Pelosi, Schumer To Trump: "Let's Debate Border Funds in Private"

[Goalpost]

Congress has been derelict of duty regarding immigration for decades. I think Trump stands a good chance with a veto and going to the courts.

[fredtoast]

(02-26-2019, 01:47 PM)Goalpost Wrote: Congress has been derelict of duty regarding immigration for decades.  I think Trump stands a good chance with a veto and going to the courts.

I just don't see any basis at all for a claim of an emergency.

It can't be an economic emergency because the Trump has created the greatest economy in the history of the country.

It can't be about drugs because the drugs are smuggled by plain, boat, and motor vehicle through existing check points.  A wall would have no effect on that.

It can't be about crime because the numbers show that immigrants do not commit crimes at a rate significantly higher than US citizens.

So if you think he has a good chance what do you see as the basis for the claim of emergency?

[Belsnickel]

(02-26-2019, 01:47 PM)Goalpost Wrote: Congress has been derelict of duty regarding immigration for decades. I think Trump stands a good chance with a veto and going to the courts.

Congress has been derelict on many things over the past few decades. In addition to immigration, we have infrastructure, poverty, healthcare, climate change, taking care of our veterans, and on and on and on. I'm just saying that people should be careful what hey wish for with this precedent. If Trump follows through with a nod from the courts, this will be used by executives going forward to shove things down the throats of the legislature at every opportunity.

[Belsnickel]

(02-26-2019, 02:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I just don't see any basis at all for a claim of an emergency.

It can't be an economic emergency because the Trump has created the greatest economy in the history of the country.

It can't be about drugs because the drugs are smuggled by plain, boat, and motor vehicle through existing check points.  A wall would have no effect on that.

It can't be about crime because the numbers show that immigrants do not commit crimes at a rate significantly higher than US citizens.

So if you think he has a good chance what do you see as the basis for the claim of emergency?

You're looking at this incorrectly. I agree that there is no real basis for an emergency claim, but the courts won'y adjudicate that. The courts have often given deference to the executive on matters of judgement like that and this court certainly won't change course in that way. The questions will focus on the actual legal authority of the movement of funds and what not, but the question of whether it is an actual emergency or not won't be looked at.

[GMDino]

(02-26-2019, 02:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're looking at this incorrectly. I agree that there is no real basis for an emergency claim, but the courts won'y adjudicate that. The courts have often given deference to the executive on matters of judgement like that and this court certainly won't change course in that way. The questions will focus on the actual legal authority of the movement of funds and what not, but the question of whether it is an actual emergency or not won't be looked at.

(02-26-2019, 02:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Congress has been derelict on many things over the past few decades. In addition to immigration, we have infrastructure, poverty, healthcare, climate change, taking care of our veterans, and on and on and on. I'm just saying that people should be careful what hey wish for with this precedent. If Trump follows through with a nod from the courts, this will be used by executives going forward to shove things down the throats of the legislature at every opportunity.

I reversed the quotes above because you are dead on. Besides the fact that DJT is simply doing this to make himself look like he accomplished a campaign promise it will open things up to more and more of the same behavior from future presidents. And some of them won't be ones that the GOP buddy up to because they don't have the cajones to actually stand for what they say they believe in. And we'll be back to hearing about "executive overreach" from the right, again.

[fredtoast]

(02-26-2019, 02:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're looking at this incorrectly. I agree that there is no real basis for an emergency claim, but the courts won'y adjudicate that. The courts have often given deference to the executive on matters of judgement like that and this court certainly won't change course in that way. The questions will focus on the actual legal authority of the movement of funds and what not, but the question of whether it is an actual emergency or not won't be looked at.

You are correct.

Congress already has the power to stop him.  They just have to override the veto.  So the Court should not consider that issue.

[GMDino]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/28/lamar-alexander-trump-national-emergency-1196748

Quote:Republicans pressure Trump to back down on border emergency
Sen. Lamar Alexander urged the president to withdraw his national emergency declaration or face a potential GOP revolt.


