Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Captain Risky

Mexico border wall: Trump defends emergency

528 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Myles
1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

Quite a precident if they are found guilty. Possibly opening a door to indictment of mayors of sanctuary cities for obstructing justice.

I was thinking the same thing.

It would be good if they are found guilty.   What they did was wrong.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

and that is exactly why they will get off,  precedent is exactly what the system  does not need.  it is not just low level court officers involved, judges too. no way a judge will open that can of worms

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eldorado
Posted (edited)

Some news...

"A federal judge in California on Friday issued a preliminary injunction barring the government from “taking any action” to construct a border wall in two sectors using funds diverted from the Defense Department.

"Construction on the U.S.-Mexico border using money diverted from the Defense Department under President Donald Trump's emergency declaration was scheduled to begin as soon as Saturday, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which had filed the lawsuit against the government."

From NBC via MSN UK: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/judge-blocks-construction-of-parts-of-border-wall-under-emergency-declaration/ar-AABTeWb?li=BBoPWjQ

"Federal judge partially blocks Trump's $1 billion border wall plan"

At The Hill: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/445528-federal-judge-partially-blocks-funding-for-trumps-border-wall-report

Edited by Eldorado
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
1 hour ago, Eldorado said:

Some news...

"A federal judge in California on Friday issued a preliminary injunction barring the government from “taking any action” to construct a border wall in two sectors using funds diverted from the Defense Department.

"Construction on the U.S.-Mexico border using money diverted from the Defense Department under President Donald Trump's emergency declaration was scheduled to begin as soon as Saturday, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which had filed the lawsuit against the government."

From NBC via MSN UK: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/judge-blocks-construction-of-parts-of-border-wall-under-emergency-declaration/ar-AABTeWb?li=BBoPWjQ

"Federal judge partially blocks Trump's $1 billion border wall plan"

At The Hill: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/445528-federal-judge-partially-blocks-funding-for-trumps-border-wall-report

The Judge said it was because the Congress is supposed to have the power of the Purse and provide funds. Which is stupid, since the funds already were allotted by Congress to the DOD. Trump is just funneling it somewhere else. The Congress did their job, and Trump used his Emergency Powers to move the money. 

I'm sure this will be reversed by a higher court. These California "Legislating from the Bench" Judges always seem to be reversed later.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

The Judge said it was because the Congress is supposed to have the power of the Purse and provide funds. Which is stupid, since the funds already were allotted by Congress to the DOD. Trump is just funneling it somewhere else. The Congress did their job, and Trump used his Emergency Powers to move the money. 

I'm sure this will be reversed by a higher court. These California "Legislating from the Bench" Judges always seem to be reversed later.

I need to remember this logic next time the wife gives me $1000 to pay for a car payment and I end up spending it on a new AR. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

I need to remember this logic next time the wife gives me $1000 to pay for a car payment and I end up spending it on a new AR. 

If it is a "declared" emergency, I'm sure you'll be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stardrive

Ah yes, I remember the preelection comment by the msm saying of the Latino vote "the brown wall will save us from Trump being elected".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

The Judge said it was because the Congress is supposed to have the power of the Purse and provide funds. Which is stupid, since the funds already were allotted by Congress to the DOD. Trump is just funneling it somewhere else. The Congress did their job, and Trump used his Emergency Powers to move the money. 

I'm sure this will be reversed by a higher court. These California "Legislating from the Bench" Judges always seem to be reversed later.

If Obama had taken 30 billion from the Pentagon and funneled it into Obamacare, would that have caused a stir, especially from a Republican Congress?  Congress provides funds for specific purposes not for an as you please allocation by the President.  Part of the checks and balances that are supposed to be so good about our Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
30 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

If Obama had taken 30 billion from the Pentagon and funneled it into Obamacare, would that have caused a stir, especially from a Republican Congress?  Congress provides funds for specific purposes not for an as you please allocation by the President.  Part of the checks and balances that are supposed to be so good about our Constitution.

It's not like Trump diverted funds from a Socialist program.  The border is a matter of defense, so it was an all-in-the-family reallocation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
11 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

It's not like Trump diverted funds from a Socialist program.  The border is a matter of defense, so it was an all-in-the-family reallocation.

The military is probably the most socialist institution we have.............  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
10 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

It's not like Trump diverted funds from a Socialist program.  The border is a matter of defense, so it was an all-in-the-family reallocation.

RavenHawk that is nit-piking.   It is a principle in the Constitution, the executive can't shift money, doesn't matter how closely related you might think they are.  Long ago, you convinced me that in addition to beefed-up checkpoints barriers at least in vulnerable areas were a necessity.   The money needs to be allocated properly.  Principles have to apply all the time whether you like the situation or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

The military is probably the most socialist institution we have.............  

