Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and as to the subject and intent of trumps 4th NE..look at the background of it
November 2016, Congress overwhelminglypassed 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.
This illustrates how Congress long ago relinquished its lawmaking powers. The legislature enacts omnibus bills that few members actually read. Often, these super-duper-statutes contain nearly-limitless delegations of authority to the executive branch, with only the flimsiest guidelines on how and when that authority should be executed. Other times, Congress gives the president the exact authority he needs, with few strings attached. Such is the case with § 284: Obama signed a bill into law that gave his successor the very precise power to “construct ... fences ... across international boundaries of the United States.” Moreover, a predecessor of this statute, known commonly as Section 1004, has been in effect since 1990. Critically, other long-standing provisions allow the president to shift appropriations around to fund that construction.
Congress and Obama wittingly enacted a statute that allowed Trump to do what he had promised to do. Not even a robust application of the nondelegation doctrine would provide a basis to challenge this exercise of authority.
IOW trump is well within his rights to enact this "national emergency"
Guess you missed the part about the stop gap measure.
Of course polling doesn't create laws. I never said they did.
And no, Trump's national emergency declaration never made it through the courts. I never said that it did. I said DACA made it through the courts, and has been upheld thus far.
Maybe you missed the part where Congress refused to pass Dream Act. Senate voted down Dream Act 54 - 41. You are telling me "stop gap measure", or whatever you want to call it, has more power than Congress and Senate?
like I said in my other post, i'm not saying Trump is in the right with his executive power, but don't pretend to have a fake outrage when Obama did the same thing with his executive power in 2011, 5 years before Trump became POTUS.
Obama took it upon himself with DACA via EO in 2011. He literally FU to Congress and Senate with his DACA.
With Trump's national emergency fund it's about budget and money issue. Obama literally circumvent the immigration law enacted by Congress.
I'm not saying Trump is in the right, but don't come here to pretend to have a fake outrage when Obama did the same thing 5 years before Trump became President. It's not that long ago.
Gee I wonder why Obama had to do what he had to do. Maybe he was pushed to actually do his job since others were admittingly trying to stop him.
"MULVANEY: Well, we didn’t get very much done. Listen, I’ll be the first to admit that when the tea party wave, of which I was one, got here in 2011, the last thing we were interested in was giving President Obama legislative successes."
Add this to the Mitch McConman speech wanting to see to it that Obama would be a one term president.
The (R) congress didn't want to work out any deals with Obama at all. AND still to this day right up until the (D) took the House the (R) have been a do nothing bunch or RINO's who only want to hold on to power.
"MULVANEY: Well, we didn’t get very much done. Listen, I’ll be the first to admit that when the tea party wave, of which I was one, got here in 2011, the last thing we were interested in was giving President Obama legislative successes."
Add this to the Mitch McConman speech wanting to see to it that Obama would be a one term president.
The (R) congress didn't want to work out any deals with Obama at all. AND still to this day right up until the (D) took the House the (R) have been a do nothing bunch or RINO's who only want to hold on to power.
oh, ok.
maybe you should write to your Congressman to create a new law.
"If Congress (R) doesn't want to work with President (D) for new legislation, then President (D) has the authority to circumvent Congress (R)"
or
"If Congress (D) doesn't want to work with President (R) for new legislation, then President (R) has the authority to circumvent Congress (D)"
Agreed, yet the left was silent when Obama implemented DACA and DAPA by bypassing congress which was in direct conflict with the Constitution.
Actually I, and many others, had issues with it. And the constitutional issues were foremost for me. I felt the courts would resolve it. And I will admit, I was surprised when they dodged the question. I think they failed us by doing so as these are vital cases. But the supreme court disagreed apparently.
I will admit that maybe they underestimated how important the topic would be (as did I). But I feel that anything involving presidents limits on constitutional powers is something that absolutely should be heard.
Id say the left wasn't silent about it. They just didn't think it was a clear cut argument either way, and that the courts would resolve it.
Actually, the reason they stood up to him was because they did not want some of their state's programs on the chopping block due to funding cuts to pay for Trumps asinine wall. Sadly, none of the GOP are that driven by integrity and the upholding of The Constitution.
I agree.
The states need to show their own interest is damaged in order to have standing to bring a case.
It is a peculiarity of the legal system, but standing needs to be demonstrated.
The House of Representatives (if they choose to go to court) can more readily and easily show standing because the usurpation of legislative authority directly affects the balance of power set forth in the constitution, and also the mis-application or abuse of a law they themselves originated, but the states do not have that same interest. Therefore the argument for the state case begins with showing how the state or states will be affected, and if the court accepts this then they also can proceed to argue against the constitutionality of the action.
There can be multiple parties suing on this in separate courts, each with their own justification for bringing an action, but the root argument will be against the constitutionality of it, which is pretty obvious to anyone with more brains than a turnip.
Preventing people from entering our county illegally is important, especially given the laws in place that protect them if they manage to set one foot on our soil. Yes, it's an emergency and it should have been handled decades ago. What makes anyone think it's NOT an emergency?
How many wars of choice has Trump started? How many 10s of 1000s have died in wars of choice that Trump has started?
0 you say. Wow. His predecessor got 10s of 1000s killed. Why are you going on with Derangement from NPR, WaPo and the NYT.
Such a double standard.
I'd rather have an emergency declared and nobody killed. Than a war called for nothing.
Excuse me, but this thread isn't about wars. It's about the "emergency." And the controversy about Trump's trumped-up "emergency" is about intent and separation of powers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
The subject is people entering the country illegally.
The intent is to reduce the number of people entering the country illegally.
Why is that less important than other issues like diamonds from Sierra Leone?
I'll agree that the subject to US is indeed about immigrants, but the subject to the Senate is more about separation of powers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Hospitality
Interesting that minimal to no critical thinking was applied when asking this question. It's the context, not the number. When Bush declared a state of emergency for 9/11, it was relevant to a real emergency.
Fortunately, we have a government that works... and the next step is the courts.
Exactly - context. Critical thinking has never been the strong point of Trump supporters.
The Dems acknowledge we have a problem at the border. They want more guards, drones, etc, etc, etc. But no wall, that doesn't make sense.
Maybe if the emphasis was on the GUNS that are being brought here over the border they might set up and take notice. Got to get rid of those guns, you know. Make the border a gun running issue and see how the Dems react.
The Dems acknowledge we have a problem at the border. They want more guards, drones, etc, etc, etc. But no wall, that doesn't make sense.
Maybe if the emphasis was on the GUNS that are being brought here over the border they might set up and take notice. Got to get rid of those guns, you know. Make the border a gun running issue and see how the Dems react.
That is why we have a budget process, it’s about priorities. Guns are leaving here heading for Mexico, we seem to have an oversupply., weee
Last edited by Goodnight; 03-15-2019 at 06:41 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
