Posted on 02/27/2019 8:54:17 AM PST by street_lawyer
Thanks very much for this.
Bingo.
“Plaintiff States collectively stand to lose millions in federal funding that their national guard units receive for domestic drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, and millions of dollars received on an annual basis for law enforcement programs from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, harming the public safety of Plaintiff States.”
I believe their argument is moot. The wall
is being built to address and support
the stated concerns. I’m curious to know
if any of the states objecting have
placed national guard troops on the
border.
Throw all reason and objective truth out the window.
5 justices can do what they want to do.
7-2 decided we could kill babies.
5-4 decided we had to buy a product from a private company or have our money taken by force.
5-4 decided our property wasn’t really our property.
The question in my mind is whether the border situation is an “emergency”.
Without trying to define “emergency”, we have a problem that will become totally out of control if we let it grow.
The damage would be as catastrophic as a military invasion would be.
It is extremely important (an emergency) that we take control of the border immediately.
Last I checked the military reports to the Commander-In-Chief alone. There is no court in the chain of command. Trump needs to double down on this with direct orders to build without ceasing, despite any court orders.
Is cancer an emergency? Well lack of border control is exactly like a cancer going untreated. It can only get worse.
“lack of border control is exactly like a cancer going untreated”
Exactly.
Didn’t the Trump administration declare our illegal drug problem an emergency or words to that effect? The border situation is part of that ‘emergency’.
Throw all reason and objective truth out the window.
5 justices can do what they want to do.
7-2 decided we could kill babies.
5-4 decided we had to buy a product from a private company or have our money taken by force.
5-4 decided our property wasn’t really our property.
While what you say may be true, it’s no reason to stop wearing a MEGA hat
“Plaintiff States collectively stand to lose millions in federal funding that their national guard units receive for domestic drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, and millions of dollars received on an annual basis for law enforcement programs from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, harming the public safety of Plaintiff States.”
I believe their argument is moot. The wall
is being built to address and support
the stated concerns.
BRILLIENT REASONING! You get an A+
“Plaintiff States collectively stand to lose millions in federal funding that their national guard units receive for domestic drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, and millions of dollars received on an annual basis for law enforcement programs from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, harming the public safety of Plaintiff States.”
I believe their argument is moot. The wall
is being built to address and support
the stated concerns.
BRILLIENT REASONING! You get an A+
it’s also Brilliant as well lol
The Constitution famously set up checks between the branches.
Thanks to the 17th Amendment, Congress doesn’t have the will to use their available checks against a runaway judiciary.
The practical fact is, Scotus is despotic. There is no Constitutional limit to its diktats.
Start with repeal of the 17A. Article V.
Trumps declaration on drugs (thru the
dept of health) is a separate declaration.
It’s already funded from the war on drugs.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/opioids/
There’s one other point to make.
Trump has already declared a national
emergency on the opioid epidemic.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/opioids/
For the rats to claim that moving money
from the military defense budgets creates
a hardship on the enforcement of drug
interdiction, it is not true. The money
is there for the opioid emergency declaration.
I believe it’s funded thru the dept of health.
That’s OK...I’ve known a few brillient
people who couldn’t spell worth a hoot.
I’ve seen Los Alamos scientists with
taped up eye glasses, staring at beer
bottles.
The question here is what happens if the procedure designed by Congress leads to a conclusion unfavorable to Democrats? We all know what happens next: Democrats run to the courts to overturn the results of that procedure.
Results that are unfavorable to Democrats are, by definition, illegitimate and must be corrected by any means necessary.
-PJ
“It’s already funded from the war on drugs”
You said it: “The war on drugs”. My point is that our drug problem is already being called a war. Our border problem with drugs is therefore a war. Certainly a war is an emergency.
Since as you say the courts are so corrupt that whatever the democrats want they get, then what do you suggest that conservatives do about it?
Since the courts can only control the outcome if the states that are enacted are not specific the solution is always the same. The Constitution provides for governance that represents citizens. Apparently we have the kind of governance we have because this is what people want. Who’s mainly responsible for molding public opinion?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.