Trump 'very happy' with bill outlawing future border wall

American Thinker ^ | 5/2/17 | Ed Straker

[chiller]

While it's commonly known by now that the new spending bill that Congress and the Trump administration agreed to funds mostly Democratic priorities, and doesn't fund President Trump's border wall, what's not widely known is that the new legislation goes even farther than this. Not only does it not fund the border wall, but it prevents the government from constructing a border wall with any funds.

[joesbucks]

I’m not a constitutional expert, but I believe to override a veto requires 2/3 of the House or Senate depending on which body sent it to the President constitutionally.

[Prince of Space]

Hillary would have been so much better as POTUS, right?

You Never Trumpers are so predictable.

[jjotto]

Trump’s first-year budget proposal calls for $2.6 billion for a “physical wall”. I suggest waiting for the results of an actual Trump proposal.

[COBOL2Java]

“Our country needs a good “shutdown” in September to fix mess!”

Why wait?

Well, it gives the GOP a chance to set the football down one more time!

...like they did to us, their constituents, in 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016!

[palmer]

It's not just the Trump haters who are behaving as expected but the people who are weak kneed or lost causers throwing in the towel when there is no evidence in the bill of a wall prohibition. There is $341M to replace 40 miles of fencing and a provision that the DHS secretary has to write up a plan "including the use of personnel, fencing, other forms of tactical infrastructure, and technology..."
That also " (4) identifies the planned locations, quantities, and types of resources, such as fencing, other phys- ical barriers, or other tactical infrastructure and technology;"

[Balding_Eagle]

Brush off of my comments or not, President Trump is saying that.

There are several threads about it right here on FR if you aren’t signed on to his twitter account.

[chiller]

Not much strategic or cool about this. Even if he's conceding (as Ryan/McConnell clearly have) this budget May-Sept . would normally be a Dem budget, it sets a terrible precedent. It's not Trump's nature to concede anything...so I suspect DjT's getting bad advice....and listening sadly.

He'd better warn the bastards that from here on, we're doing it differently....which I believe they will if DjT runs the shop.

[chiller]

My comment about Trump not knowing referred to an incorrect assumption that this would prohibit "future" wall construction. True, but only until a new budget in October, so no yuge deal, imho. Not good, but not a killer.

Now, If it goes into Ryan's first budget, then it's much more than yuuuuge.

[chiller]

I don't know why Trump is afraid of a shutdown. It's perfect for him to point out govt. largesse, since no one would know the govt. was closed. Essential services remain open.

It's Congress that's in a panic about a shutdown. Cowardice plain and simple.

[tumblindice]

“Trump has a simple choice. Veto it and have the uniparty override his veto making him look weak.”

Put a `positive spin on it’? Did you really write that?

What color is the sky in your world, noob?

Fight! Veto it and make the squishes go on record.

“Hector, that Achilles is just too much for you. Better fold your tent and try to put a positive spin on things ... “
All of this sniveling on Free Republic, and a new tagline is born.

[COBOL2Java]

Brush off of my comments or not, President Trump is saying that.

There are several threads about it right here on FR if you aren’t signed on to his twitter account.

I already am, and I know what he's saying on Twitter. My comments are directed toward those who parrot his comments, either unthinkingly or for remunerative purposes.

[dynoman]

The point is; in the big picture it’s not a huge win for the dems. They are painting it as a huge win in a fundraising campaign. It’s all they have.

[JerseyDvl]

Dems are WINNING!!

[caww]

Baloney!

[JerseyDvl]

What about line item veto?? Is that an option??

[nathanbedford]

There is a very real danger to the country if Trump does not veto this bill.

The wall is a metaphor for the Trump campaign, if he abandons any pretext of building the wall the entire reason for his campaign is abandoned.

Obviously, he does not take this step to abandon the wall lightly. It means that he has considered his options and concluded that he will govern with a coalition of rinos and Democrats, whom we now see are the very people who fashioned this dreadful budget extension, and he will govern against the interests of the people who elected him.

This is as I warned before his nomination.

If on the other hand he takes the matter to the country on the heels of a veto which will have shut down the government, he has a chance to save his presidency. Even if he fails in that effort and has to ultimately accede to the provisions of this bill and open the government again, he will have retained the loyalty of the people and he will remain their champion. He will have credibility to fight again.

As I said, the choice is that stark and that Manichaean. If he will not risk his presidency on this issue he will lose it.

[JerseyDvl]

I’m not being negative to bash Trump but am disheartened by this news. Concern troll? Maybe.. But with good reason.

[sargon]

The author of this article, Ed Straker:

[Cboldt]

Line item veto was ruled unconstitutional, even if Congress passed a law allowing a line item veto.

Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)

The other way presidents weasel around the law is "signing statements."

[palmer]

if he abandons any pretext of building the wall the entire reason for his campaign is abandoned

Still waiting for someone to point out where in the bill there is a ban on building a wall. On the contrary the bill requires a plan to secure the border "...including the use of personnel, fencing, other forms of tactical infrastructure, and technology..." Doesn't exclude anything as far as I can see.