Mexico border wall: Trump defends emergency

[Gromdor]

I'm with Oversword in this.  Trump did it to save face.  He can blame the 9th court of appeals for the wall not going up now instead of his own inaction for the first two years of his presidency.

The Constitution is pretty clear on separation of powers and using a law to try and bypass the Constitution will only end up with the law being overturned.

 

There are some amusing things about the whole ordeal, though.  I find it interesting that he was taking money from Drug Enforcement Programs (Drug Interdiction and Drug Forfeiture Money) to build a wall to stop drugs.  Apparently what they were using the money for is less effective than a wall in the desert.

The precedence it sets is amusing as well.  There is a whole toolbox of powers that declaring a National Emergency lets the president get access to.  The ability to freeze the finances of Americans, the ability to shut down media, and to enable mass surveillance on the US population for example: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/national-emergencies-constitutional-and-statutory-restrictions-presidential-powers

With such powers, it might be wise to limit the declaration of National Emergencies- but hey if we want our future presidents to declare it whenever it suits their whim, it will definitely make for more interesting times.

[the13bats]

 

Um, i like talking crypto, ghosts and aliens better than politics as this all just confused the hell outta me,

Seems no one remembers that trump boasted a zillion times in his running for potus he would build a walk and mexico would pay for it. Period.

Mexico said no, and trump did the smoke and mirrors dance how yes they will pay, this way or that and they laughed and said no,  so when did it go from a promise mexico would pay for a wall ( which sounded crazy to me ) to tax payers paying for it? ( sounds even crazier ) This one isnt obamas fault, i heard it myself trump said mexico will pay.

From what i did read "if" he gets this emergency idea to float in courts then the funds comes from military, ( thats not good ) i guess they dont mind and that money came from tax payers, so what happened to mexico paying for it, and why cant trump just admit epic fail?

Geez, im glad i have little to no interest in politics.

[+susieice]

24 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

With such powers, it might be wise to limit the declaration of National Emergencies- but hey if we want our future presidents to declare it whenever it suits their whim, it will definitely make for more interesting times.

Future Presidents may potentially do just that. If we're under 31 right now, obviously Trump isn't the first one to do this.

Edited February 16, 2019 by susieice

[+susieice]

That GoFundMe we were talking about last month is still going on. It's up to over $20.7 million and supposedly Trump has said he personally thanks everyone who contributed. It has a link now where you can opt to leave your donation in or take it out if you contributed before January 11 when a private contractor was discussed. If you didn't opt in, you will get your refund in 90 days. Here's the link to it.

https://www.gofundme.com/thetrumpwall

Edited February 16, 2019 by susieice

[Agent0range]

I think people aren't looking deep enough into this.  According to the numbers, to reach the $8 billion he wants, he needs $3.5 billion from the Military construction projects fund.  That's the only money that requires the national emergency.  The other $4.5 billion comes from allocated funds, and executive orders.  Essentially, he declared a national emergency over $500 million (considering he requested $5 billion.)  Now, the real question is, why would he take such an extreme action over 1/10th of what he requested?  

Edited February 16, 2019 by Agent0range

[Will Due]

 

It's not about the wall.

It's about sanity. And the loss of it trying to take it away.

 

 

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

not if its their land thats being taken away from. i bet that a lot for those framers and ranchers are employing illegals too. who knows maybe Trump has too. 

What I'm trying to explain is that if the government chooses to evict someone and pay them fair market value under "Eminent Domain", citizens cannot win that fight.

[+susieice]

3 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

fine then next democratic president that comes to office can do the same and ban military style weapons next time there is a school shooting. you okay with that? 

There is a comeback to that. By the latest statistics from the CDC (2017) drug overdoses killed over 70,000 a year. Suicides are up 3.7%. It's lowering our nation's life expectancy. Not sure if this constitutes a national emergency.

https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/statedeaths.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/americas-heroin-epidemic/drug-overdose-deaths-top-70-000-drive-down-u-s-n941476

Edited to correct post.

Edited February 16, 2019 by susieice

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

so you're okay with the next president banning guns under similar conditions? 

It would lead to open hostilities in this nation and the Progs KNOW this.  They'd need cover from the Supreme Court AND a younger population that votes on emotion.  The ONLY legal way to ban guns would be to properly implement the process of Constitutional Amendment legislation.  It'll never happen.  Hell, we can't agree on basic ideology about how this nation needs to approach the future.  If a government is seated that attempts banning guns or ammo, there would be violence.  That isn't a wild threat nor am I advocating violence against ANYONE.  I'm just telling you that Americans by large majorities have that as a red line.  

[Agent0range]

6 minutes ago, and then said:

What I'm trying to explain is that if the government chooses to evict someone and pay them fair market value under "Eminent Domain", citizens cannot win that fight.

So, what you are trying to explain is, that there are not still cases from the Secure Fence Act of 2006 still in court?  And what you are trying to explain is, that you are for BIG GOVERNMENT taking the land of citizens?  How very conservative of you.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Agent0range

[Lord Harry]

And just when I thought President Trump was going to let myself and all of his supporters down, he does this and surprises us all.  Well done Mr. President!  You still have my support and my vote.

[+and-then]

2 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

So, what you are trying to explain is, that there are not still cases from the Secure Fence Act of 2006 still in court?  And what you are trying to explain is, that you are for BIG GOVERNMENT taking the land of citizens?  How very conservative of you.

Try not to be a schmuck, man.  I don't advocate government stomping on citizens and I think you're well aware of that.  I simply explained what Eminent Domain was and how the government uses it to beat folks down.  As to the cases dragging on, go for it!  If the USSC rules against a president's power under the emergency declaration rules, the Left will have limited those powers for ALL future presidents.  That's the most impressive aspect of these multi-pronged, constant legal challenges that the Progs are using.  They have so far managed to increase the perceived power of a president and even if they manage to successfully argue against him at the SCOTUS, they will just limit themselves in the long term and increase his support in the near term.

[the13bats]

34 minutes ago, Lord Harry said:

And just when I thought President Trump was going to let myself and all of his supporters down, he does this and surprises us all.  Well done Mr. President!  You still have my support and my vote.

Wish he had as to his promise made mexico pay for it not us...but so be it

[+susieice]

3 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

all you've told me is how you'll act and how you expect other gun owners to act too. but my question was how would you feel if the next president acted the same for gun control? 

I'm not picking on you. Really. Just thought you might want to take a look-see. I just found an awesome site where gun violence in the US is archived by year and type of incident. Look around in it. There are statistics and full reports. How much of this gun violence can be traced to drugs? Gang shootings? We do have a real state of emergency.

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports

[Unusual Tournament]

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Probably not Captain  but we could provide support, technical help, and maybe a few specialists.  I listened to a radio report about a technique used in Iraq, continuous high resolution aerial photography to find bomb makers and who placed the devices..  It was tried by a company in an American city and a Mexican city..  Americans thought it was too much invasion of privacy.

In the Mexican city, the photos caught the assassination of a police officer.  They traced the cars back found the house where  they started, and found a number of other cars dispersing from there.  They looked for the other cars in pictures and found a few of them associated with crime scenes.  Mexican police raided the house and found it to be a cartel branch headquarters.   By looking at several days worth of pictures, they identified quite a number of cars associated with the house and went after them.   Things like that can be done if the Mexicans and Americans have the will.

 

wow, thats some type of tech. I'm sure in time the cartels would nullify such an advantage, but the photography could also eventually get even smarter.  

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, and then said:

What I'm trying to explain is that if the government chooses to evict someone and pay them fair market value under "Eminent Domain", citizens cannot win that fight.

thats okay but such a precedent would allow presidents to supersede certain laws by just classifying them as threats to national security or emergencies.  

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, susieice said:

There is a comeback to that. By the latest statistics from the CDC (2017) drug overdoses killed over 70,000 a year. Suicides are up 3.7%. It's lowering our nation's life expectancy. Not sure if this constitutes a national emergency.

https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/statedeaths.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/americas-heroin-epidemic/drug-overdose-deaths-top-70-000-drive-down-u-s-n941476

Edited to correct post.

you can add obesity and the overuse of fats, sugars and salt into that also. 

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, and then said:

It would lead to open hostilities in this nation and the Progs KNOW this.  They'd need cover from the Supreme Court AND a younger population that votes on emotion.  The ONLY legal way to ban guns would be to properly implement the process of Constitutional Amendment legislation.  It'll never happen.  Hell, we can't agree on basic ideology about how this nation needs to approach the future.  If a government is seated that attempts banning guns or ammo, there would be violence.  That isn't a wild threat nor am I advocating violence against ANYONE.  I'm just telling you that Americans by large majorities have that as a red line.  

in some ways i can see your point on how hard it would be to do but its not impossible. we did it here in Australia. start wth the stores and then work your way down. you won't get everything but it will get harder to own and use those weapons. 

