BeginnersMind Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 (edited) 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 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? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilzfancy Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 34 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said: You might be a strawman though. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 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 . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 (edited) 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 5 hours ago, Koko78 said: I love how everyone on the left is suddenly a Constitutional scholar. And a budget hawk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 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? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 27 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: Once upon a midnight dreary While I sit, Obama-weary... Quoth the Raven: MAGAmore! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 Trump wins again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 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): 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurmal34 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-by-the-president-28/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts