_____________
Sounds good to me ..... but I know no law except the law of attraction.
It wouldn’t matter since THEY know everything. Just approach it like the demolibs. Court order? Pffffttttt. Ignore and proceed.
Cross the Rubicon.
They also cannot show that they have been "Hurt" by this action nor is there any reason to 'sue' as the only funds being used now are those actually appropriated by Pelosie's bill. IOW if the court uses actual law the states are way off base. 9th Circus? I don't know.
The US Code regarding national emergency declarations says the way to overrule them is through a joint resolution of congress. That eliminates the law suit option.
Yp8 can’t run a national emergency if every state or judge can take charge through fiat. That’s why it’s in the hands of 1 person, the commander-in-chief.
Trump should sep up and say the courts have no jurisdiction.
Imagine a border wall through California and new mexico and none in arizona because they don’t want one. How would that work?
Build the wall and tell the courts they are irrelevant according to the US Code.
That’s interesting.
Thanks!
I read in today’s local Gannett newsrag that New Jersey is among the states filing suit against a border wall. My question: How does NJ have standing to sue against something that does not affect us? Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California maybe, but Jersey? Gimme a break!
_____________
Sounds good to me ..... but I know no law except the law of attraction.
Just heard Xavier Becerra Attorney General of California claim that trumps Act was unconstitutional but, admits he’ll lose in court
???
Doesn’t seem all that unconstitutional now does it
Their hatred of Trump has so blinded them to the reality that we are being invaded and our demise is imminent unless something is done.
How is this not one step closer to a civil war?
Got that right...Texas has the most ongoing illegal immigration:
On a Typical Day in Fiscal Year 2017, CBP...
CONDUCTED:
SEIZED:
IDENTIFIED:
INTERCEPTED:
In FY 2018, an average of more than 33,000 were apprehended on the southern border EVERY month. A small cities worth of population, month after month after month after month.
Nearly 400,000 were caught FY 2018 alone.
**** Keep in mind, these numbers represent those who were caught. How many were not caught? ****
Southwest Apprehensions By Fiscal Year
| Total Apprehensions | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sector | FY 2018 | FY 2017 |
| Big Bend TX | 8,045 | 6,002 |
| Del Rio TX | 15,833 | 13,476 |
| El Centro CA | 29,230 | 18,633 |
| El Paso TX | 31,561 | 25,193 |
| Laredo TX | 32,641 | 25,460 |
| Rio Grande TX | 162,262 | 137,562 |
| San Diego CA | 38,591 | 26,086 |
| Tucson AZ | 52,172 | 38,657 |
| Yuma AZ | 26,244 | 12,847 |
| USBP Southwest Border Total | 396,579 | 303,916 |
Texas apprehensions FY 2018 - 250,342
Texas apprehensions FY 2017 - 207,693
Arizona apprehensions FY 2018 - 78,416
Arizona apprehensions FY 2017 - 51,504
California apprehensions FY 2018 - 67,821
California apprehensions FY 2017 - 44,719
Note: For the Las Cruces (NM) station, see El Paso Sector.
Do we know if anyone is trying to get an injunction to stop the construction of the wall or are they just filling a lawsuit and dealing with the ramifications later and thus allowing Trump to build the wall.
The one word is “standing”. Under the Federal statutes in order to commence a suit against the federal government the litigant must have standing meaning the litigant must show he or it is uniquely or specifically suffering a loss because of government action. The blue states dem pollical apparatus bringing these suits on behalf of the states have no standing. This will not make any difference in the 9th circuit whose rulings are political as a rule and pay little heed to the actual law in marquee political lawsuits such as this. That is why the suits are being bought in the 9th circuit. The Dem House of Representatives will bring suit and they do have standing because they will allege that the President’s executive action usurps the legislature’s powers but that does not mean they will ultimately win on the merits when the Supreme Court considers it. IMHO
Trump signaled in remarks last week that he anticipated lawsuits.
“We will have a national emergency, and we will then be sued. And they will sue us in the Ninth Circuit, even though it shouldn’t be there,” the president said, referring to the nation’s largest circuit court whose area encompasses California. “And we’ll possibly get a bad ruling and then we’ll get another bad ruling and then we’ll end up the Supreme Court, and then hopefully we’ll get a fair shake and we’ll win in the Supreme Court, just like the ban.”
Trump is correct except for the last sentence about winning in the Supreme Court. Not so sure now that Roberts has started the move left over the last 2 years. He is no longer a dependable conservative vote on the court
These are some of the most cash-poor states.
How do they afford the expensive law suits.
They must know some really cheap lawyers.
(my auto-correct wanted me to use cheat lawyers, but I objected.)
“Texas has a Supreme Court right under federalism under Article 4 Section 4 of the US Constitution as well as by Congressional Treaty (1845 Joint Resolution of Annexation of the Republic of Texas to the United States of America) to counter sue the states that do not wish to defend the border.”
And I would think they could do that in the 5th circuit, hopefully.
I just tried the link of your post to LinkedIn, and it doesn’t work. I wonder if the bad link is because the post has been removed from their website or if the link was just typed wrong here.
I know all of this is invisible to us peons but when this goes to the 9th circuit does the POTUS get to send his lawyers to make his case? And is it possible for that to be televised?
There aren’t 16 border states, they have no standing.
Peso up a rope.
Certainly not as well informed as some of the other folks on here about federal law and the Constitutional powers, etc. My question(s):
Doesn’t the Left, in all its parts, routinely use the “Commerce Clause” to force states to bend to the will of the federal government?
Is that not what they did and argued with obamacare to force states to implement it?
Isn’t that their ‘go to’ when all else fails, Federal law/directives/EOs/etc supercede everything else, until told otherwise?