Sequester offers leverage for wall funds

The Daily Reflector ^ | Feb 14, 2019 | Marc Thiessen

[Yosemitest]

Washington Post columnist Marc A. Thiessen served as a speechwriter for President George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

It's official.
We just had the longest government shutdown in history over nothing.

Democrats have agreed to fund $1.375 billion for 55 miles of physical barrier along the border,
which is only a little more than what Trump would have gotten under a continuing resolution that funded the government at current levels —
and far less than the $5.7 billion he demanded to build 230 miles of barriers
that experts and the Department of Homeland Security said they need to secure the border.

But Trump can still get the rest of the money —
without a government shutdown or declaring a national emergency.

Shutting down the government again isn't an option.
Democrats are not afraid of another shutdown.
They know if Trump rejects this deal and closes the government, he would get the blame,
and in a few weeks' time we would end right up back where we are now —
with a bad deal.
They have zero incentive to give him more money for a border wall.

Declaring a national emergency would also be a mistake.
Trump could face a rebellion within his own party, and rightly so.
An emergency declaration is intended for actual emergencies —
such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks or Hurricane Katrina.
If Trump declares an emergency to circumvent Congress and build his wall,
then a left-wing president could use that precedent one day to declare climate change a national emergency
and implement the Green New Deal.
Besides, the courts would likely enjoin his emergency declaration, tying up wall money for months if not years.

To win, Trump needs to shift the debate to a place where he has real leverage:
using the threat of a sequester, rather than a shutdown,
to force the Democrats to give him his border barrier.
In 10 months' time, if Congress fails to act,
then an automatic sequester will kick in
that would reduce federal spending in 2020 to levels
that Congress and President Barack Obama set in the Budget Control Act of 2011.

Congress agreed to lift those spending caps for two years in 2018,
increasing both defense and nondefense discretionary spending above sequester levels by $165 billion and $131 billion, respectively.
But that deal runs out at the end of the year.
If Congress does not lift the caps by December,
then automatic $55 billion across-the-board cuts to domestic discretionary spending will take place,
while defense spending will be cut by $71 billion.


That looming deadline gives Trump leverage he needs to get his wall.
Democrats may not fear another shutdown,
but will they really sacrifice $55 billion for domestic priorities next year
just to deny Trump a measly $5.7 billion for a physical border barrier ?
Unlikely.

If anything, Democrats want to use their new House majority to demand significant increases to domestic spending.
Denying Trump his wall in December would lead to severe cuts.
And Democrats would hardly have grounds on which to complain,
since Trump would simply be following the terms of a budget deal
that a Democratic-controlled Senate passed and Obama signed into law.

Of course, the defense cuts were intended as a deterrent to conservatives,
who know they would be potentially disastrous for U.S. national security.
But Trump may not care.
He wants his wall and may be willing to swallow temporary defense cuts to inflict sufficient pain on the Democrats to get it. <>br>
Trump can't win a shutdown fight today.
But he can win a sequester fight at the end of the year.
He should
take the deal on the table today,
resist the temptation to invoke a national emergency
and then get the rest of his wall money in December
when he finally has the upper hand.

[ridesthemiles]

9-10 more months of the inflow of illegals isn’t worth that.

Maybe most of Congress members don’t live where it is a problem. But, millions of everyday Americans are impacted by the influx of illegals.

Take away our guns & give us more illegals in trade?

NOT AN OPTION.

[ridesthemiles]

..wouldn’t Eminent Domain kick in here?”””

NOT APPLICABLE

Pres Teddy Roosevelt passed legislation in 1906, which give the USA a 60 foot EASEMENT the entire length of the border.

Still in effect, so anyone who even owns land that touches the border might not even have a correct deed.

That EASEMENT is land that Trump can do with as he pleases to PROTECT the USA.

[ScottfromNJ]

“An emergency declaration is intended for actual emergencies —
such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks or Hurricane Katrina.”

The author needs to read this part of the national emergencies act:

“Emergency defined as per The United States Code Title 42, Chapter 68, Subchapter I, §5122 -

“Emergency means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety,”

[FreeReign]

An emergency declaration is intended for actual emergencies...

