tRump infused S Ct could uphold emergency diversion of funds

heri _ cles

If DT's lawyers frame the use of Emergency power as being solely within the discretion of the President (which is an easy argument to make) , then the Filthy Five could simply hold that this was not an abuse of discretion.

Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas are so far up DT's behind that their robes are s --- brown.

Once the tRump-infused S Ct let's DT get away with this, we will be one step closer to a dictatorship.

Dude could get another Justice pick before he leaves. Unreal.

SaveComment87Like2
Comments (87)
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Fárbauti

There have been many national emergencies declared before, for various reasons. No one has yet to challenge any. The only difference here is that dems are really butthurt about the wall being built, but the law doesn't change based on muh feelings.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
tony jelly

No, the difference is that this is for an unnecessary wall.

7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Fárbauti

Unnecessary in your opinion. I disagree, I think it's very much needed. And so does the President.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Have national emergencies been called before in order to reallocate funds lawfully appropriated by Congress ? Have national emergencies been called before to circumvent Congress in order to fulfill a campaign promise ?

9 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri _ cles

Imagine if RBG retires.

Then he can count on 6-3 on just about anything he wants.

DT has virtual control right now over 2.5 out of 3 "co-equal" branches of government....which essentially amounts to a dictatorship.

He basically laid that out at yesterday's press conference predicting a win in the S Ct. He was basically telling his boys on the Court how to vote and they. like Republicans in Congress, are afraid of him.

Republicans lack spine, just like Hitler's willing Executioners did in WWII.

They bow to their master.


10 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri _ cles

Have national emergencies been called before to circumvent Congress in order to fulfill a campaign promise ?

The issue is "Did the President abuse his discretion?"


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Fárbauti

The national emergency is the influx of illegal criminals and drugs into the country, not a campaign promise. So what, if a candidate talks about an important issue during their campaign and wins, that issue can never be a national emergency because it was discussed during a political campaign? Nonsense. As far as the funds, the law clearly allows him to reallocate them.

The legislative branch clearly gave the executive branch too much power. Not only when it comes to national emergencies but with many other things. But they gave it away willingly, they passed the law. They are free to try and claw that power back if they so wish.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

We' ll see what the courts say. His own lawyers are not optimistic he will prevail.

Believe what you want about Trump's motives. I don't believe for one minute this is about his sincere concern for safety on the sourhern border. For him it's all about his ego , a win and playing to the base........apparently he has that part well in hand.

If he really cared he could have acted much earlier, could have taken much better deals, could have actually spent the money he already has, could have put a cohesive, well documented plan forward....but he did none of those things.


9 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
THOR, Son of ODIN(2)

There is no data to support any need for "the wall".

Just lies from the cult leader.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Fárbauti

The data is simple, there's hundreds of thousands of apprehensions of illegal aliens at our southern border and god knows how many more that never get caught. The totals are probably in the millions. It's an invasion of our country that needs to be stopped.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

The amount of illegal border crossings is at an all-time low. That isn't consistent with a "crisis". It only became a "crisis" after the midterms.

8 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
THOR, Son of ODIN(2)

Fact check time!

LIE #5. The U.S. is being invaded

The president repeatedly used the word "invasion" to describe the situation at the southern border, pointing particularly to drugs, crime and human trafficking.

But there's little evidence the southern border is experiencing a new state of emergency. Violence isn’t spilling over the border, and terrorists aren’t being caught in droves trying to cross it. Illegal drugs largely come through legal ports of entry, not unguarded parts of the border, according to border authorities.

Illegal border crossings have been dropping for years, and while border apprehensions have risen in recent months, they are still markedly lower than they were 20 years ago, Customs and Border Protection data shows.

And though Trump has focused on the border, illegal immigration in the U.S. is being driven by another factor: people who overstay their visas. More than 701,900 people overstayed their visas during fiscal year 2017, according to the Department of Homeland Security. People who overstay their visas usually enter the country through an airport, not from the border.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/fact-checking-trump-s-speech-declaring-national-emergency-border-wall-n972116

7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri _ cles

Consider the S Court ruling upholding Trump's Travel Ban and Robert's opinion (and this 5-4 ruling was before Kavanaugh got on the Court)..

--------

The court acceded broadly to presidential power. The majority
opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, noted that the INA
exudes deference to the president. The executive order, he wrote, was
more detailed than similar orders by Presidents Ronald Reagan and Jimmy
Carter.

Roberts then deferred to the president's power. The
only thing a president has to signal is that entry for people from
various countries would be detrimental to the interest of the United
States. The president undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here, the
court noted. The president, Roberts said, has extraordinary power to express his opinions to the country, as well.

"The issue, however, is not whether to denounce the President's
statements," Roberts said, "but the significance of those statements in
reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a
matter within the core of executive responsibility. In doing so, the
Court must consider not only the statements of a particular President,
but also the authority of the Presidency itself."

The upshot of
the court's precedents is clear, he said. The court should not inhibit
the president's flexibility in responding to changing world conditions,
and any court inquiry into matters of into national security is highly
constrained. As long as the president presents an explanation for the
travel ban that is "plausibly related" to a legitimate national security
objective, Roberts said, he is on firm constitutional ground.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/26/606481548/supreme-court-upholds-trump-travel-ban


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri _ cles

And more from Robert's opinion on the travel ban:

“The
issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements,” Chief
Justice Roberts wrote. “It is instead the significance of those
statements in reviewing a presidential directive, neutral on its face,
addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility.”

“In
doing so,” he wrote, “we must consider not only the statements of a
particular president, but also the authority of the presidency itself.”

The
chief justice repeatedly echoed Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump’s top
immigration adviser, in citing a provision of immigration law that gives
presidents the power to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class
of aliens” as they see necessary.

The provision “exudes deference to the president in every clause,” the chief justice said.

He
concluded that Mr. Trump’s proclamation, viewed in isolation, was
neutral and justified by national security concerns. Chief Justice
Roberts wrote it is “expressly premised on legitimate purposes:
preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and
inducing other nations to improve their practices.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-travel-ban.html

Writing is on the wall.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Fárbauti

But there's little evidence the southern border is experiencing a new
state of emergency. Violence isn’t spilling over the border, and
terrorists aren’t being caught in droves trying to cross it. Illegal
drugs largely come through legal ports of entry, not unguarded parts of
the border, according to border authorities.
Illegal border
crossings have been dropping for years, and while border apprehensions
have risen in recent months, they are still markedly lower than they
were 20 years ago, Customs and Border Protection data shows.


I'm not sure why you bother to post this drivel. Just because previous administrations chose to ignore the issue, doesn't mean this one now has to ignore it as well. Whether crossings are lower is irrelevant. There's still millions of illegals crossing into our country every year with no end in sight. It should be 0.


3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri _ cles

Sorry to be devil's advocate but it is what it is..

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
THOR, Son of ODIN(2)

Can't argue with those who deny facts.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri _ cles

What were the facts that the Supreme Court used in upholding tRump's Muslim/Travel ban?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri _ cles

Read Robert's opinion.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

We already know the wall won't work. Recently hundreds of people tunnelled under a wall. They go over walls. The border patrol union said walls are a waste of money until the jobs disappear.

If Trump introduced legislation to punish people who hire undocumented workers, he would probably get a lot more support. But he would be punishing himself and probably his buddies so that won't happen.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Fárbauti

Tunneling under a wall or going over it is a lot harder than simply walking across an open border.

Millions? Care to cite sources for those "millions"?

Common sense. Hundreds of thousands get apprehended and counted, but many more cross without getting caught.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

"This goes to the three co-equal branches of government"

Yes. Efforts of lower courts, politicians and the MSM to weaken our duly elected president's executive powers are an ongoing threat to our freedom.

May the new SCOTUS restore the balance of power so that courts, politicians, the MSM, the FBI, DOJ and "deep state" never again entertain the notion they're entitled to pick our president for us, or weaken Executive powers when their plot fails. Thank God they got caught this time.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

Such an emergency that it took him over two years to declare it and then went for a golf weekend right after he finally did.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mayflowers

John Roberts doesn't want the legacy of the Roberts Court to be that he rubber-stamped Trumpism. He's concerned that it will be viewed as partisan, and it may be why he's not voting with the conservatives on some recent votes. One can hope.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Fárbauti

Such an emergency that it took him over two years to declare it and he went for a golf weekend right after he finally did.

Was every other national emergency declared on day one of the President taking office? And did they sit in the oval office night and day until the national emergency was resolved?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Fárbauti

No the difference is.... Let me see, how do I explain it to you. THERE IS NO EMERGENCY!!!!

I disagree. The millions of illegals pouring in is an invasion which needs to be stopped. The President agrees, and that's what counts. Elections have consequences.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

As was demonstrated by the midterm elections but apparently Trump doesn't have to abide by those consequences.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

"I disagree. The millions of illegals pouring in is an invasion which needs to be stopped. The President agrees, and that's what counts. Elections have consequences."

I can't wait until we have a Democrat president who will do the same for gun control, single payer healthcare and global warming. As long as the president agrees these issues are a crisis, it won't matter what Congress or the American people think, right? Thanks Trump for this precedent and maybe now we can finally get some stuff done. I will be more than happy to trade all of that for a wall.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri _ cles

Elections have consequences. and unintended consequences.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Fárbauti

He ran in 2016 on MAGA and border security, and won. He is still President. He is doing what he was elected to do. Nothing wrong with that, quite refreshing actually.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Fárbauti

I can't wait until we have a Democrat president who will do the same for gun control, single payer healthcare and global warming

What are they going to do, appropriate funds and do what with them? A national emergency doesn't allow you to pass legislation or change the Constitution.

None of this is going to happen any time soon. He will be out of office
by the time this makes it through the court system. The landowners
are not just going to hand over their land without a fight.

There you go, just think happy thoughts.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

We will see if you're still feeling so refreshed when a Democrat does the same for their platform.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

Was every other national emergency declared on day one of the President taking office.

What’s changed between day one and today? What makes it an emergency today, that wasn’t happening two years ago? Did it take him half a term to decide it was an emergency? Way to think on his feet!

And did they sit in the oval office night and day until the national emergency was resolved?

Resolved, no. I’m trying to think of the main times we were attacked on our soil. Did Clinton go golfing right after WTC bombing? GWB on 9/12? Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor? This is an invasion, 4bauti, our lives are at risk, and your God Emporer has hit the links. Should be court marshaled.

7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

Yep, this invasion that Trump said didn't even require an emergency but he wanted to build the wall faster. They are going to love that quote in court.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Fárbauti

What’s changed between day one and today? What makes it an emergency today, that wasn’t happening two years ago?

Why does something have to change? Nothing wrong with attempting other various ways first to resolve an urgent matter before declaring a national emergency.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Joaniepoanie

Farabauti

"I disagree. The millions of illegals pouring in is an invasion which needs to be stopped. The President agrees, and that's what counts. Elections have consequences."

Please provide a legitimate source for the claim that millions are pouring in.


3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

He didn’t need to do this. He just wanted to do it faster. When’s the last time you’ve been in an “emergency” that didn’t need to be addressed right away?

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

"Such an emergency that it took him over two years to declare it and he went for a golf weekend right after he finally did."

Works for me. President Trump ended the shut down, and left it to the House to produce legislation to secure our borders. He signed off on their "product" which fails to do so, and moved on.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mayflowers

A presidential election doesn't mean you get everything you want. You lost the House. Why didn't trump work harder to hold the House? Too busy online-shopping for a $50,000 golf simulator?

He treats cable TV and talk radio as the fourth branch of government and that's why you aren't getting more than you got.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

He had a pretty nice deal but backed off when he was taunted on Twitter. Millions of lives impacted and billions wasted because the president was intimidated by a tweet.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Chi, I think his reneging on the deal offering him $25 B for a border wall will play big in this whole notion on whether there is a national emergency or not. That is much more than he is confiscating wth this EO yet he refused it..... How emergent could it be ?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catkinZ8a

Bye-bye cartel kickbacks!

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catkinZ8a

"Not one dollar." Nancy Pelosi (paraphrased)

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

Good point chase. He would have taken that if it were a real emergency.

He knows this wall will never be built. This is just show so he can tell his supporters he won. But his supporters were already going to vote for him and his actions are turning off the independents and some Republicans.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri _ cles

Yep, this invasion that Trump said didn't even require an emergency but
he wanted to build the wall faster. They are going to love that quote
in court.

I the Hawaii Muslim ban case, Justice Roberts specifically mentioned tRump's comments about Muslims and held that those did not negate his power to control immigration.

Regarding the 25 Billion previously offered by Dems to construct the Wall. That could be argued both ways. If the Dems did not feel that a wall was necessary, why did they previously agree to appropriate 25 Billion for it?

I think score another one for tRump. If he wins, gotta give is staff credit for this wise guy legal maneuver.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
maifleur01

"None of this is going to happen any time soon. He will be out of office by the time this makes it through the court system" except he could once again declare a state of national emergency to keep himself in office. He could do it based on this action. Do his followers really want him to be in office without being elected?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

chase_gw

Have national emergencies been called before in order to reallocate funds lawfully appropriated by Congress ?

Apparently so.

Here's one expert opinion. There are many more, and dissenting opinions. One of the things that makes America great, IMO.

Keith Whittington, politics professor, Princeton University

Unfortunately, Trump has a more credible claim than he should to the necessary legal authority to bypass Congress and fund some wall construction, because both Congress and the courts have been very generous to past presidents. Congress has delegated substantial statutory authority to the president to declare emergencies and move already appropriated funds to new military construction projects.

The courts have generally taken a deferential approach to evaluating how the president makes use of such delegated authority and have not required Congress to be more specific. If Congress wants to give the president lots of discretion to do things — including foolish and expensive things — on his own initiative, the courts have been willing to let Congress do that. Just because executive branch lawyers ought to be embarrassed to sign off on border wall construction as a valid use of the president’s national emergency authority does not mean that the courts will actually be willing to say that this does not pass the laugh test.

The good news is that Congress has the power to start clawing back that delegated authority, if the members can actually agree among themselves that leaving Trump with so many legal toys to play with is probably a bad idea. Tying the hands of the president does reduce the government’s flexibility in the case of a genuine emergency, but it would be a good thing if Congress learned to take a more active role in calibrating just how much discretion they want to trust each president with having.

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/15/18225359/trump-speech-national-emergencies-act-border

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
woodnymph2_gw

Judging from what his cult members write on this forum, I think they probably would not care if he remained in office without being elected. What a mind-boggling thought that he could and would actually do this.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

I do think if he tried to keep himself in office it would start a literal war. But I wouldn't put it past him to try. He's been able to get away with everything else he's tried.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mayflowers

Regarding the 25 Billion previously offered by Dems to construct the
Wall. That could be argued both ways. If the Dems did not feel that a
wall was necessary, why did they previously agree to appropriate 25
Billion for it?

They didn't offer $25 billion for the wall. Those funds covered ten years for some wall construction and for other border security measures.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
gmatx zone 6

Chi, that he would be willing to start a war by declaring martial law is chilling at the least. However, it would not surprise me, and that is dam* sad to have to say. Who ever thought we would have these issues " quite possibly" in our headlights? This country is too great for that!

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

"Martial law"? "Remaining in office without being elected"?

Is pot legal in your state?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
maifleur01

How do any of the Trumpers on here think a complete wall can be built in the less than 6 years remaining if he wins the next election? Then think of what would be required to not have the building stopped when he is out of office.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
MissMyGardens

Fárbauti "There have been many national emergencies declared before, for various reasons. No one has yet to challenge any."

They've been challenged in previous cases. Successful challenge learned in History Class was the famous Truman era case vs Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer (1952) during Korean War. Justice Jackson wrote concurring opinion in this case and wrote notable dissent in Koramatsu case re: Japanese Internment during WWII.

Generally more well known cases are Lincoln (suspension Habeas Corpus) and FDR (Japanese Internment).

Congress has abdicated it's legal responsibility for reviewing and updating existing list of emergency declarations still in effect. Most previous executive emergencies had to do with sanctions and overseas individuals. Multiple challenges involving various standing claims and/or legal basis for challenge may portend this one can either be judged very narrowly to overcome challenge(s) based solely on executive privilege or courts can look at lack of "emergency" and/or surpassing Congressional appropriations without proper reprogramming processes.

Challenges aren't unusual but challenges being upheld are less so. This particular declaration stands on debatable data and president saying in front of TV cameras "It's not an emergency, I just wanted to do it faster." We'll see how deeply newer judges are steeped in hyper-Federalist allegiance and interpretation.

National Emergencies: Constitutional and Statutory Restrictions on Presidential Powers

By Cindy Cohn and Shahid Buttar February 14, 2019


[The last of these prompted a lawsuit that has served as the
touchstone for consideration of these questions ever since.
The case is
known as the Steel Seizure Cases or Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
(1952). In Youngstown, the Court ruled against President Truman,
holding that he did not have the power to seize a privately owned steel
mill.]

[Justice Jackson’s concurring opinion in Youngstown
set forth the analytical framework that has come to define this area of
law. It explains that executive power stands at its lowest ebb when
confronting an explicit act of Congress denying the purported authority,
as President Truman did when attempting to seize steel mills.
In
contrast, executive power attains maximal reach when authorized (either
explicitly or by implication) by Congress, such as when Congress has
authorized military action. In between, the executive branch has
flexible authority within a “zone of twilight” on issues that Congress
has not addressed.]

