If you support "national emergency" to bypass Congress, you are an enemy of the Constitution (Harry Reid, Barack Obama)

[earthlyfather]

This - Trump’s bypassing the appropriation clause - is up to the black robes to decide.

Originally Posted by TBMorgan

he didn't bypass Congress's Appropriation's Clause ---that's the difference

[ladybug07]

Originally Posted by rbohm

the funds would not come out of the counterintelligence funds, but rather the military construction budget.

Yes. There are 21 billion in unobligated funds in the military construction budget.

Originally Posted by EveryLady

Correct. That's why I said (Technically, those funds aren't under the Act but the theory is the same) - what programs, projects are you impacting to switch the money to the wall. The other large pot of funds that he can reach outside the National Emergency declaration are these military counterintelligence drug funds. I just now googled this:

Shanahan will start to identify specific projects to shut down - The administration has said $2.5 billion of military narcotics funding and $3.6 billion in military construction money will be diverted to the wall. But Shanahan will have final say on how much will be taken from which programs.

This is interesting - Under Trump's emergency declaration, Shanahan also has to determine whether border barriers are necessary to support the use of the armed forces. "There've been no determinations by me, so that's what I'll be doing tomorrow," Shanahan said. "But I just want to make a point of this: we are following the law, using the rules, and we're not bending the rules."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/16/us/se...ing/index.html

That way it works is that (I'm pretty sure) the troops have to ON the border for a fence to build to protect them. You gotta admit. This is bizarre. Under Posse Comitatus (unless maybe there is some sort of other declaration?) the military can't do anything on the border. Except sit there so a wall can be built to protect them?

I have friends who are military wives and they are losing their ever lovin' minds on this, I've been doing research on this mess and so far have debunked their concerns. Especially since the story broke about how bad some of the military housing is. So thank you for the link showing that military housing will not be touched. Military times is doing a great job of instilling fear into people saying that funds for housing may be used.
I have been telling them that these funds must have the Sec of Defenses blessing to be used. Which this interview supports.


As for them pulling out of the narcotics fund....they sure ain't giving any narcotics for any surgeries that service members are having thats one thing for sure!! I can also say it is one thing that is happening. My husband had another knee surgery and they gave him 3 tylenol by mouth 3 times a day. They told him the reason they are not prescribing pain killers it like they did his last surgery was because of the opioid epidemic.

I really don't think the troops will be on the border either. Just like many of the other military construction projects, they are contracted by civilian contractors to complete them.

[EveryLady]

Originally Posted by ladybug07

Yes. There are 21 billion in unobligated funds in the military construction budget.

I have friends who are military wives and they are losing their ever lovin' minds on this, I've been doing research on this mess and so far have debunked their concerns. Especially since the story broke about how bad some of the military housing is. So thank you for the link showing that military housing will not be touched. Military times is doing a great job of instilling fear into people saying that funds for housing may be used.
I have been telling them that these funds must have the Sec of Defenses blessing to be used. Which this interview supports.

Good that Shanahan has announced upfront he won't allow the civilian infrastructure funds within DOD to be used (that's the housing and the daycares). They were reachable under a national emergency declaration.

Originally Posted by ladybug07

As for them pulling out of the narcotics fund....they sure ain't giving any narcotics for any surgeries that service members are having thats one thing for sure!! I can also say it is one thing that is happening. My husband had another knee surgery and they gave him 3 tylenol by mouth 3 times a day. They told him the reason they are not prescribing pain killers it like they did his last surgery was because of the opioid epidemic.

Wow. To know medication could be available but is not has to be tough. But, yes, that's another issue entirely.

Originally Posted by ladybug07

I really don't think the troops will be on the border either. Just like many of the other military construction projects, they are contracted by civilian contractors to complete them.

The way some article I read about a month ago explains it is like what Shanahan said in the CNN article (and Stephen Miller on Chris Wallace). The national emergency declaration only gives access to certain limited authorities (not to entire money pots). But then the laws connected to each of those authorities still have to be followed. The military infrastructure authority that's reachable is for construction that - Shanahan's words - "are necessary to support the use of the armed forces." Miller said something about building fences to protect troops during patrols while they are stationed on the border.

I don't think either Shanahan nor Miller meant that the troops would be there to build the wall. But maybe they'd have to be there for a wall to be built to protect them? There are about 4,000 troops on the border now, stringing some wire and erecting tents. It sounds like Shanahan will be making more announcements soon.

[T0103E]

Anyone using any excuse to abandon principles in the name of necessity is scary. "It's really important, so we don't have to follow the rules...we'll follow them again once the problem is solved." That's worked out really well throughout history...

It goes back to what I and No_Recess always say...the ends don't justify the means. You have to have a set of rules and stick to them consistently. You can't just arbitrarily decide when to follow them, or claim that the outcome is more important than how you achieve it. It's not only logically inconsistent, but very dangerous in the long term.

[ambient]

Originally Posted by Camaro5

Trump isn't doing anything the Constitution doesn't grant him the power to do. The left just doesn't like it. Too bad.

Presidential authority doesn't apply only when the left agrees with it.

We know this assertion is dishonest and wrong.

How do we know?

Because when a future Dem President uses "national emergency" to justify appropriating billions to a policy he or she couldn't pass through Congress - be it climate change, gun control, or healthcare - you will promptly **** yourself and cry foul about the abuse of power. And so will all the other "this is cool in our book" conservatives on here.

It is obvious that the spirit of the Constitution was and is to have distribution of power across different branches of government, and that emergency powers were assumed for REAL EMERGENCIES, not to engineer the policy result that POTUS can't win through Congress. Get out of here with this nonsense about how this is in keeping with the way the system is intense to work. Nobody here is stupid enough to actually believe this.

Not every loophole is airtight closed in the Constitution because there used to be a premise that someone with some baseline integrity would be in the position of POTUS - they did not Trump-proof the thing.

[TBMorgan]

The wall won't be a topic of discussion for awhile as this plays out in the courts ---it's a face-saving way for Trump other than just give up - he's appeasing his 30% and Fox News commentators. It's like the repeal and replace Obamacare - he put it on a back burner and no one even remembers his promise to provide the American people w/ something better.

[Phil75230]

I'm waiting for a future "liberal" president to announce a state of emergency - increase Justice Dept and Fed law enforcement against teachers and students in public schools who pray or have religious iconography or scriptures on public school grounds.

See how "states of emergency" for mere policy purposes works?

[TBMorgan]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

I'm waiting for a future "liberal" president to announce a state of emergency - increase Justice Dept and Fed law enforcement against teachers and students in public schools who pray or have religious iconography or scriptures on public school grounds.

See how "states of emergency" for mere policy purposes works?

I'm hoping that all political parties would understand that using the National Emergency clause isn't a substitute for Congress's legislation. That the clause was developed for urgent issues facing the nation that can't wait for the prolonged legislative process. The Wall went through the process and the American people have decided against it (Elections have consequences).

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by rbohm

the funds would not come out of the counterintelligence funds, but rather the military construction budget.

The wall funding should the wall be deemed right based on the several court challenges. There are at least three I know of and are over several different fronts. One is states rights, another is from the ACLU claiming Trump didn't need to call it an emergency (something Trump himself said in the Rose Garden) and by land owners along the border. I think the military drug fund AND the military construction budgets.

[Old Gringo]

tRump will be slapped down once again.

Fake "border crisis."

Fake "national emergency."

He just keeps losing, time after time.

MAGA and all that.