This is an emergency.

In 10 months' time...

Kick the can down the road...yet again.

Boehner and Ryan would love such a plan. Thiessen is way off.

[itsahoot]

How many days can a bill awaiting the President's signature, or his VETO , before it becomes law WITHOUT his signature, and it is designated 'signed' ?

I this if he doesn't sign it that is the same as a veto. They used to call it a pocket veto I think.

[CharlesWayneCT]

If the democrats don’t fear a total shutdown, why would they fear a fight over sequestration? They’ll just pass a bill to waive it, and force trump to shut down government to keep the sequester, and the senate republicans will go along with the democrats.

He should probably veto this bill, and completely ignore the wall funding, and just go on TV and say “the democrats decided to double-down on illegal activity”, and show all the ways the democrats dismantle law enforcement with this bill.

Maybe Trump was unable to convince Americans to support a wall, but even he should be able to convince them not to let the democrats empty criminals out into our streets.

[VTenigma]

No, not other monies. The wording enjoins him from building any barriers except along the Rio Grande.

[marajade]

If it is a national emergency nothing can stop it.

[VTenigma]

WE shall see, won’t we?

[Yosemitest]

Thanks.

[Dagnabitt]

MAGA and the "Wall" appear to have been election season Bubba-bait. Nothing more.

Trump is not who we wished him to be.

[lodi90]

MAGA and the “Wall” appear to have been election season Bubba-bait. Nothing more.
Trump is not who we wished him to be.

---

LOL. They don’t call it the Surrender Party for nothing. People like you are exactly why conservatism hasn’t advanced since Reagan. POTUS has already delivered more conservatism than every beltway career conservative put together will in their lifetimes.

[Yosemitest]

Thanks.


I found this comment on QUORA

Are there maps showing the route of the proposed Trump Wall of any useful detail available online ?



The wall would have to follow the border, taking advantage of the Roosevelt Reservation, an 60 ft. easement following the US-Mexican border,
established in 1907 with the intent of setting aside a portion of land along the border for use in anti-smuggling operations.

According to the Government Accountability Office in 2009 on the Secure Border Initiative:

The land where this fencing was built has been publicly owned since 1907
when President Theodore Roosevelt reserved a 60-foot strip along the international boundary with Mexico for the United States
to maintain the area free from obstructions as a protection against the smuggling of goods between the United States and Mexico.
In effect, the Roosevelt easement provided the federal government with a 60-foot border right-of-way on which it could build the fence.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/300/2...

Funny how no one cried “racist !” in response to the Secure Border Initiative…
But at one mention of “The Wall”, that’s a near certain response among some.

[Yosemitest]

Here's a good source

LII U.S. Constitution Annotated LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT SECTION 7. Clauses 1–3. The Legislative Process THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

Approval by the President

The President is not restricted to signing a bill on a day when Congress is in session.493
He may sign within ten days (Sundays excepted) after the bill is presented to him, even if that period extends beyond the date of the final adjournment of Congress.494
His duty in case of approval of a measure is merely to sign it.
He need not write on the bill the word “approved” nor the date.
If no date appears on the face of the roll, the Court may ascertain the fact by resort to any source of information capable of furnishing a satisfactory answer.495
A bill becomes a law on the date of its approval by the President.496
When no time is fixed by the act it is effective from the date of its approval,497
which usually is taken to be the first moment of the day, fractions of a day being disregarded.498

[Yosemitest]

Read Comment #34.

[itsahoot]

Read Comment #34.

Pocket veto A pocket veto is a legislative maneuver that allows a president or other official with veto power to exercise that power over a bill by taking no action (instead of affirmatively vetoing it). Wikipedia

[Yosemitest]

Wikipedia is a good start for research, BUT I need to go deeper into the ruling.
Here's a better source, but a "Pocket Veto" by Trump would be another LONG legal battle.

THE POCKET VETO CASE *

* The docket title of this case is
The Okanogan, Methow, San Poelis (or San Poil), Nespelem, Colville, and Lake Indian Tribes
or Bands of the State of Washington v. United States.