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I don't know how I missed this thread until now. Many interesting comments. This is one that caught my eye.

"Judging from what his cult members write on this forum, I think they probably would not care if he remained in office without being elected. What a mind-boggling thought that he could and would actually do this."

What an odd time to read a comment like this when America is learning there was a real attempted coup to overthrow a duly elected president. What we've learned from McCabe in recent days is stunning. My sincere hope is that Barr is both willing and able to clean up and restore the Justice Department/FBI. America needs to be able to regain trust in this critical element of our system.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I've lost track of what money of the 8 billion is coming from what sources, but listening to news today, it sounds like many think Trump now has a "staged" situation well in place. Money from the legislation to begin barrier construction, followed by money easily obtained from moving it from one place to another, followed by a SCOTUS ruling on the national emergency.

The best part is that some funding will come from the Forfeiture Funds (Mexico's drug cartels funding our barriers). That is certainly fitting!

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

Article about likely sources for the wall money from Market Watch.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/if-trump-declares-an-emergency-heres-where-the-money-to-build-a-border-wall-might-come-from-2019-02-14

Disaster relief, military construction and anti-narcotic efforts.


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

There are two of these Forfeiture Funds (Department of the Treasury's and Department of Justice's Assets). The first contained 4 billion in 2017 and 3.4 billion in 2018. The second contains 1.2 billion in unobligated funds. They are replenished each year as law enforcement does their jobs.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Most illegal immigrants don’t come through the Mexican Border where Trump wants a wall.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/08/despite-trumps-claims-most-illegal-immigration-is-not-at-the-southern-border.html

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mayflowers

The drug cartel funds are a drop in the bucket. Be honest now and address the fact that he's taking it from the military. Don't gloss over it.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
roxsol


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Mayflowers, I think the glossing over is that Congress did not act in good faith to secure our borders. How unfortunate.

I thought this was interesting from upthread.

"Regarding the 25 Billion previously offered by Dems to construct the Wall. That could be argued both ways. If the Dems did not feel that a wall was necessary, why did they previously agree to appropriate 25 Billion for it?"

Dems once supported border security with a reasonable stance, but opposing Trump took away all that reason and turned it into a political game for them. Again, how unfortunate, because it was a perfect opportunity to secure our border, solve DACA, and legislate some much needed immigration reform. There was nothing at all unreasonable about Trump's very moderate ask of 5.7 billion for barriers, but it became all about a stop Trump win for Dems and nothing about what America needed. In the end, I don't think they'll stop Trump from working to secure our border and Dems proved they didn't care about border security. So, on we go.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mayflowers

Ann, all I really want to know is if you're okay with taking the money from our troops. Someone has to go without so you can have your wall. Who will he take the money from next year when the Dems won't give him what he wants? He needs $70 billion according to estimates.

Thanks, roxsol, for that easy-to-understand chart.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

Personally I think we need to fire all of these border agents who think a wall will make them and us safer. What the heck do they know. Fire them all, tear down that immoral wall and it's every man for himself.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Mrs, are you basing that on the border agent union boss ? The one who took down the page on their web site that said walls don' t work? The experts talked to the bipartisan negotiating team and that input was used to allocate the monies between the various types of border security.

This was a bipartisan solution, there is only 6 months left to spend the money. Trump is arbitrarily bypassing the authority granted Congress in the Constitution.

Trump will pay mightly for this power grab.........assuming Mueller doesn't get him first.



4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mayflowers

No trump supporter willing to address how they feel about taking the money from the military?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

I wonder if they got their donations back?

Me too. They’re probably pissed they didn’t get a coin for their donation.

Yes you, too, could have this beautiful coin for $50. Next up, Miracle Water.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
MissMyGardens

"Next up, Miracle Water."

I'm always amused when I see shoe black dyed hair on Peter Popoff's infomercial because I thought he had passed into his version of glory! Some people are so desperate for something in their lives and those like Popoff make a literal fortune off of them.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Fárbauti

No trump supporter willing to address how they feel about taking the money from the military?

Using military funds towards protecting this country is totally appropriate. The military will get another ~750 billion soon, 3 billion is a drop in the bucket.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"Ann, all I really want to know is if you're okay with taking the money from our troops. Someone has to go without so you can have your wall. Who will he take the money from next year when the Dems won't give him what he wants? He needs $70 billion according to estimates."

