Posted on 02/24/2019 12:02:16 PM PST by street_lawyer
Let me begin by predicting that Trump will finish a wall of protection along the southern border, just not in this term in office. I predict that Trump will not only win in 20/20 but voters will bring in with him congressmen who will support the President’s policies. It’s going to be a swamp clean up like this disaster of a Congress never happened. Trump will eventually win as usual. Some of you, perhaps most of you were not pleased with my article predicting that Trump will temporarily be prevented from finishing the wall in his first term. Some of you jumped to the conclusion that I do not support President Trump, nothing is further from the truth. The progressives may be able to slow down the Trump train, but they can’t stop it.
I’m quite sure that this audience knows that if we had a democrat as president none of this would be happening. It doesn’t help that progressives make up most of Congress starting from McConnell and Ryan down to little Rubio who does support the national emergency. Progressives don’t want to see Trump succeed on stopping illegal immigration; nevertheless, Congress did give the President authority to declare a national emergency (NEA) and gave him power to enforce existing statutes, which President Trump is doing.
The question is by building a wall that Congress definitely does not want (Republicans and Democrats alike) and did not authorize, is the President performing a legislative act that is the province of Congress? Quite possibly. The way I see it the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2019 (CAA2019) was passed specifically to give progressives in Congress an argument in court. Congress decides domestic policy and not the President. Perhaps an argument can be made that a border invasion is not a domestic issue but rather foreign affairs. The Constitution is not definitive on this issue; however, the recent pattern, although not precedent setting as in court cases, shows that the power of the executive during times of national emergency and war have been expanded in the area of foreign policy.
Congress barred the Obama administration from using funds to transfer detainees out of Guantanamo Bay prison. Could he have declared a national emergency in order to use funding from other sources? If he thought he could, you better bet he would have. All of the enumerated presidential powers dealing with foreign affairs require the consent of the Senate. Former Presidents have used their “implied” powers to accomplish their objectives. In the past Congress has granted authority to the President to impose economic sanctions on foreign entities (International Emergency Powers Act of 1977). Furthermore in U.S. v Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. the court held that in international relations, the President is the sole organ of the Federal Government. Congressional legislation that effects international relations should accord the President a degree of discretion and freedom to implement foreign policy. The powers of the Federal Government are derived from the States and the States did not have power beyond their borders. Even before the Declaration, the colonies were a unit in foreign affairs, acting through a common agency—namely, the Continental Congress, composed of delegates from the thirteen colonies.
Speaking of how the president is the negotiator for our foreign policy, the court in Curtiss-wright Export Corp. wrote: This consideration, in connection with what we have already said on the subject discloses the unwisdom of requiring Congress in this field of governmental power to lay down narrowly definite standards by which the President is to be governed. One could argue that by limiting this President in how he proposes to protect America’s borders by imposing “narrowly definite standards” limits the power of the presidency in exercising his power in foreign affairs.
The President can’t go it alone. He needs new Freedom Caucus Members.
Only in your dreams will a Republican US Senator be elected POTUS. Not going to happen. Ever. Sorry.
It happened last in 1920. Harding.
Trump won by 77,000 votes. That’s it.
He failed to restore the rule of law and jail criminal democrats. They found how to stuff ballot boxes in 2018 without a single criminal charge.
2020 goes to Democrats.
So, not never. Lol.
Well I don’t think the country will vote for Paul. He’d have to be Trump’s running mate. But then AIPAC (and just about every other PAC) would have a conniption fit. Kristol would need to up his meds. And dollars to donuts, Pence would write a book.
Can ICE be stationed at polling places in CA, TX, AZ and NM?
My vote for president isn’t Mike Pence after Trump but another Mike- Secretary of State Mike Pompeo...I have been very impressed with all the tough assignments he has handled. His work with the major world leaders is outstanding and great on the job training for the Presidency. He is smart, even tempered, commands respect from other leaders, able to work long hours and does so with little or no recognition.
Mind you, I really respect Mike Pence, but it’s Pompeo who would be the best follow up guy to Trump.
“He failed to restore the rule of law and jail criminal democrats. They found how to stuff ballot boxes in 2018 without a single criminal charge. 2020 goes to Democrats.”
I’m pretty sure that Ann Coulter would agree with you and so would many other people. The statute of limitations has not run. Wait to see what happens.
I think Trump wins easily in 2020.
“Can ICE be stationed at polling places in CA, TX, AZ and NM?”
I think the Elections Crimes Branch in the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Justice Department is tasked with the responsibility.
I’ll be campaigning for him and voting for him.
P.P. what a lousy underhanded insult to lump me in with Ann! :)
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.