That is a very inaccurate definition.  In its rank structure, it is necessary.  It is required in war, not peace.  We also have a professional military.  Each individual knows what is required of them as opposed to the conscripts in the days of old.  Because everyone deals in death, a free market isn't needed to support that economy.  The government controls where the military goes, it doesn't control the individual.  Control is in-house among its members.  Being in the professional army is a way of life.  It is a special calling.  It can be a hard life.  It is a dedication to an ideal.  That ideal being freedom, which is the furthest from Socialism.  It allows the rest of the people to live their life the way they see fit, not dependent on government oversight.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
4 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

That is a very inaccurate definition.  In its rank structure, it is necessary.  It is required in war, not peace.  We also have a professional military.  Each individual knows what is required of them as opposed to the conscripts in the days of old.  Because everyone deals in death, a free market isn't needed to support that economy.  The government controls where the military goes, it doesn't control the individual.  Control is in-house among its members.  Being in the professional army is a way of life.  It is a special calling.  It can be a hard life.  It is a dedication to an ideal.  That ideal being freedom, which is the furthest from Socialism.  It allows the rest of the people to live their life the way they see fit, not dependent on government oversight.

That's some nice flowery gibberish.  The government can draft today just as easily as the peasants in the medieval days.  It's paid for by all the citizens with their taxes but the government directs it.  It produces no tangible good but does provide a service- protecting America and it's citizens- just like public health care would.  It has nothing to do with freedom- even countries with no freedom at all (like North Korea) has armies.  The members can't do what they want.  They have to follow the chain of command that goes all the way up to the government.  If they so much as miss formation they can be penalized up to and including courts martial. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

If Obama had taken 30 billion from the Pentagon and funneled it into Obamacare, would that have caused a stir, especially from a Republican Congress?  Congress provides funds for specific purposes not for an as you please allocation by the President.  Part of the checks and balances that are supposed to be so good about our Constitution.

Depends... Are we assuming Obama created a Emergency declaration? If so, then probably it would fly. Considering all the other things Obama did with a stroke of the pen and got clean away with.... DACA for one. 

Edited by DieChecker
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
47 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Depends... Are we assuming Obama created a Emergency declaration? If so, then probably it would fly. Considering all the other things Obama did with a stroke of the pen and got clean away with.... DACA for one. 

And are we happy with those things and think it was good for America?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
29 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

And are we happy with those things and think it was good for America?

You didn't ask if it was good, or bad, but if it would create a stir.

Do I think Trump pulling an Emergency to move money around is ok? Not really. But I don't see that Pelosi gave him any options. Not a dollar she said.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
Posted (edited)

Some people seriously believe that Trump was elected by racist, misogynist, Nazi's, people with no compassion for others etc.. and that may be true in a handful of cases. But the majority of those that voted for him did so because he promised to fix broken things such as our southern border. Illegal immigration in this country is broken. When you have 1 in 29 people in this country that is illegal, there is a problem that needs to be fixed. The Democrats figured out long ago to let the illegals flood the state ensuring it would stay red. Now when Trump wants to fix illegal immigration those who scream the loudest are the ones who have allowed this to happen. https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-california-voting-history/

California’s Latino and Asian populations boomed in the 1990s and the growing segment of voters were turned off by the Republican Party’s hard-line stance on immigration. After the party closely tied itself to Proposition 187, a controversial California ballot measure that denied public services to people in the country illegally, Republicans struggled to win back the state's immigrant population. Democratic candidates have won decisively in every election since 1992 by performing well in the most populous areas. Despite failing to win the presidency, Hillary Clinton won a higher percentage of votes than any candidate since Franklin D. Roosevelt.

 

The United States sends election monitors around the world to help discourage fraudulent balloting. But, here at home, it has largely turned a blind eye to the possibility that fraudulent voting by non citizens could influence the outcome of an election. Our voter registration system is susceptible to abuse by non citizens.

In addition, non citizens and illegal aliens are counted when apportioning congressional districts and when allocating state electors under the Electoral College. This means they can exert an indirect influence  and non citizens play a role in determining how many congressional representatives a state has and exert an indirect influence on presidential elections.
U.S. Elections Are Vulnerable to Non citizen Voting Fraud

Mass immigration has had a significant effect on American electoral politics. Despite the fact that it is a crime for aliens to vote in federal elections, non citizens and illegal aliens are counted when apportioning congressional districts. 1 This means that areas with large numbers of illegal alien residents gain additional representatives in Congress.         https://www.fairus.org/issue/societal-impact/noncitizens-voting-violations-and-us-elections

 

You tighten the border up, and you slow illegal immigration as well as the flow of drugs into this country and while Trump is trying to do something about a broken system  the Democrats are fighting him all the way on this. It's all about the votes. This is why Sanctuary cities were set up imo, as well as throwing the term "racist" out there for wanting voter ID's. It is all by design.

This should show you what is clearly wrong with America: A federal grand jury is investigating a Massachusetts judge after she allegedly allowed an illegal immigrant to escape an arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.

https://www.leoaffairs.com/massachusetts-judge-under-investigation-after-letting-illegal-immigrant-escape-out-back-door/

 

And then we have people saying that Trump is turning away people who are legitimately seeking asylum:

About 70% of illegal aliens who claim asylum never bother to show up for their court cases.  They simply disappear "into the shadows" once they are released into the population.  And no wonder, given that courts have found 80% of asylum cases to be bogus to begin with.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/07/lib_study_illegals_miss_court_dates_due_to_confusion_mental_illness_bad_bus_service.html

The law is changing so you must apply for asylum at your countries embassy, not the U.S border. A good start.

 

Edited by South Alabam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
10 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

Some people seriously believe that Trump was elected by racist, misogynist, Nazi's, people with no compassion for others etc.. and that may be true in a handful of cases. But the majority of those that voted for him did so because he promised to fix broken things such as our southern border. Illegal immigration in this country is broken. When you have 1 in 29 people in this country that is illegal, there is a problem that needs to be fixed. The Democrats figured out long ago to let the illegals flood the state ensuring it would stay red. Now when Trump wants to fix illegal immigration those who scream the loudest are the ones who have allowed this to happen. https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-california-voting-history/

California’s Latino and Asian populations boomed in the 1990s and the growing segment of voters were turned off by the Republican Party’s hard-line stance on immigration. After the party closely tied itself to Proposition 187, a controversial California ballot measure that denied public services to people in the country illegally, Republicans struggled to win back the state's immigrant population. Democratic candidates have won decisively in every election since 1992 by performing well in the most populous areas. Despite failing to win the presidency, Hillary Clinton won a higher percentage of votes than any candidate since Franklin D. Roosevelt.

 

The United States sends election monitors around the world to help discourage fraudulent balloting. But, here at home, it has largely turned a blind eye to the possibility that fraudulent voting by non citizens could influence the outcome of an election. Our voter registration system is susceptible to abuse by non citizens.

In addition, non citizens and illegal aliens are counted when apportioning congressional districts and when allocating state electors under the Electoral College. This means they can exert an indirect influence  and non citizens play a role in determining how many congressional representatives a state has and exert an indirect influence on presidential elections.
U.S. Elections Are Vulnerable to Non citizen Voting Fraud

Mass immigration has had a significant effect on American electoral politics. Despite the fact that it is a crime for aliens to vote in federal elections, non citizens and illegal aliens are counted when apportioning congressional districts. 1 This means that areas with large numbers of illegal alien residents gain additional representatives in Congress.         https://www.fairus.org/issue/societal-impact/noncitizens-voting-violations-and-us-elections

 

You tighten the border up, and you slow illegal immigration as well as the flow of drugs into this country and while Trump is trying to do something about a broken system  the Democrats are fighting him all the way on this. It's all about the votes. This is why Sanctuary cities were set up imo, as well as throwing the term "racist" out there for wanting voter ID's. It is all by design.

This should show you what is clearly wrong with America: A federal grand jury is investigating a Massachusetts judge after she allegedly allowed an illegal immigrant to escape an arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.

https://www.leoaffairs.com/massachusetts-judge-under-investigation-after-letting-illegal-immigrant-escape-out-back-door/

 

And then we have people saying that Trump is turning away people who are legitimately seeking asylum:

About 70% of illegal aliens who claim asylum never bother to show up for their court cases.  They simply disappear "into the shadows" once they are released into the population.  And no wonder, given that courts have found 80% of asylum cases to be bogus to begin with.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/07/lib_study_illegals_miss_court_dates_due_to_confusion_mental_illness_bad_bus_service.html

The law is changing so you must apply for asylum at your countries embassy, not the U.S border. A good start.

 

The irony is that the reason why they made it so that you couldn't file for asylum at the embassy in the home country was that it was too easy and too many were applying- that and places like Syria and the like often had no accessible US embassy at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
48 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

The irony is that the reason why they made it so that you couldn't file for asylum at the embassy in the home country was that it was too easy and too many were applying- that and places like Syria and the like often had no accessible US embassy at all.

From above:

About 70% of illegal aliens who claim asylum never bother to show up for their court cases.  They simply disappear "into the shadows" once they are released into the population.  And no wonder, given that courts have found 80% of asylum cases to be bogus to begin with.

Sounds like it was simply closing a failed loophole, not irony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
2 hours ago, Gromdor said:

The irony is that the reason why they made it so that you couldn't file for asylum at the embassy in the home country was that it was too easy and too many were applying- that and places like Syria and the like often had no accessible US embassy at all.

