Deranged Rhino Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 https://mobile.twitter.com/esaagar/status/1102256851939409920 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: https://mobile.twitter.com/esaagar/status/1102256851939409920 But it's "not an emergency" ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 4, 2019 Author Share Posted March 4, 2019 Quote “Sen. Rand Paul will vote to disapprove of President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration to secure billions for his border wall, clinching a bipartisan majority in opposition of the president’s move.” https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/03/rand-paul-trump-national-emergency-1200372 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 3 minutes ago, Tiberius said: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/03/rand-paul-trump-national-emergency-1200372 I saw that earlier. Quote “I can’t vote to give extra-Constitutional powers to the president,” “We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn’t authorize it. If we take away those checks and balances, it’s a dangerous thing.” 19 hours ago, B-Man said: But it's "not an emergency" ? The Donald himself it is not an emergency. Do we believe him or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 7 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said: The Donald himself it is not an emergency. Do we believe him or not? What was the exact quote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 4, 2019 Author Share Posted March 4, 2019 "I didn't need to do this." Some emergency Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 30 million people in the country as Demi-citizens and there is no “national emergency.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 Those that vote for the resolution against the declaration of a national emergency should be made to live on the southern border for at least six months. Drug traffic, sexual abuse and an influx of gang members certainly justify a sense of NIMBY for the current residents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 1 hour ago, ShadyBillsFan said: I saw that earlier. The Donald himself it is not an emergency. Do we believe him or not? Human rights abuses in Burundi wasn't a national emergency either. Yet we still had one declared over it. Trump's not the problem here, the law is. Trump is using it properly...but it's a ***** law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 4, 2019 Author Share Posted March 4, 2019 49 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Human rights abuses in Burundi wasn't a national emergency either. Yet we still had one declared over it. Trump's not the problem here, the law is. Trump is using it properly...but it's a ***** law. No, he is using it because he couldn't get what he wanted from Congress. Most laws are written in a way that have the possibility to be interpreted corruptly, that's unavoidable. Trump doing this corrupt act is avoidable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 Remember when President Trump went to visit the border in McAllen, Texas in January and the narrative was that he was going to hype a “manufactured crisis”? Quote Amnesty International ✔@amnestyusa Trump is now in McAllen, Texas to hype up his proposed border wall. The wall is nothing more than a manufactured crisis and a divisive symbol of fear. The real crisis is the horrific violence and persecution faced by desperate people and families who have fled home And remember Jim Acosta’s travel log showing us how there was no crisis in McAllen? . Which bring us to today’s New York Times and this absolutely horrific article on how female migrants were stashed in a home in McAllen, Texas, drugged and repeatedly raped: The New York Times ✔@nytimes In 2014, Melvin, a 36-year-old mother of 3, had crossed into the U.S. from her native Guatemala, and was led to a house in McAllen, Texas. For weeks, the men she had paid to get her safely to America drugged her with pills and cocaine and raped her. https://nyti.ms/2Tvpj0E 11:03 AM - Mar 3, 2019 From the article: MCALLEN, Tex. — It was dark in the stash house where they kept her, the windows covered so no one could see inside. At first, the smugglers had her cook for the other migrants who had recently crossed illegally into the United States. Then they took her to a room upstairs, locked the door and began taking turns with her. It was the summer of 2014, and Melvin, a 36-year-old mother of three, had just completed the journey from her native Guatemala, crossing the Rio Grande on a raft before being led to the house in the Texas border city of McAllen. For weeks in that locked room, the men she had paid to get her safely to the United States drugged her with pills and cocaine, refusing to let her out even to bathe. “I think that since they put me in that room, they killed me,” she said. “They raped us so many times they didn’t see us as human beings anymore.” Read the whole thing here. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 39 minutes ago, Tiberius said: No, he is using it because he couldn't get what he wanted from Congress. Most laws are written in a way that have the possibility to be interpreted corruptly, that's unavoidable. Trump doing this corrupt act is avoidable. This is true. And what he's doing is still legal. The law is the problem. Not the man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 Will Rand Paul Sink Trump’s Emergency Declaration? Nope by Jazz Shaw Democrats in Congress seem giddy this morning over their impending “victory” in the battle against President Trump’s southern border emergency declaration. What they see as the final nail in the coffin is Senator Rand Paul’s announcement that he would be voting in favor of a resolution blocking the declaration. The Hill describes it as a “GOP rebellion” in the making. To be sure, with Rand Paul on board it looks as if the Senate will pass the same measure already pushed through in the House. And he’s taken the time to explain his reasons for going against the President in this debate. (Washington Post) Before getting to Senator Paul’s explanation for the decision, it’s worth noting what the passage of this bill really means in terms of the big picture. Barring some serious, seismic shift in the political landscape, probably nothing. The Senate will have enough votes to put the measure on Donald Trump’s desk, but it’s a foregone conclusion that Trump will break out his veto pen for the first time and shoot it down. After that, what will Trump’s opponents do? The votes don’t exist to override his veto. It may represent a symbolic victory for The Resistance in terms of fracturing the GOP on this one issue, but that’s about all. Trump’s plans would still move forward. With that said, I wanted to address one talking point that Rand Paul appears to have inherited from the Democrats. They’re all claiming that Trump is “spending money that hasn’t been appropriated by Congress.” It’s a nice sound bite, but that’s really not true. For better or worse, the funding in question was already appropriated by Congress for the military. And as I discussed previously, there are already at least two laws on the books (passed by Congress and never repealed) that allow for military funding to be moved around in this fashion. Title 10, Section 2808 allows the POTUS to do this during a national emergency or state of war. (And if you can’t undo his emergency declaration, he’s staying within the boundaries of that law.) But even if you block the emergency declaration, there’s a very solid case to be made that Title 10, Section 284 allows the Justice Department and the Department of Defense to authorize the use of military funds for construction projects within 25 miles of the border in the interest of preventing drug trafficking and/or international crime. https://hotair.com/archives/2019/03/04/will-rand-paul-sink-trumps-emergency-declaration-nope/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedge Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 4, 2019 Author Share Posted March 4, 2019 Quote The question from there is whether those twin rebukes might also matter for the legal battle. However people feel about this particular national emergency declaration, Congress did give the presidency rather broad authority to declare such emergencies. When it passed the National Emergencies Act in the 1970s, it handed over some of its constitutional authority over the purse strings of government. That authority has not been tested like it is now, but that does not mean the courts will necessarily say it goes too far. Paul, for one, thinks that it will. He is actually predicting that the Supreme Court will strike down the national emergency declaration if and when it comes to that point, and he says Congress’s votes will matter. “We spent the last two months debating how much money should be spent on a wall, and Congress came to a clear conclusion: $1.3 billion,” Paul said. “Without question, the president’s order for more wall money contradicts the will of Congress and will, in all likelihood, be struck down by the Supreme Court.” Ohio State University law professor Peter M. Shane also thinks the votes could matter: The joint resolution underscores the big-picture constitutional dimension of the fight. Congress’ power of the purse is its heavy artillery in the scheme of checks and balances. The Constitution underscores its significance through redundancy. Not only does Article I vest the spending power in the legislative branch, but a separate provision bars the executive branch from spending money unless appropriated. If presidents can find ways to work around Congress’ rejection of their requested spending priorities, Congress’ big gun has been silenced. ... A joint resolution underscoring that Congress has deliberately rejected the inclusion of border wall fencing in response to a presidential request could well move a court to say that this statute will not help finance it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/04/rand-pauls-big-rebuke-trumps-national-emergency-why-it-could-actually-matter/?utm_term=.9b1ab75af978 Paul and Pelosi! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/NEA Declarations.pdf List of previous emergency declarations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 39 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: Yep. Problem's the law, not the person. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 4, 2019 Author Share Posted March 4, 2019 35 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Yep. Problem's the law, not the person. The person using the law in a way it wasn't intended for is not what's wrong? Gees, the lengths you guys will go to defend this idiot! Tom, you use to point out the idiocy of Trump. Then 3rdthing got all up in your grill and you backed down and now tow the cultist line, sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts