row_33 Posted February 16, 2019 Posted February 16, 2019 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 1
Koko78 Posted February 16, 2019 Posted February 16, 2019 4 minutes ago, row_33 said: They are always very bitter and always very resentful Not to mention very wrong. 1 1
Buffalo_Gal Posted February 16, 2019 Posted February 16, 2019 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> 2
IDBillzFan Posted February 16, 2019 Posted February 16, 2019 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. 1
row_33 Posted February 16, 2019 Posted February 16, 2019 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 Posted February 16, 2019 Posted February 16, 2019 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. 1
Nanker Posted February 16, 2019 Posted February 16, 2019 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! 1
HamSandwhich Posted February 16, 2019 Posted February 16, 2019 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 Posted February 16, 2019 Posted February 16, 2019 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 Posted February 16, 2019 Posted February 16, 2019 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 Posted February 16, 2019 Posted February 16, 2019 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. 1
Nanker Posted February 16, 2019 Posted February 16, 2019 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 Posted February 16, 2019 Posted February 16, 2019 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 Posted February 16, 2019 Posted February 16, 2019 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 Posted February 16, 2019 Posted February 16, 2019 7 minutes ago, Teddy KGB said: When did that start ? Never said anything differently.
BeginnersMind Posted February 16, 2019 Posted February 16, 2019 (edited) 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 Posted February 16, 2019 Posted February 16, 2019 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/ 3
Foxx Posted February 16, 2019 Posted February 16, 2019 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. 1
Recommended Posts