No. 565

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
279 U.S. 655; 49 S. Ct. 463; 73 L. Ed. 894; 1929 U.S. LEXIS 364; 64 A.L.R. 1434

March 11, 1929, Argued
May 27, 1929, Decided ...
DISPOSITION: 66 Ct. Cls. 26, affirmed.

CASE SUMMARY:

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioners, various Indian tribes, obtained a writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims to review a judgment dismissing their petition
upon the ground that
a bill passed by Congress, upon which the jurisdiction was dependent, had not become a law.
Respondent was the United States.

OVERVIEW: The Indian tribes predicated their claims upon a bill that was presented to the President, but which he did not sign.
The Indians argued that U.S. Const. art. I, § 7 was the basis for finding that the bill became law.
However, the Court determined
that Congress, by its adjournment, prevented the President from returning the bill within 10 days after it had been presented to him.
The Court held that
the adjournment of the first session of the 69th Congress on July 3, 1926,
prevented the President, within the meaning of the constitutional provision,
from returning Senate Bill No. 3185 within 10 days, Sundays excepted,
after it had been presented to him.
As a result, the bill did not become law.
The President neither signed the bill nor returned it to the Senate,
and it was not published as a law.
It was conceded that
the President was necessarily prevented from returning a bill by a final adjournment of the Congress,
since such adjournment terminated the legislative existence of the Congress
and made it impossible to return the bill to either House.
An interim adjournment at the end of the first session likewise prevented the President from returning it to such House.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment.

It took me quite a while to find this source.

I believe Trump should try this.

[Liz]

Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer continue to play politics with our safety and security. What sleazes Pelosi and Schumer are!

The savagery of these people is defined by their obsession with power, and their relentless pursuit of power....no matter the cost to Western civilization.

Democraps, and their acolytes, are invaders, an invading army waging a vicious war on a peaceful people.
Illegals pouring over our southern borders in caravans are Dems foot soldiers.....with orders to march to the ballot box.

[Liz]

PELOSI PLEDGES HER UNDYING LOYALTY TO MEXICO--demeans American citizens and Trump to Mexican officials
In 2016 Nancy brought a Congressional delegation to Mexico City to meet with Mexican dignitaries. Pelosi told the Mexican president and his entourage: “We come here as a bipartisan and large delegation to express our respect for the people of Mexico and the country of Mexico; to acknowledge our shared border and our shared values and to learn more about how we can work together for the bright future for not only our two countries but for our hemisphere.”

Pelosi later said the Congressional delegation had a busy time in Mexico City. “We heard a sermon on the importance of workers in Mexico, a view we share. We’ve met with members of the American Chamber of Commerce. We had a very beneficial meeting with Director General Zapata on the subject of the economy and on the subject of TPP (trade pact) especially.

"And then we had a glorious meeting, a really very thorough exchange of subjects and views – again about our shared values and our shared border – with the President [of Mexico]......with Members of the Federal Deputies – Mexican Federal Deputies – and Senators. And in the evening we had a dinner meeting with the Mexican Foreign Minister,” Pelosi said.

=============================================

PELOSI DEMEANS AMERICAN CITIZENS WHILE ON MEXICAN SOIL
PELOSI SLAMS DONALD TRUMP TO MEXICAN OFFICIALS
(BEFORE TRUMP GOT THE NOM AND GOT ELECTED BY 63 MILLION AMERICANS)

CIRCA 2016----Pelosi in Mexico telling Mexican officials Trump is speaking to an "insecure minority," who maybe lost their job and
think it was because of immigration, or trade. I think it's putting too much weight on all this. Trump only has one half of one half, 25%."

The 2016 Congressional delegation to Mexico also included Democrat Reps. Norma Torres, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Pete Aguilar and Linda Sanchez (Calif.); Beto O'Rourke and Henry Cuellar (Texas); Ruben Gallego (Ariz.); Michelle Lujan Grisham (N.M.); and Republicans Michael Fitzpatrick (Pa.) and Richard Hanna (N.Y.).

SCHADENFREUD Beto sucked-up bigtime for latino votes....but still lost his Texas race against Cruz.

[itsahoot]

I believe Trump should try this.

He certainly should try something different.