it’s a good way to spend the money so be it. 

 

The Congress, however, couldn’t pass it. They couldn’t even compromise. 

 

So im against the president then making up an emergency to override Congress’s spending authority...that it just used not to build the wall. 

 

Extreme oresidential overreach wasnt a strawman when Obama did it, and he did it more. And it’s not a strawman now. 

 

You might be a strawman though.

Forgive me if they seemed rhetorical, they were not. They were meant to be introspective. If you answered yes to any/all of those questions, how can you (open border people) be opposed to a wall/barrier at our national borders? 

Trump declared a national emergency to get things done faster. There is (approximately) $21B available to build a wall/barrier, and even the 9th circle ruled in the administrations favor for eminent domain. 

President Trump released this yesterday: Statement by President   along with a buncha other White House statements you might be interested in.






 

[IDBillzFan]

2 hours ago, Teddy KGB said:

 

When did that start ?   Can you write us a poem about it ? 

 

Once upon a midnight dreary

While I sit, Obama-weary...

[Foxx]

5 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Forgive me if they seemed rhetorical, they were not. They were meant to be introspective. If you answered yes to any/all of those questions, how can you (open border people) be opposed to a wall/barrier at our national borders? 

Trump declared a national emergency to get things done faster. There is (approximately) $21B available to build a wall/barrier, and even the 9th circle ruled in the administrations favor for eminent domain. 

President Trump released this yesterday: Statement by President   along with a buncha other White House statements you might be interested in.
 

he won't answer because if he did, he would have to admit that you are correct. he can't do that as his paradigm might crumble if he has to be truthful with himself.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Foxx

[KD in CA]

5 hours ago, Koko78 said:

I love how everyone on the left is suddenly a Constitutional scholar.

 

And a budget hawk.

[grinreaper]

For those of you hating on the wall because all the interdictions are happening at ports of entry, ponder this:

 

Walls will force a lot, most, nearly all people, drugs and sex slaves to try to gain entrance to our country through our ports of entry where we have a much higher chance of discovering them.

 

Can anyone argue (successfully) against this?

[Koko78]

27 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Once upon a midnight dreary

While I sit, Obama-weary...

 

Quoth the Raven: MAGAmore!

[row_33]

Trump wins again 

[Buffalo_Gal]

This is a good thread on "where the money is coming from" before a nickel of the "emergency money" is touched (although he does say "begin" when the wall/barrier has been already started):
 

 

[Thurmal34]

wondering what the reaction will be when the next prez declares a "national emergency" and then immediately admits on camera there is no emergency.

 

/popcorn

[Deranged Rhino]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-by-the-president-28/

[BeginnersMind]

15 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Forgive me if they seemed rhetorical, they were not. They were meant to be introspective. If you answered yes to any/all of those questions, how can you (open border people) be opposed to a wall/barrier at our national borders? 

Trump declared a national emergency to get things done faster. There is (approximately) $21B available to build a wall/barrier, and even the 9th circle ruled in the administrations favor for eminent domain. 

President Trump released this yesterday: Statement by President   along with a buncha other White House statements you might be interested in.






 

 

You make the same mistake again calling me a “you (open border people).”

 

I will say it again. We need secure borders. If a wall works best in some areas, build a wall. If fencing is a good decision in others, build a fence. If there’s an area almost never used, maybe electronically surveil it.

 

What I have said is that the shutdown was not worth this. Ds and Rs need to work together. This is a problem, not a national emergency. And  presidential overreach is a bigger problem. 

 

You may may disagree with some or all of my points. But the constant refrain that anyone who wants dialog on this and isn’t in lockstep with a wall is an “open border” advocate is too simple. With the exception of Tiberius, I haven’t seen one person here support an open border. 

[BeginnersMind]

15 hours ago, Foxx said:

he won't answer because if he did, he would have to admit that you are correct. he can't do that as his paradigm might crumble if he has to be truthful with himself.

 

You want me to answer if I have a wall with doors? And if I answer my paradigm might crumble? This is the logic of your argument?

 

If we extend the stupid house comparison, let me ask you some other questions. Do you have windows that can be broken with trivial work and allow an intruder in? Do you have windows, ie holes, all over your house through which anyone can enter with almost no effort? Can any human with a simple prybar open any door in your home?

 

The analogy is silly. Our border can be breached, as can our home. That’s not an argument for a wall. It’s an argument for sensible steps, within a budget, to minimize negative impact. 

 

Chanting “build the wall” is not how we govern and it’s not problem solving. It’s just mob thinking. 

[BeginnersMind]

16 hours ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

AQ trained terrorists crashed planes in NY and DC. When some of the NY buildings fell they damaged other buildings. And they had another plane on the way but it was taken down by heroic Americans like you and me.  

 

You?

 

How to make you all run and hide 101. 

[4merper4mer]

25 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

You make the same mistake again calling me a “you (open border people).”

 

I will say it again. We need secure borders. If a wall works best in some areas, build a wall. If fencing is a good decision in others, build a fence. If there’s an area almost never used, maybe electronically surveil it.

 

What I have said is that the shutdown was not worth this. Ds and Rs need to work together. This is a problem, not a national emergency. And  presidential overreach is a bigger problem. 

 

You may may disagree with some or all of my points. But the constant refrain that anyone who wants dialog on this and isn’t in lockstep with a wall is an “open border” advocate is too simple. With the exception of Tiberius, I haven’t seen one person here support an open border. 

And yet an open border is what we have to go with the dialogue you desire.  That dialogue is about 40 years old.