Just so one thing is clear

[Dill]

(01-15-2019, 07:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Because it's not and it's not.  It's a shut down based on a fundamental disagreement .  No one is doing something unconstitutional.  I'm not a fan of the shutdown, but your characterization of it is laughable. 

   Again, please point out how the Constitution or the rule of law are being subverted here.  Pro tip, you can't.

Stop laughing, or yawning, for a moment and help me out then with a few more of your pro tips.

I have always assumed one of the powers of Congress was that of the purse, meaning that the peoples' representatives decide what tax money is to be spent on.  The other branches of government do not have this power. You have in the past called yourself an originalist Do you agree that this is what the framers intended? 

If Congress has not appropriated any money for a wall, then where does Trump get the money to do this?    If Trump is drawing his wall funds from money appropriated to other budgets, then he would be subverting a Congressional Power--or how do you think he would not be?

Perhaps he could invoke the National Emergencies Act of 1976? There is currently a debate about whether he can do this--declare a national emergency and then draw funds appropriated for disaster relief or military purposes. I'd say he cannot, and if he tried there is a good chance a joint resolution could stop him.

As for rule of law, one of the reasons the framers hemmed in the executive by denying that branch any power of self funding was to prevent future presidents from simply using their executive and C-in-C power dictatorially to go around Congress and laws enacted by the peoples representatives. That would in effect be a power to subvert the rule of law. Am I right or wrong about that? Was there some other reason the Executive cannot raise its own funding?

Other wall-funding options have appeared as well, from GoFundMe to state senators proposing they use state funds to build the wall, in what would be an end-around Congressional appropriation. https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/15/politics/gop-state-lawmakers-trump-border-wall/index.html. Were any of these proposals to somehow work, it would mean a president could call up funds not legally appropriated by Congress and use them for purposes not yet sanctioned by Congress.  Do you agree that would be going around Congress?  Or do you see sanction for this somewhere in the Constitution, that you could show me?

If you do agree, then why should I not call that at least an attempt to subvert the Constitution? Why would it not subvert the rule of law, place the president above the law--which is made by Congress?

If you don't agree, then I await your clarification.