survival as a party. them, seeing MILLIONS of illegal aliens pouring into our country is NO crisis, it means more power.
"Pelosi and Schumer gave us directions to electoral college states."
"We're already registered to vote Democrat."
Posted on 02/16/2019 5:45:24 AM PST 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.
If it gets to a veto, then Trump vetos, and on a concurrent resolution . . . note, NOT the budget resolution-—Trump would sustain that veto in both houses.
As I argue, he likely would NOT sustain a budget veto in both houses because they are desperate to get gubment open again.
Big difference in what the Congresscritters are voting on.
"Pelosi and Schumer gave us directions to electoral college states."
"We're already registered to vote Democrat."
Republicans are dense when it comes to messaging. They should have been in front of the microphones in 30 seconds last weekend braying about how Trump made Nancy cave on funding for the wall. She said repeatedly “no money for the wall and then gave him 1.375 billion. Trump made Nancy cave so SHE LOST this one.
thanks. I understand. I still haven’t heard\seen proof that President Trump signed that bill.
Still not shown as “Became Law”
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/31/actions
The budget vote in both house was veto-proof.
I wasn’t asking about that.
I was speaking only to the National Emergencies Act process for a Declaration vs. your Zen Master’s weigh-in - and how does congress get to by-pass the existing process, as the law is spelled out, by first taking it to court ?
After the money has been voted on by Congress? Congress has to okay it again, for a second time?
arg...I just saw this - so never mind my comment about the budget.
I wonder why the web site wasn’t updated.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-by-the-president-28/.
Pretty sure I Heard Rush say Friday that the WH announced it had signed the bill.
In my non-lawyer opinion you are 100 percent correct. There is no court justification on this. It is only a Congressional matter. If they fail to override the Declaration then there should be NO standing in any court for any one.
P4L
“I predict that a liberal judge on some District Court will declare the Emergency Unconstitutional, even if the judge has no grounds to do so. You know why? Because there is no downside to the judge and only upside.”
You are right because we NEVER impeach and remove a federal judge. We should have at least one impeachment of a federal judge going on at all times for failure to follow the clear intent of the constitution and various legislation. Take a couple of them off the bench and the others will probably develop a new attitude.
I”m off the net traveling for another week.
Stay safe
bttt
bttt
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.