If you support "national emergency" to bypass Congress, you are an enemy of the Constitution (soldier, healthcare)
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.
nobody objected to obama national emerergy because we trusted the president, to do right.
today society, even before he took office they was trying to impeach him, just because he beat a girl. so the left PR team, been attacking everything, it doesnt matter what the topic or subject is, its automatic attack. you say its long enough and people start to believe it, attack attack attack anything he does.
so it not about the wall, the money, the immigration, its about how much the democratic pr team hates trump, its the swamp creator coming out of the swamp. its congress saying you do what we tell you boy, you play by our rules boy, or we will ruin you.
and that what it is, an outsider trying to bust the corrupt
now back to the wall( im sorry barrier)
what harm is 55 miles going to do, its not the money, its not the view, whats the harm
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.
No Supreme Court is going to say that borders are not a national security issue.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly give Presidents very wide latitude in issues regarding national security, because national security is the first duty of every President.
Yes, the Constitution says only the House can levy taxes, but nowhere in the Constitution does it say how the tax revenues should be spent, except that the revenues are "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and General Welfare of the United States."
Border security is part of the "common Defense" of the US and also is part of the "General Welfare of the United States" (and note that "United States" actually refers to the federal government and not to the People).
No Supreme Court is going to say that borders are not a national security issue.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly give Presidents very wide latitude in issues regarding national security, because national security is the first duty of every President.
Yes, the Constitution says only the House can levy taxes, but nowhere in the Constitution does it say how the tax revenues should be spent, except that the revenues are "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and General Welfare of the United States."
Border security is part of the "common Defense" of the US and also is part of the "General Welfare of the United States" (and note that "United States" actually refers to the federal government and not to the People).
You're approaching this from what sounds like a general constitutional perspective ... my assumption is that a judicial review will focus on action taken under the National Emergencies Act. Now because the National Emergencies Act provides so little restriction on Presidential action and because the courts do provide great latitude for Presidential discretion when it comes to matters of national defense and the borders, these may well become issues.
BUT - What I'm groping towards - based on vague recollections of a couple of synopses read a least a month ago - is that any opening of constitutional issues in connection with the NEA declaration would also open the door to whether or not there is, in fact, a crisis. What would open that door? The possible constitutional conflict with Congressional appropriation authority.
Once that door is opened, some believe for reasons not clear to me that the door will also open to whether or not there is, in fact, a crisis. Normally that would not be examined by the courts with again discretion given to the President. Why? It's supposed to be an emergency situation with speed important.
The Act does not define "emergency" but there does have to be a declaration of war or a national emergency. And given the data, a crisis might be hard to justify.
The last times the relevant provisions were invoked were for military infrastructure construction during the Kuwait invasion and after 911.
I've no idea whether or not there have been previous court challenges to Presidential emergency declarations. Or, if so, their basis. But I suspect it will be a much narrower issue than ... your example, the Constitution says how tax revenues can be levied but not spent.
This issue might make well make new case law in the implementation of the National Emergencies Act but it's not about to revisit how we operate under the Constitution.
Some of the biggest drug busts happened over the last few weeks.
Tell us, oh genie who knows all, what percentage of drugs make it through non-entry points?
You can't, I can't, nobody can because you do not know what you do not know.
I guarantee there are far more tons making it through the open borders than through the ports. But that is a fact which is completely ignored by the disingenuous anti-wall herd. HHS, DEA, USBP, and ICE have all said we need 2-300 miles of new barriers. The left chooses to ignore that as well.
If walls don't work, how can they be killing people?
Common sense abandoned.
Tell that to the U.S. Customs and Borders who reported that about 90% of seized drugs at ports of entry. Experts say those stats should translate to all drugs. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ll/2591279002/
As for the reports for the walls, can you cite them? I mean I did with mine.
1. No law being made. Appropriated, unused money is being moved around. No new appropriation.
2. Great rant. Buh, buh, buh, how is this against the constitution. Executive discretion, power has been expanding since President Washington. Ugh, the court system gets to decide.
3. Put down the bottle. Cease and desist with the hallucinogenics. Poor histrionics on your part.
1. 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.
2.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.
3.That's basically called a dictatorship. Might as well disband Congress and just annoint Donald as King.
4.If you're for this stuff, then you're opposed to the spirit and concept of the Constitution.
According to...? Surely, you do not consider yourself an expert.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trobesmom
The difference being there were actually real world issues instead of a made up crisis in the mind of an idiot. Trump said himself he didn't have to do this.
Don’t expect his supporters to ever address that tidbit. They’ll screech FAKE NEWS even as the words tumble out of that idiots mouth. They’re beyond help.
nobody objected to obama national emerergy because we trusted the president, to do right.
today society, even before he took office they was trying to impeach him, just because he beat a girl. so the left PR team, been attacking everything, it doesnt matter what the topic or subject is, its automatic attack. you say its long enough and people start to believe it, attack attack attack anything he does.
so it not about the wall, the money, the immigration, its about how much the democratic pr team hates trump, its the swamp creator coming out of the swamp. its congress saying you do what we tell you boy, you play by our rules boy, or we will ruin you.
and that what it is, an outsider trying to bust the corrupt
now back to the wall( im sorry barrier)
what harm is 55 miles going to do, its not the money, its not the view, whats the harm
No other Presidents (regardless of party) called a national emergency to circumvent Congress.
That's the issue, really.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
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.
Can you show me your similar post when Obama did it?
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.
