Posted on 02/15/2019 1:41:35 PM PST by Berlin_Freeper
“When Oh When will we get the line item veto for the Oval Office?”
Supreme court ruled that unconstitutional back in the 90’s.
Then why did he just sign a bill forbidding him from building a wall along the border, except for one small segment where the local, corrupt officials will be empowered to forbid him from building the wall?
How much of an emergency can it be to overturn a law that he just signed?
Then why did he just sign a bill forbidding him from building a wall along the border, except for one small segment where the local, corrupt officials will be empowered to forbid him from building the wall?
On what page of the bill does it say that?
Yeah, that’s my concern. It’ll be “evidence” there isn’t really an emergency.
I think the bill says “consult” border cities. He seems have signed off on some very bad laws about catch and release and handling children.
Con Job meant to distract from his signing the Biggest Amnesty-Anti-American Worker Bill in History.
He can’t build while he is “consulting” with them.
“He seems have signed off on some very bad laws about catch and release and handling children.”
Let’s not forget, this Anti-American garbage actually protects MS-13, guarantees children can cross the border and Stay, adds MILLION more HI-BIs, and stops the Wall from being built on 90% of the border.
“Then why did he just sign a bill forbidding him from building a wall along the border, except for one small segment where the local, corrupt officials will be empowered to forbid him from building the wall?”
Signing away his authority under the Constitution. I wonder if the courts will find this legislation unconstitutional? /sarc
He didn't say such words, of course, but you have offered an interpretation that will certainly encourage the 9th Circuit.
Many here are confident he was speaking in cryptic terms and the rest of his thought was generally, "except Congress has failed to provide me with the tools our Border Patrol experts say I must have in the near term to effectively deal with a growing threat to our country's national security".
That does sound troublesome on the face of it.
Do you think it possible based on the advice of his legal team he believes his subsequent emergency declaration frees him to take whatever measures he deems necessary to deal with the emergency?
It ultimately may be significant that the rabid Congress is willing to provide taxpayer monies for a portion of the Wall and then in the same instrument prescribes other measures that obviously make the Wall a waste.
All you do is post trash against Trump. All day. Everyday. All the time. Forever and ever.
How about you take a trip and cool your jets. Here you go:
DISCOVER OUR
2-NIGHT CRUISE
$135
I will send you a $20 coupon for slot machine chips if you buy this ticket and agree to go and stop pestering us.
I think his legal team has produced mixed results to date, but certainly couldn’t have had time to go over the 1000+ bill with any care.
Nonsense. Having different methods to respond to a national emergency does not negate the fact that it is a national emergency.
Yes. IMO he is not hitting hard enough against the left.
Trump needs to call the left to the mat on this. When the Democrats say we should do nothing, they are in fact calling for the status quo of sexual abuse of children, rape of women, indentureship of immigrants, drug smuggling, weapons smuggling, and the potential for terrorists to sneak across to continue unfettered and undeterred. Something like 60% of woman are sexually assaulted on their journey to America.
That is the moral outrage, Mrs. Pelosi!
Moreover as I wrote earlier, this is personal for Trump as he lost his brother to substance abuse. It is Oprah and Ellen territory for him to talk openly about his motivation to never see another person unnecessarily killed or harmed by our inaction.
Trump is right, and if he framed it correctly he would overwhelmingly win the popular support for this - by far - and shame the Democrats into silence. Secure the border, and put in a lot of doors. You want to come, we welcome you. But knock first. He’s said all this before but he needs to hammer it home every time he speaks on this issue. He needs to claim the moral high ground because he actually owns it. He just needs to clearly communicate it every time.
That part of the bill is irrelevant. They need to pass a law that would strip away POTUS power to declare an emergency and re-allocate funds in the process. They likely won’t pass such a law and no POTUS would willingly agree to sign such a law; nor would Congress really want to for fear of things like Katrina. Sometimes the Executive needs to act fast.
There are several dozen POTUS ‘emergencies’ still ongoing some going back to the Clinton era. The legal territory has long been settled. Congress can’t claw it back, SCOTUS has affirmed it, and most challenges you can think of either have no standing or are not legally ‘ripe’ eg. they have to exhaust all other administrative options before bringing a suit. Which is ironic because these are some of the same laws that the government put in place to protect themselves from being sued by citizens.
IMO, inconsistent language is seldom irrelevant in the interpretation of an entire writing, even if ultimately not given any weight.
They need to pass a law that would strip away POTUS power to declare an emergency..
On the face of it, my inclination is to agree inasmuch as the Dem party is swerving to the left. Prior to the statute affording such authority, the view was the Constitution implied such authority and the Congress could impeach and remove a president that misused the authority.
Of course, in any event we might not have the votes to remove an overreaching progressive president. However, in light of clear statutory removal of the authority a significant abuse could serve as a call to arms (if anyone is listening).
Have a nice weekend.
Good God whatever.
Fair enough - not given any weight, if not irrelevant. The whole point of the statute giving POTUS emergency powers is to circumvent the legislative process when emergency action is required. I concede the obvious point that it is a contradiction and an oddity for him to sign a bill and then immediately act in contravention of the explicit language of the bill, but I still don’t think it’s enough to claw back the prerogatives of the National Emergency Act.
Note - there is no automatic funding for an emergency. Generally, POTUS has to redirect existing funds which usually come from related budgets. In this case, iirc, the $8 billion comes from DoD infrastructure budget, DEA enforcement, etc. All related to construction and the rationale for building the barrier.
IANAL, just my read of things. You have a great weekend too!
Well said - too many concern trolls doing everything except actually supporting the guy doing all the fighting....
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.