Fine. 

No tickee.. no laundry. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
14 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

RavenHawk that is nit-piking.   It is a principle in the Constitution, the executive can't shift money, doesn't matter how closely related you might think they are.  Long ago, you convinced me that in addition to beefed-up checkpoints barriers at least in vulnerable areas were a necessity.   The money needs to be allocated properly.  Principles have to apply all the time whether you like the situation or not.

There is no such principle in the Constitution.  In the broadest sense, Congress legislates and the President administrates.  Both are co equal branches.  The branches are supposed to work together for the American people.  The only restriction is that bills involving the powers of the purse should originate in the House.  After the House allocates the funding and the President has signed it into law, he could certainly change everything around and allocate the money in the manner he chooses.  If it is not too grievous, Congress may surrender that power.  But he would have to deal with the consequences as in that the House will completely shutdown the purse, which is pretty much what we have now anyway.  Congress isn’t doing their duty for the people.  They have been shown up as the power greedy Party they are.  But it is a two way street.  If Congress does not do their duty, then they will face the consequences.  If the Progs don’t want a wall, then learn how to negotiate and offer something that is just as effective.  Their hatred of Trump is paralyzing them and Trump is using his powers of administration to work for the people.  Progs have forgotten who they work for.  While Congress has been fiddling, Trump has been getting things done.  Rome is not burning to the chagrin of the Progs.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
6 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

There is no such principle in the Constitution.  In the broadest sense, Congress legislates and the President administrates.  Both are co equal branches.  The branches are supposed to work together for the American people.  The only restriction is that bills involving the powers of the purse should originate in the House.  After the House allocates the funding and the President has signed it into law, he could certainly change everything around and allocate the money in the manner he chooses.  If it is not too grievous, Congress may surrender that power.  But he would have to deal with the consequences as in that the House will completely shutdown the purse, which is pretty much what we have now anyway.  Congress isn’t doing their duty for the people.  They have been shown up as the power greedy Party they are.  But it is a two way street.  If Congress does not do their duty, then they will face the consequences.  If the Progs don’t want a wall, then learn how to negotiate and offer something that is just as effective.  Their hatred of Trump is paralyzing them and Trump is using his powers of administration to work for the people.  Progs have forgotten who they work for.  While Congress has been fiddling, Trump has been getting things done.  Rome is not burning to the chagrin of the Progs.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/47605/huge-ag-barr-joins-vp-pence-also-says-nationwide-josh-hammer?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=idealmedia&utm_campaign=dailywire.com&utm_term=68993&utm_content=2360046

HUGE: AG Barr Joins VP Pence, Also Says ‘Nationwide Injunctions’ Are Unconstitutional

This week, Attorney General William Barr joined Vice President Mike Pence in condemning the harrowing recent rise of "nationwide injunctions" as anti-constitutional judicial power grabs that disturb the carefully calibrated separation of powers system that the Constitution's Framers so sagaciously devised.

In a Tuesday speech to the American Law Institute, Barr went after "improper use of nationwide injunctions against policies of all stripes" and said that the use of the injunctions to block policy gives district courts "unprecedented power."

"One judge can, in effect, cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen," he said. "No official in the United States government can exercise that kind of nationwide power, with the sole exception of the President. And the Constitution subjects him to nationwide election, among other constitutional checks, as a prerequisite to wielding that power." ...

He went on to emphasize the magnitude and increase of the injunctions, pointing out that the use of the rulings has increased dramatically since President Trump was inaugurated and contrasted the prevalence of the orders with those under Trump’s Democratic predecessor.

As a factual and historical matter, Barr is completely correct about the anti-constitutional remedy having only recently increased so dramatically in its judicial deployment. A much-discussed 2017 Harvard Law Review article by law professor Samuel Bray surveyed the entire history of the "nationwide injunction" and concluded the following:

Power in the American political system is pervasively divided — through federalism, through the separation of powers, and through the sprawling system of federal courts. A legal question is resolved through patience and the consideration of many minds. Which system is better, if starting from scratch, is a difficult question. The question of which system obtains in the United States is easy to answer: a fragmented, many-minds system. In a system like ours, there is no room for the national injunction.

Fighting Trump all the way, accusing HIM of overstepping constitutional authority, when they themselves are the proven guilty ones.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Posted (edited)
On 5/26/2019 at 9:16 PM, South Alabam said:

HUGE: AG Barr Joins VP Pence, Also Says ‘Nationwide Injunctions’ Are Unconstitutional

Yeah dude this garbage from the administration should terrify you and anyone who cares about the constitution.

Their agenda is being found unconstitutional by the checks on power so those in power claim those very checks are unconstitutional. SMDH

Its really quite blatant banana republic 101 type stuff.

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.