Senate Republicans are offering a choice to President Donald Trump: Withdraw your national emergency declaration at the border or face a potential rebellion from the GOP.


The message was delivered clearly on Thursday by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), part of an effort by senior Republicans to avoid a direct confrontation with Trump on the Senate floor.

In a much-anticipated floor speech, the retiring senator declined to state whether he will become the deciding vote to block the president’s maneuver. But he signaled broad opposition to the emergency declaration and sought to convince Trump that he has other ways to collect $5.7 billion for the border wall — the precise amount of money he demanded during the government shutdown fight.


“He’s got sufficient funding without a national emergency, he can build a wall and avoid a dangerous precedent,” Alexander told reporters afterward, referring to billions from a drug forfeiture fund and anti-drug smuggling money at the Defense Department. “That would change the voting situation if he we were to agree to do that.”


Three Republicans have already said they would join Democrats in voting for a resolution to block Trump, and only one more is needed for the Senate to successfully reject Trump’s declaration. Alexander is just one of about 10 senators who are committed to blocking the president’s move or are considering doing so, suggesting the White House has a ways to go to avoid a public split in the party and a Trump veto.

Asked how the GOP can avoid a battle with Trump, one Senate Republican considering voting for the disapproval resolution said: “He can change his mind.”


“The president can get way more money than he’s even asking for without setting the Constitution on its head,” said this undecided senator, who requested anonymity to speak frankly. “I am very, very skeptical about the precedent this makes.”

In 2005, President George W. Bush withdrew an emergency plan for paying disaster workers after Congress threatened to block him.


If Trump doesn’t back down, there is still deep reluctance in the GOP to becoming the 51st vote for the disapproval resolution that the Senate is expected to vote on in March. So far, Sens. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine are the only Republicans who have said they would support blocking Trump on his plans to seize billions from military projects.


The president told Sean Hannity that Republicans who oppose him “put themselves at great jeopardy” and said it’s “very dangerous” to vote against border security. Some GOP senators shrugged off that sentiment.


“I always do what I think is the right thing to do,” said Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), who is undecided. “As long as I’m satisfied with myself, that’s the person I’m going to satisfy.”


Republicans spent all week debating how to deal with the political headache of seeing a president from their party use some of the same unilateral tactics they panned under President Barack Obama.


After introducing her own resolution of disapproval directly on the Senate floor Thursday, Collins said her “Republican colleagues are very uneasy about the precedent.”


“I don’t think emergencies are a good way to run the government. And the president needs permission from Congress to get money,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Thursday. Despite those words, he hasn’t made a “final decision” on his vote.

“I have long believed and advocated that every president, Republican and Democrat, should act consistent with the Constitution and federal law. And I’m assessing those legal authorities right now,” said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

GOP senators are discussing amending the House-passed disapproval resolution to make it more palatable to both them and Trump, but say they are not sure it will be allowed by the Senate parliamentarian. The resolution has been referred to the Senate Armed Services Committee, but Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said his committee will hold no hearings on it.


“There’s some discussion about: Is there a way to give the president what he asks for in terms of funding but to minimize the use of this mechanism in the future?” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who will oppose the resolution as written.


Despite his clear opposition to Trump’s national emergency declaration, Alexander deemed the looming vote on disapproval a hypothetical, since Trump could withdraw it or the House-passed resolution could be amended. Under current law, the House measure will come up by mid-March, and Alexander left little doubt that he’s just one of a large bloc of Republicans who could defy the president.


Trump’s national emergency declaration for border wall funding is “unnecessary, unwise and inconsistent with the Constitution,” Alexander told reporters. 
“And many Republican senators who can speak for themselves share that view.”


“We’ve never had a case where the president has asked for money, been refused the money by Congress, then used the national emergency powers to spend it anyway,” he added. “To me that’s a dangerous precedent.”

[BmorePat87]

With Rand Paul officially against the fake emergency, Trump should be facing his first veto. McConnell has been able to shield him for over 2 years, he won't be able to shield him from this.

