Posted on 01/19/2019 8:43:15 AM PST by 4Runner
President Trump plans to use remarks from the Diplomatic Reception Room on Saturday afternoon to propose a notable immigration compromise, according to sources familiar with the speech.
Details: The offer is expected to include Trumps $5.7 billion demand for wall money in exchange for the BRIDGE Act which would extend protections for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and also legislation to extend the legal status of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders, according to a source with direct knowledge.
Jared Kushner and Mike Pence have led the crafting of this deal and the negotiations with members, according to White House officials.
(Excerpt) Read more at axios.com ...
Not sure what that means. The executive can act on explicit or implicit powers in the Constitution, or by legislation. The courts have to decide what is Constitutional, or implied, or legislated.
OTOH, there's nothing in the National Emergencies Act about allowing the courts to decide what is an emergency and what is not. That is entirely up to the President and Congress. Congress would need enough votes to override a veto if they want to terminate the emergency. But the emergency has to be declared on some legal authority. In the past the authority was somewhat circular: e.g. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2808 used by GWBush after Sep 11. Bush had already declared the emergency by EO: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010914-4.html and several more orders after that to help sieze assets and stop terrorist financing.
It has been obvious from day one that a deal over DACA would be in the works. The Demons will reject it even though it makes their hypocrisy obvious to all.
“Law abiding is the words I would use.”
Abiding whose laws? Making you pay for abortions? Other people’s birth control? Raking you over the coals if you say anything un-PC, affirmative actions, quotas disguised as diversity, same sex marriage, transgender insanity... And I could go on for another page. The left brown shirts love to run roughshod over obedient,” law abiding”, meek opposition.
Is there a point at which you start fighting back against them and their laws?
Remember, the courts are LIMITED to that which is brought before them. They cannot rule willy nilly just because they have an opinion on something, especially if that something hasn't been brought to them for a ruling.
Well for your first paragraph, I would certainly expect that the executive would follow the rulings of the judiciary. That’s just common sense. Without that, we have no protection from executive overreach. For your second paragraph I agree. Even with cases brought before them, there are jurisdiction questions. No federal judge in East Podunk should be able to rule on the entire US.
Who is slinking girly man, now after giving out 1.6 billion to illegal invaders that we stopped the Trump has been called.
The Judicial branch needs to follow the Constitution and obey it. The executive branch being co-equal is our protection from JUDICIAL overreach. There are instances where it needs to be used in that fashion, especially in areas such as immigration where the executive branch has the constitutional authority and the judicial branch has none. I would hope that the President protects his turf as is his constitutional duty to do so. THAT is common sense and the way that our founders intended.
“Who is slinking girly man, now after giving out 1.6 billion to illegal invaders that we stopped the Trump has been called.”
What on Earth did I just read?
Im afraid that youre absolutely right....unfortunately.
I hope I’m just included among the pearl-clutchers. :-)
“I hope Im just included among the pearl-clutchers. :-)”
ROTFLOL!
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.