Baby Donald will declare a national emergency.

Have any Democrat politicians gone down there? Maybe, but I haven't heard of any. They don't want to see what's really going on because then it would be hard, with a straight face, to say it isn't a crisis.

 

If you are he are going to argue that these are blank checks to do whatever he wishes and take whatever he wishes, without any balance of power or accountability to the public, then I look forward to the courts correcting that authoritarian fantasy.

 

Building the wall by pen and phone. What was it again conservatives were complaining about under Obama? The hypocrisy is stunning.

P.S.: $1.7 billion for 55 miles of wall. That means the whole wall will cost >$43 billion. That's already a pretty good cost overrun compared to the rosy initial cost predictions. And then Mexico was going to pay for it.....

 

That's just for initial construction too. I'm not sure if that takes into account legal fees (eminent domain is expensive) and ongoing maintenance.

 

His authority to block the entry of any class of aliens is in black and white.

The executive authority, indeed the responsibility, to secure the border is black and white.

Besides, you're acting like this is a first.

It's not.

Tell me how DACA wasn't the same, and/or was based on any kind of Constitutional or legal authority.

 

This would be one of 30 other National Emergencies still in effect from as far back as the Carter admin. One such emergency declared by Bill Clinton and continued by Bush, Obama and Trump cites illegal immigration from Cuba as cause.

The illegal immigration from Cuba and the effects on our society was and is but a drop in the bucket compared to illegal immigration from all of central America through our largely open southern border.

 

Dodge 1

Dodge 2

Dodge 3.

It was.

It wasn't and it shouldn't have happened without Congress.

 

I didn't dodge a damn thing. His Constitutional and lawful authority is not dodging the point.

YOU'RE dodging it.

 

I addressed it already. You tried to dodge by inventing a hypocrisy that didn't exist and scrambling to change the subject to DACA.

 

Clearly you didn't understand it if you're still complaining about it.

I didn't change any subject.

It's the same subject called immigration enforcement.

 

What's your solution.

 

You tried changing the subject to DACA. Either you supported Obama's pen-and-phone, unilateral effort just as you are supporting Trump's, or you were trying to change the subject by making an accusation of hypocrisy when the hypocrisy was actually your own.

 

DACA isn't changing the subject.

DACA is the exact same subject as securing the border and dealing with the POTUS immigration authority.

Clearly you still don't understand, let me explain.

The POTUS does not have the Constitutional authority to ALLOW aliens to enter the country, it only allows the POTUS to STOP immigration. Read it.

Trump has not only the lawful and Constitutional authority to secure the border from tens of thousands of unknown persons entering the country, he has the responsibility to do so.

If you want to be obtuse and pretend that DACA and actually enforcing EXISTING immigration law aren't two sides of the same coin, you're welcome to keep pretending you don't see it.

 

The Constitution never transfers the tax or spend clause from the Legislative to the Executive, authoritarian daydreams aside. We have a process for obtaining private and State land for Federal use. Trump can follow it, as much as he hates it. The Constitution. Read it.

Not if his methods are unconstitutional. Get it now?

They are two sides of the same coin, which is why I already covered this. If you are going to quote people, please read their responses.

 

That's always been the case. Thousands of lawsuits have been filled over the last 50 years.

But Trump should declare a National Emergency. It sets the precedent for the Climate Change National Emergency that the next President will declare.

 

Which isn't required to secure the federal borders, or in cases deemed an emergent issue.

It is Democrats that are refusing to do THEIR duty and ENFORCE THE LAW. They don't want the law enforced. They want wide open borders that allow tens of thousands of unknown persons to enter the US unchecked.

I've read it plenty of times, since I've sworn to uphold and defend it multiple times. Figured I should be familiar with it, thanks.

What method is unconstitutional? Clearly you don't understand his authority.

I responded to the first post I saw. It's possible I didn't see them all. Take that into consideration the next time you start accusing people of dodging.

 

What isn't required?

A straw man stuffed to the gills with whataboutisms . . . the Trump supporter version of a turducken.

Yet you didn't read the spending clause?

Already covered.

Clearly you overestimate his authority and prioritize federal authority over state and individual liberty.

When you quote me and don't address what is in the quote, yes, I'm sorry, but that's dodging. TL;DR - Obama should have engaged in Executive overreach either. I'm against Executive overreach from both parties.

 

Pelosi, Schumer Draw Red Line: Emergency Declaration ‘Would Be A Lawless Act’

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/pelosi-schumer-a-national-emergency-would-be-a-lawless-act

*House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Thursday said President Donald Trump declaring a national emergency to get more border wall funds than Congress appropriates “would be a lawless act.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Thursday that Trump would declare an emergency, and that he would have the Republican leader’s support in doing so.

Schumer and Pelosi said of the move: “It is yet another demonstration of President Trump’s naked contempt for the rule of law. This is not an emergency, and the president’s fear mongering doesn’t make it one.”*

 

Blah blah, I'm sorry your feelings are hurt.

I like how you call Congress abiding by their own laws a strawman though, that was original.

This isn't new.

Try reading.

https://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-institute/files/Sale.pdf

President Trump has the full authority to do what he's doing, and the responsibility to do so.

 

Says the people who don't want immigration law enforced.

 

The responsibility to declare a national emergency where none exists?

Unless of course you're referring to having a buffoon in the Oval Office.

 

he knows he wont get it as even his own party wont support it due to the precedent it would set and they fear dems talking over in 2020

if Republicans due it now, do not cry when Democrats do it later

Trump is proof that when someone says, we do not need regulations to prevent that, no one would ever do it"... People like Trump is the reason regulations are so detailed, people like Trump will do it, then claim it's not illegal (just unethical)

 

So when a Dem prez declares a national emergency over a real one, climate change, I'm sure Trumpers will line up to defend the prez's authority (wink).

WASHINGTON — President Trump has stepped back from declaring a national emergency to pay for a border wall, under pressure from congressional Republicans, his own lawyers and advisers, who say using it as a way out of the government shutdown does not justify the precedent it would set and the legal questions it could raise.

“If today the national emergency is border security, tomorrow the national emergency might be climate change,” Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, one of the idea’s critics, said this week. Another Republican, Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, told an interviewer that declaring a national emergency should be reserved for “the most extreme circumstances.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/us/politics/national-emergency-risks-trump.html?module=inline

 

Actually the federal government can take land through eminent domain before it goes to court.

Bush did it in Texas and there are still court cases pending but the government seized that land and used it already.

You may want to look up the actual law that allows them to do this.

So no, it won't be tied up in courts and can be seized immediately if he wants.

 

. . . through Congressional appropriations. Which can be taken to court. And are. And were in the case of what Bush did in Texas. What do you folks have against private property?