[BmorePat87]

McConnell acknowledged today that the Senate will pass a resolution blocking the fake emergency

[*Nately120*]

(03-04-2019, 02:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: McConnell acknowledged today that the Senate will pass a resolution blocking the fake emergency

I wonder if Trump will hint that Americans need to exercise their 2nd amendment rights in order to make sure this emergency is addressed.

[BmorePat87]

(03-04-2019, 02:56 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I wonder if Trump will hint that Americans need to exercise their 2nd amendment rights in order to make sure this emergency is addressed.

Nah, he'll just call it unfair and rigged and say he was forced to use a very sad veto that he shouldn't have to but he was forced to use and then compare his veto numbers to Obama's. 

[*Nately120*]

(03-04-2019, 02:58 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Nah, he'll just call it unfair and rigged and say he was forced to use a very sad veto that he shouldn't have to but he was forced to use and then compare his veto numbers to Obama's. 

I certainly expect his "it's biased against me and the crooked system won't let me do what the people really want" complaint to play a major role in anything he can't spin as the best victory ever. If I'm Trump I go hard at painting the republicans who voted me down as people who have blood on their hands and/or are complicit in allowing illegals to continue to rape and murder attractive white women and children.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-04-2019, 02:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: McConnell acknowledged today that the Senate will pass a resolution blocking the fake emergency

But not enough to pass if Trump vetoes it, which he will.

[BmorePat87]

(03-04-2019, 03:01 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: But not enough to pass if Trump vetoes it, which he will.

Sadly, no, enough Republicans support allowing the President to reappropriate money without Congressional approval under the guise of a national emergency. 

They will be the loudest voices crying about the Constitution when the next Democratic President does the same for a national gun violence emergency. 

[Au165]

So funny enough I was reading today that the biggest issue is Trump declared a national emergency but walked into precedent that prevents him from using Eminent domain to claim the lands he needs to build the wall. Truman tried to use such a tactic in privatizing the Steel industry during war times but the Supreme Court said that ability to seize private property even in times of war belongs to the legislator not the President.

Basically, the land owners are the biggest road block here and from what I read this will go years before a resolution, possibly past Trump's presidency.

[BmorePat87]

(03-04-2019, 05:18 PM)Au165 Wrote: So funny enough I was reading today that the biggest issue is Trump declared a national emergency but walked into precedent that prevents him from using Eminent domain to claim the lands he needs to build the wall. Truman tried to use such a tactic in privatizing the Steel industry during war times but the Supreme Court said that ability to seize private property even in times of war belongs to the legislator not the President.

Basically, the land owners are the biggest road block here and from what I read this will go years before a resolution, possibly past Trump's presidency.

That's actually really interesting. Eminent domain is extremely boring to teach. I usually talk about how MD tried it on the Colts franchise the next morning after they left and how the state took my great grandfather's land to build a highway.

If this plays out, it could spice the lesson up.

[Au165]

(03-04-2019, 09:04 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That's actually really interesting. Eminent domain is extremely boring to teach. I usually talk about how MD tried it on the Colts franchise the next morning after they left and how the state took my great grandfather's land to build a highway.

If this plays out, it could spice the lesson up.

Youngstown vs Sawyer could be worth discussing in class.

[Dill]

(03-05-2019, 09:37 AM)Au165 Wrote: Youngstown vs Sawyer could be worth discussing in class.

That's not eminent domain, is it? Just a president trying to keep the steel coming.

[Au165]

(03-05-2019, 07:59 PM)Dill Wrote: That's not eminent domain, is it? Just a president trying to keep the steel coming.

It is in a round about way the only way to keep steel coming was taking control and to take control would be to essentially take ownership. The only way to take ownership is trough eminent domain and only congress can do such a thing.

[fredtoast]

(03-04-2019, 05:18 PM)Au165 Wrote: Basically, the land owners are the biggest road block here and from what I read this will go years before a resolution, possibly past Trump's presidency.

I have not looked into this very much, but I don't know why landowners would oppose what is basically a free barrier along the perimeter of their property.  Especially when they will get paid for the land.

Is it because the government has to take a large portion of the land just to build the wall?