Replies

I highly recommend everyone read this, thank you for posting link. Here it is again and for to make it easy for everyone I will copy the whole article.

Wall Analysis: The Path Ahead (from Zen Master)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3728223/posts?page=1

Posted on 2/16/2019, 5:45:24 AM by LS

My source on all things courts and legal, Zen Master, has weighed in with some excellent information on the path ahead for the Declaration of Emergency.

1. For a case to be heard, it must meet at least these three conditions: standing, ripeness, and aggrieved party.

First, standing: the DoE only affects four states: TX, NM, AZ, and CA.

Only a party in one of those four can bring a suit in the Ninth (CA/AZ), Tenth (NM), or Fifth (TX) Circuit Courts. But even before you can do that, you must be an aggrieved party, meaning you must show direct immediate harm from what is happening (i.e., building the wall). Watch how this plays out in a moment.

Now, it’s frequently argued here that a “friendly” party can bring a case immediately in a “friendly” venue (such as the Fifth, which is mostly GOP/conservative but not unanimous).

No. A court would view this as a type of fraud, since the two parties are considered “friendly” and would rule it an abuse of the court. It would be tossed. I don’t know, but there might even be legal penalties for bringing such a suit.

Second, this is different from the Travel Ban, which was national and enabled a Hawaiian judge to put a stay on it. Again, this is region and state specific, meaning it will only affect the Ninth, Tenth, and Fifth-—but not until the wall starts going up in those states.

Third, no challenge can be brought until a case is “ripe.” In OH, Gov. DeWine said he will sight the “Heartbeat Bill,” which PP will challenge. But he hasn’t signed it yet, so there is no challenge yet.

No “wall” challenge can be made until the case is ripe, meaning until Trump ACTUALLY SPENDS DoE MONEY TO BUILD SOME OF THE WALL.

2. That brings us to the emergency declaration. Congress has already authorized, and Trump signed (which many of you did not want him to sign) a bill with $1.375b to start building the wall.

Trump has also invoked two statutes, 31 U.S.C. section 9705 and 10 U.S.C. section 284 to spend about $3.1b. These statutes don’t require an emergency declaration.

There is a third statute, 10 U.S.C. section 2808 with $3.6b which does require an emergency declaration.

Here’s the genius of how Trump is doing this: the money will be spent sequentially, with the $3.6b designated under 10 U.S.C. section 2808 (the national emergency money, if you will) spent last.

Trump will spend about $4.7b before he ever gets to the DoE money-—and that’s the only point at which that DoE can be challenged.

3. Now, there WILL be a Congressional challenge to the authority to do issue this declaration in DC almost immediately, and that (says Zen Master) will be struck down both on standing and ripeness grounds.

4. Go back to standing: the case cannot come up in the Ninth or Tenth Circuses until wall building WITH DoE $$ actually starts there.

Finally, precisely because Congress has just authorized $1.75b for the wall-—regardless of the qualifiers-—it cannot be argued that Trump’s wall is something different (i.e, somehow unconstitutional). In other words, by passing the bill-—and by Trump signing it-—Congress just MADE IT 100% LEGAL.

Interesting... and worth contemplating. I have a rather (positive) medical distraction right now which has obviously unfocused me a bit {a bit more than usual ;^)}

***Trump will spend about $4.7b before he ever gets to the DoE money-—and that’s the only point at which that DoE can be challenged***

I am not a legal beagle and - as I say - distracted. This is what I wonder about. The Trump people and some legal types say that POTUS can redirect money already appropriated in the budget - not bearing on the emergency declaration directly. {0bama did it muchly, eh?}

The Constitution, Article One, Section 9, states (if I have this right):
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time. The Congress has allowed certain exceptions to this ambiguous rule such as in emergency situations. A court challenge to the Trump Admin might center on what is the mind of the Congress? and that is where my legally untrained mind sees a thorny hedge.

What is the mind of the Congress? Obviously there is no single mind on this issue, so a judge has to make a decision. I keep posting: I am not sure the courts have jurisdiction in matters that bear on national security. Shall a judge some day determine whether we shall - or shall not - go to war? The whole issue then becomes a political football - one in which POTUS says that he will prevail in the Supreme court... I am not comfortable nor confident with the whole scenario... but then: what do I know? 🤔