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.
Oddly enough, even the DEA says 90% of drugs are coming in thru border checkpoints, by truck, rail, ship, cargo, etc, so any big wall is unlikely to reduce or stop the drug flow.
About the 90% - I tend to care less about result or policy than the integrity of the process. It bothers the heck out of me when Stephen Miller gets on national TV to discredit government agencies, saying how do they really "know" drug penetration patterns coming up with a simplistic scenario to discredit data. DEA agents risk their lives to figure out these networks, producing in-depth intel reports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62
Imo, if they really want to take money from somewhere else and direct it towards wall construction and STILL hope to reduce the drug flow, de-funding the DEA and other narco law enforcement would be the most effective, Im not sure what the annual budget is for the DEA, but it would be a great start.
If I learned more, I might well come to support some sort of legalization to in effect defund the cartels and decriminalize US supply networks, usage. Pretty ignorant here. But if the rationale is to reduce drugs crossing into the US then using funds that impact the supply of those drugs strikes me as pretty doggone stupid.
As for Trump being able to willy nilly move funds around ... one of the reasons I started watching this so closely a few years back was out of concern he might reallocate reachable border funds within Homeland Security - re-directing needed money to protect the E. coast ports (terrorism) into the wall. The personal trust factor is low.
Problem is you just never know - which is why hearing nonsense irritates.
If you have a case ... come before the American people - and make it honestly.
You are correct. Trump expects to be sued, and lose, in district courts and then go to the Supreme Court, where he hopes to win. However, he may be underestimating the integrity of the Supreme Court. This is not a question of a wall or a partisan disagreement about immigration. It is about maintaining the separation or powers, which is one of the most important roles of the Court.
Good point. I'm thinking Roberts will side with the Constitution and will lead a 5-4 vote against the president on this one.
Good point. I'm thinking Roberts will side with the Constitution and will lead a 5-4 vote against the president on this one.
At least one other wall-related SCOTUS vote this year was 5-4 against Trump, where the Court declined to take up a lower court ruling at least for the next term. That was the between-port POE decision where what appeared to be relevant was the again apparent attempt to end-Congress. This time not with money but based on already existing Congressional legislation allowing for between-port asylum applications.
That aliens must be accorded due process under the Constitution results - I think - from a Justice Scalia driven-decision, opinion ? Trump appears to think he'll lose in the lower courts with the SCOTUS decision obviously determinative.
In the interim, he wants to starts building using the drug funds. This, of course, isn't necessarily because it's the right thing to do but it's what he can do.
Good point. I'm thinking Roberts will side with the Constitution and will lead a 5-4 vote against the president on this one.
the same Roberts that sided with the constitution on Obamacare? LOL
Roberts voted against Gay Marriage.....so don't trust Roberts that much, he is a slippery Judge and it has nothing to do with the constitution.
Trump has nothing to lose......if he loses the SC he can go to his base and say that he is fighting Congress and the SC and 1 judge (assuming Roberts rules against him 5-4) and he won't give up and that will be red meat for the 2020 election.
if Roberts sides against Trump then he has to declare the Presidential Emergency Act unconstitutional....good luck with that.
the same Roberts that sided with the constitution on Obamacare? LOL
Roberts voted against Gay Marriage.....so don't trust Roberts that much, he is a slippery Judge and it has nothing to do with the constitution.
Trump has nothing to lose......if he loses the SC he can go to his base and say that he is fighting Congress and the SC and 1 judge (assuming Roberts rules against him 5-4) and he won't give up and that will be red meat for the 2020 election.
if Roberts sides against Trump then he has to declare the Presidential Emergency Act unconstitutional....good luck with that.
That's not the issue. It's whether Trump's use of it is unconstitutional in this particular application. The end-run around Congress in a matter involving disputed appropriations. Trump not getting enough.
One of the basic ideas of the Constitution is that (1) Presidents don't make the laws, and (2) certain powers - including Power of the Purse - are reserved for the Congress.
With this "national emergency," you conservatives support your guy just bypassing Congress altogether and implementing his policies (which he couldn't get support through Congress) via royal decree.
That's basically called a dictatorship. Might as well disband Congress and just annoint Donald as King.
If you're for this stuff, then you're opposed to the spirit and concept of the Constitution.
Presidents have the power to declare national emergencies. We the people, elect the President. If you don't agree with the President's decisions, then you have the power to not vote for him next election.
I think calling him a dictator, or a king, is a truly emotional and over the top response. Really? LOL
Illegal immigration is a problem, and lack of border security has been a problem for decades. Trump is finally a President who has the balls to do something about it.
This is an out of the box potential solution of sorts, and he is at least trying to solve the problem.
That's not the issue. It's whether Trump's use of it is unconstitutional in this particular application.
read the statue and go see previous Presidents how they used it.....let the SC decide. Maybe the courts will back him, shut him down completely or allow him to use some of the funds.
After Obama's DACA EO and the wars and military conflicts our government has waged since Vietnam, I don't know what is constitutional anymore......the constitution only applies to some things and not other things.
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.
