Posted on 01/10/2019 5:05:48 PM PST by EveningStar
National who?
Why NRO is still allowed on this site is beyond my comprehension.
It’s a terrible idea. Even if it’s legal...>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No it is a GOOD idea. The Democrats have helped create this emergency at the Southern Border, which they now deny.But the American public knows the truth of it.
And it is Legal.
“In 2012, Obama declared a national emergency entitled, “Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen” in order to freeze the assets of anyone perceived to be negatively impacting a political transition in Yemen, VOA reported.
In 2014, the 44th president issued a national emergency referred to as “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine,” which similarly locked the assets of those thought to be undermining democratic processes in Ukraine. These are just two of many internationally oriented states of emergency that Obama declared while in office. “
***********************************************
Although the United States Constitution[13] contains no mention of any emergency powers granted to the President, some people claim that Congress has delegated at least 136 distinct statutory emergency powers to the President upon the declaration of an emergency, with only 13 of these requiring a declaration from Congress.[14]
Emergency presidential powers can be dramatic, and have ranged in the past from suspending all laws regulating chemical and biological weapons, including the ban on human testing (50 U.S.C. § 1515, 1969); to suspending any Clean Air Act implementation plan or excess emissions penalty upon petition of a state governor (42 U.S.C. (f) § 7410 (f) 1977);..............
NOTE *** to authorizing and constructing military construction projects (10 U.S.C. (a) § 2808 (a), 1982) ***End Note.......
using any existing defense appropriations for such military constructions ($10.4 billion in FY2018[15]); to drafting any retired Coast Guard officers (14 U.S.C. § 331, 1963) or enlisted members (14 U.S.C. § 359, 1949) into active duty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act#Procedure_for_new_emergencies
“In the meantime, the administration will have built nothing new on the border and created another precedent for unilateral government sure to be exploited the next time a Democrat occupies the White House.”
Wall Street Journal also raising the this will set a precedent for the Democrats. Does anyone believe the Dems need or honor precedents?
I call it interNational Screw offline.
I can remember when I used to read the National Review and the Investors Business Daily editorials thinking how is reading a bunch of really conservative stuff. Little did I know I was reading a bunch of globalist cheap labor American sellouts.
If I were President Trump I'd hold the line and follow this strategy:
1. Keep the partial shutdown in place at least through the end of January.
2. If Congress doesn't meet all of his demands in a funding bill by then, decline the invitation to give the State of the Union address before Congress. Instead, make it a nationally televised event in the White House and send the transcript of the speech as the president's report under the requirements laid out in the U.S. Constitution.
3. Reduce -- for real, not a general announcement with an indefinite timetable -- the troop levels in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq by 1,000 personnel for every week the partial shutdown drags on. If Congress isn't willing to protect the U.S. borders, we sure as hell have no business protecting anyone else's.
Soldiers have been patrolling borders since, well, there were soldiers and borders.
Trump flushes them out. He has done us several favors in that regard.
Just think if all the illegals are gone then employment
should rise in numbers for Citizens. We may reach an
unprecedented low number in unemployment.
Oh, well we could treat the whole issue as an invasion and do 1846 again instead. if we push the border 200 miles south I betcha a lot of Mexicans would be very happy. That's certainly military action. Just ask the Governors of the Mexican states on the border if they want to join up and take yes for an answer. Plus I suspect some the border-straddling tribes would like to be completely in the US.
And the wall would be a lot simpler if it were further south, heheh.
Otherwise known as the Trotskyite Review
I think making people show themselves for who they really are is one of his most valuable attributes.
“WE ARE STILL CUCKS”
NR one step behind the The Weekly Standard.
By the way, Canada also has a high-tech joint defense with us including combined personnel training. Canada has military forces that are proportional to ours with the population difference considered. Canada is our eyes and ears to the north with the latest equipment.
Mexico, although trying more to help now (see President of Mexico and new commercial zone planned for the south side of the border), doesn’t have the resources revenues or conditions to do what Canada is doing. So yes, the barrier is needed on the southern border. It will make national security easier for north America in general. That includes Mexico, because it will slow down some of the heavy traffic coming into Mexico from countries to the south of Mexico.
It’s a military matter, and the barrier would be far more cost effective over time than keeping enough personnel down there to watch the border without the barrier.
Following the Weekly Standard model I see.
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.