States sue Trump in showdown over border wall funds

Not sure what you are trying to prove there. Yes the court lifted part of the injunction, then ultimately ruled the travel ban constitutional.

 

I provided credible nonpartisan substantiation for my position which is way more than you have done.

 

It was ruled unconstitutional by the liberal ran courts. Why? Because it might hurt "Muslim's feelings".

 

But it doesn’t say anything was ruled unconstitutional as you suggested. In fact it supports what i said and ultimately what happened...part of the injunction was lifted and then later the ban was ruled constitutional in 18

 

The SCOTUS ruled it constitutional in June 2018

 

The wall is an important part of border security

Liberals are consumned with ego themselves and just want to stop the wall because trump is for it

 

Liberal courts, not SCOTUS. Liberal courts often ignore the law for feewings.

 

For partisan political purposes

They democrats on a mission

 

If these states lose the lawsuit will they secede? It is what slave states tend to do when they do not get their way.

 

So the sock puppets didn't work?

 

The wall will funnel the drug smugglers where the authorities will be waiting for them.

With the Obama wall Americans will not see so many of these signs along I-8.

 

There were three versions of the travel ban. The reason that the first two were never litigated on the merits by the Supreme Court is because the administration significantly altered the language in response to lower rulings that they were unconstitutional.

 

Which were all shot down by the lower courts. No matter the material language of the ban, the left wing courts would have shot it down.

 

The lower courts never ruled that, they issued injunctions. Each time they revised. Either way, the travel ban is in place and constitutional

 

Not my job to educate you on the definitions involved with the statute you're discussing Counsel.
Why don't you make me look the fool by quoting it for the class?

 

No one has a job on a debate forum except to debate and argue. If you have an argument to make, then make one.

As it stands, I am perfectly content with my argument that there is no national emergency along the southern border, as evidenced by the multitude of statistics that I outlined previously and evidenced by Trump's own statement that he "didn't need to do this."

 

FY2017.

 

It’s replacement for the old style wall. It was approved in FY2017

 

And, again, if you were even vaguely familiar with the statutory definition of national emergency in the National Emergencies Act you'd know that a national emergency doesn't have to be handled as a national emergency or we all die to qualify as a national emergency. A President can declare such an emergency even if they don't "need" to.
You're attempting to use the layman's definition to apply to a Term of Art. You claim to be a lawyer, act like one and read the damn law.

 

and you would be completely incorrect, again.

 

You are entitled to your opinion

Just like a spectator in the stands can question an umpires call

But its trumps decision not yours

Btw: the courts should reject all the lawsuits liberals are filing

 

Of course it is, it pertains to border security, and national defense. Face it, your endless stream of illegals is coming to a halt...

 

If you think the law provides an explicit definition, then quote the definition. My research indicates that it does not.

There is no national emergency at the Southern Border. Apprehensions are near a 20 year low, 90% of drugs do not come through non-ports of entry, and terrorist linked individuals more often come from the northern border.

Trump went to Congress in order to obtain funding for a specific project. Congress denied him the requested funds and then trump declared a national emergency to obtain funds. That misuse of the NEA has never been done. And even if it did authorize such, Trump is abusing the underlying statute upon which he is relying to obtain at least three billion of those funds. Whereas "national emergency" is not clearly defined by the statute, "military construction projects" are defined in 10 USC 2801 (2802?). And a civilian project (and the wall will be manned permanently by civilians) to support a non-existent military base, in a non-existent war zone, during peace time, along the border with a regional ally violates the plain meaning of that statute.

 

Your research is incorrect and I would suggest you learn exactly how declaring National Emergencies work and who can do it.

There is a national emergency at the Southern Border.

 

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/94/hr3884/text
https://reason.com/archives/2019/02/20/trumps-phony-yet-legal-border-emergency
There is the law, first link.. Why don't you go ahead and point out where the recourse is when a president declares a national emergency.
Go on and tell us how such a thing can be challenged. Go ahead and tell us where the power is limited.
Hint: Its only limited by a) his need to provide a statute he's bringing to fruition (see 2nd link for what he's using) and b) the ability of Congress to pass legislation telling him he's a naughty boy.
Do you see that happening? I do not.