Edited February 16, 2019 by Captain Risky

[Unusual Tournament]

49 minutes ago, susieice said:

I'm not picking on you. Really. Just thought you might want to take a look-see. I just found an awesome site where gun violence in the US is archived by year and type of incident. Look around in it. There are statistics and full reports. How much of this gun violence can be traced to drugs? Gang shootings? We do have a real state of emergency.

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports

nah thats okay, i enjoy the friendly banter. i agree with you. drugs and weapons are tragic. is it a real state of emergency? yes it is. will it be stopped by building a wall along the Mexican border? i think it would help but you'd get more return on investing that money better on intel and working together with the Mexicans. i think Trump said it best in the first year of office to the then Mexican president. 'my military is better than yours, maybe we should should the problem.' the problem is that Trump is more interested in getting re-elected than anything else. he's using the system. i don't think that he should call for a state of emergency and just stop at building the wall. let him go all the way if he's genuine. 

[Unusual Tournament]

3 hours ago, OverSword said:

I’m going to ignore the whole situation. You are all overthinking it. As I posted above this is just political theater.

after thinking about it i think you're spot on. Trump just being bombastic because he knows no better way to get his message across. 

[Unusual Tournament]

3 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

It's hardly an emergency.  According to this article there were 1.6 million crossings in the year 2000 compared to 300,000 in 2017.  The Republican Senators themselves didn't even support the idea when they had the House majority.  Now he wants to blame the Democrats for not giving him the funds and like a rich spoiled child that's used to getting his way all his life, he's going to put on a hissy fit and carry on like a true dictator and while they'll end up scrambling through court cases, the wall won't even get built for at least 10 years, if it ever does get built.

So he’s decided to cut Congress out of the policy-making process.

Doing so will unleash legal and political firestorms. Congress will vote on a resolution to end the “emergency,” forcing Trump to veto it if passed. And it will trigger lawsuits not only from legislators upset that he’s seizing their constitutional prerogatives

link

Just hope the Markets don't get affected by all of his BS, although in this global economy that we live in it's almost a certainty it wlll.

thanks BRD. just as i thought its Trump thing to get re-elected. falling approval ratings, he needs to win.

[RAyMO]

4 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

apparently the supreme court will challenge it.

Does anybody in the US really believe the the US Supreme Court is a body capable of giving unbiased rulings in a political dispute?

The commentary around Christians supporting Trump, and the shenanigans of vetting whats his name, makes me believe that I am not alone in thinking its a politicised body. 

The Dems on the committee will find against Trump, the Trump appointees will find for, and the other Reps will be in a quandary, support Trumpo and give cart blanche to the next non rep president or stuff Trump and give a "victory" to the Dems.                         

Off course they will wrap (warp) their adjudications in some interpretation of the constitution which will seem to be plausible justification.

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

thats okay but such a precedent would allow presidents to supersede certain laws by just classifying them as threats to national security or emergencies.  

That could only happen if that president had the support of the majority.  You are conflating an action that has at least SOME validity that can be demonstrated vs an obvious raw, power-grab.  After the last two years of insanity by the media and the Progs, nothing will surprise me.  I'll remind you that Gorsuch is on the USSC because Harry Reid pulled a power-grab during Obama's administration.  He invoked the "nuclear option" first.

[Unusual Tournament]

11 minutes ago, and then said:

That could only happen if that president had the support of the majority.  You are conflating an action that has at least SOME validity that can be demonstrated vs an obvious raw, power-grab.  After the last two years of insanity by the media and the Progs, nothing will surprise me.  I'll remind you that Gorsuch is on the USSC because Harry Reid pulled a power-grab during Obama's administration.  He invoked the "nuclear option" first.

you're a very passionate Trump supporter and your knowledge base on the subject exceeds mine. i will say that what Trump has declared isn't agreed upon by very many as a national emergency. you might very well be right, but you're in the minority not just in your country but for republicans too.  

[+susieice]

3 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

you can add obesity and the overuse of fats, sugars and salt into that also. 

What is it with fat, sugar and salt? I know it's cholesterol, diabetes and high blood pressure, but why is it put on the same level as an opioid drug addiction? There is a big difference. These are diseases that onset over time. People are getting better at watching their intakes and what a person takes for these conditions doesn't kill instantly. You do need to watch for allergic reactions if you are put on one of the medications. People don't form into violent cartels and smugglers for high profit, or shoot each other over a box of KFC.

Edited February 16, 2019 by susieice