Did not require a "bill"
Posted on 01/05/2017 3:14:50 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Did not require a "bill"
It was authorized years ago, but the funding has expired. But by not passing a bill and just including money in the budget, the Dems can’t filibuster it.
“Why should he get a new authorization?”
It was authorized in an election year. Remember John McCain’s ads? “Just build the damn wall.”
Then a year or so later, the D’s and RINO’s defunded it. So the authorization has been sitting there unfunded for some years.
Works for me.
Just get it built!
Then shoot anyone coming over or under it.
They will once Scott Pruitt is in charge.
I’m expecting McCain to balk at some point.
I agree with your explanation.
Why should there be a new bill?
The wall is already authorized by legislation, and at least the startup is funded.
Sounds like bargaining (Stage 3)
And the next liberal Democrat president will order it to be torn down.
We don’t want constitutionally low-information Trump fulfilling his campaign promises in ways that actually help to unconstitutionally expand the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers.
His campaign promise to have Mexico pay for the wall (100%) is important because there is no clear delegation of powers in the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I for Congress to appropriate taxes for the wall imo.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
In fact, Clause 15 of Section 8 deals with repelling invasions. This suggests that the Founding States didn't have a border wall in mind imo.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions [emphasis added];
Note that Thomas Jefferson had indicated that, when in doubt, amend the frigging Constitution.
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Note that such a Congress will be able to drain the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices off of the bench.
Make those my suited EPA agents build it. And maybe the blm also.
Just thing about that. Built without cranes, modern infrastructure.
It does doesn’t it.
Shoot high and often you’ll get it unchallenged.
He has a pen and a phone right?
“Rachael Bade ;@rachaelmbade · 2h2 hours ago
2) BIG NAME DEMS voted 4 the fence act: Then Sens Obama & Clinton; Minority Leader Schumer; Wyden, Feinstein, Stabenow & Carper.”
LOL!
National defense and immigration are explicitly Constitutional duties of the federal government.
Have you lost your mind?
Just want to say that I appreciate your comments on federalism, even when they’re a ‘stretch’, as the subject is woefully un-considered.
As indicated in previous post, the Founding States made the Constitution amendable so that the states could grant the feds new powers when deemed appropriate.
Regarding the explicit constitutional duties of the feds, please consider the following.
Note that President James Madison had vetoed Congess’s public works bill of 1817, a bill that would have given Congress the power to build roads and canals for defense purposes among other things.
Madison explained in the constitutionally required veto explanation that the “common defense and general welfare clause” (1.8.1) was basically an incomplete delegation of power to appropriate taxes, the clauses following it in Section 8 delegations of specific powers which limited the things that Congress could appropriate taxes for.
”To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.” —James Madison, Veto of federal public works bill, 1817
Is fact, note that the Supreme Court later reflected on Madison’s veto explanation by clarifing that Congress’s power to appropriate taxes was limited.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
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.