02-26-2019, 01:47 PM
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.
Pelosi, Schumer To Trump: "Let's Debate Border Funds in Private"
|
02-26-2019, 01:47 PM
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.
02-26-2019, 02:08 PM
(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?
02-26-2019, 02:12 PM
(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.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
02-26-2019, 02:14 PM
(02-26-2019, 02:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I just don't see any basis at all for a claim of an 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.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
02-26-2019, 02:23 PM
(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. Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
02-26-2019, 03:13 PM
(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.
03-01-2019, 03:11 PM
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/28/lamar-alexander-trump-national-emergency-1196748
Quote:Republicans pressure Trump to back down on border emergency Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
03-04-2019, 11:07 AM
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.
03-04-2019, 02:51 PM
McConnell acknowledged today that the Senate will pass a resolution blocking the fake emergency
03-04-2019, 02:56 PM
(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.
03-04-2019, 02:58 PM
(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.
03-04-2019, 02:59 PM
(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.
03-04-2019, 03:01 PM
(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.
03-04-2019, 03:03 PM
(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.
03-04-2019, 05:18 PM
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.
03-04-2019, 09:04 PM
(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. 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.
03-05-2019, 09:37 AM
(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. Youngstown vs Sawyer could be worth discussing in class.
03-05-2019, 07:59 PM
(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.
03-05-2019, 08:07 PM
(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.
03-05-2019, 08:10 PM
(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? |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|