It's money allocated for military construction. I'm not sure what you are saying with "taking money from our troops" and "Someone has to go without". Border barriers seem like exactly the right place for military construction dollars.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

You know, we often hear elections have consequences. So do decisions. Dems are so determined to oppose the reasonable ask of Trump because they can't stand him. It doesn't matter to them if his ask is reasonable or not - the only goal is to oppose him. They'd happily approve the very same reasonable ask from a Dem president. So, this is what happens as a result. Then, it's up to America to decide in elections who has the more reasonable viewpoint and approach and what is good for America.

Chase thinks Trump "will pay mightily" for this. I think just the opposite. I think Dems will. It's just too unreasonable and the unreasonableness of it is just too transparent. Americans want border security and Dems want to oppose Trump's efforts to deliver it.

The next step will be all the lawsuits. I think that will end up being yet another backfire and will likely consume Dems at a time they should be putting forth reasonable policy (of which we've seen absolutely none of yet).

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw


" American want border security and Dems want to oppose Trump's efforts to deliver it."

We will have to wait and see how many Americans ( that's plural ) are supportive of his declaration of a National Emergency and the resultant confiscation of funds, previously appropriated by Congress, from their intended use........we' ll see.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Thanks for the typo notice, Chase. I corrected it. This is great, as we both might begin to correct our typos and our incorrect usage of common words like your and you're.

By the way, a space isn't typically used after an open parenthesis or before the close parenthesis.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

No I' ll leave that game to you . I've made my point.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Lol, I'd guess that might not be a "game" you'd be interested in for long:)

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Well you would be wrong . I've never belittled someone for spelling or grammatical errors on a forum like this before, well maybe Elvis now and then, and I won' t again. It was to simply point out that perfect you aren't so maybe don't throw stones.

Pointing out those types of errors serves no purpose but to demonstrate ones own pettiness and to deliberety provoke and embarrass. Not interested


3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catticusmockingbird

If I didn't know better I'd think some here were still in grade school.

And seriously, why engage with someone like that?

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"I've never belittled someone for spelling or grammatical errors"

I clearly understand why you wouldn't. A person's values are a different matter, right?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mayflowers

This is getting old.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
enegiram

How can it be an emergency when you talk about it for weeks, then declare it to be an emergency, tell everyone you didn't have to do this...then fly off to go golfing at the expense of taxpayers? I say it is clearly NOT an emergency and no panel of judges, Supreme or otherwise, will deem it one, either.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

It's impressive to know how SCOTUS will rule on something!

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
kaych

Stephen Miller does an excellent job of answering many of the questions asked here about this issue & I agree with him 100%.



1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
forreal

It's impressive to know how SCOTUS will rule on something!

Is it like knowing what Mueller knows and what his report will say? Like that?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mayflowers

Ahead of Trump’s announcement, lawmakers pushed back on the idea of raiding Pentagon coffers to pay for a wall.

“The
Military Construction funding process is rigorous. The five-year plan
comes from all service branches prioritizing key projects and the
Committee funding it. Whether it’s dry docks or clinics or [hangars] or
runways, there is not [$3.5 billion] to remove without dire
consequences,” Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii), the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee's military construction panel, wrote on Twitter on Friday.

And House Armed Services Committee ranking member Mac Thornberry
(R-Texas) said in a statement Thursday that he encourages Trump “not to
divert significant Department of Defense funding for border security.”

“Doing
so would have detrimental consequences for our troops as military
infrastructure was one of the accounts most deprived during the
Obama-era defense cuts. And it would undercut one of the most
significant accomplishments of the last two years – beginning to repair
and rebuild our military. I hope that the President will pursue other
options,” Thornberry wrote.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/430205-trump-defends-using-dod-funds-on-border-wall-some-of-the-generals-think-that

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I agree kaych! It was an excellent interview.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

......and never the twain shall meet

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

I do look for conservative voices commentary on current events. Here's one:

"My side would be storming the White House if Barack Obama ever thought about declaring a national emergency."

Joe Walsh

3 Likes Save    
Browse Gardening and Landscaping Stories on Houzz See all Stories
Bathroom Design 14 Bathroom Design Ideas Expected to Be Big in 2015
Award-winning designers reveal the bathroom features they believe will emerge or stay strong in the years ahead
Full Story
Art Collect With Confidence: An Art-Buying Guide for Beginners
Don't let a lack of knowledge or limited funds keep you from the joy of owning art. This guide will put you on the collector's path
Full Story
Silver general contracting LLC specializes in bathroom and kitchen remodeling while being experienced in all home... Read More