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

570 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

and then
34 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

no whats to stop the farmers and residents along the border, who's land will no doubt be resumed from asking for similar sanctuary rights? 

The U.S. government uses a concept called "Eminent Domain" to basically steal land from anyone they feel they need to.  The idea is that when the government takes the land it is for the good of the public and individual citizens have to just "get over it".  They are supposed to be given fair-market value but that's usually not what happens.  My point was that many of the large landholders on the border are ranchers and farmers and they support the wall.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
18 minutes ago, aztek said:

idk why anyone would compare a constitutional right, to open border that is constantly crossed ILLEGALLY,  the other side of the border even sponsors caravans, IT IS national emergency.

i think that statement^^^is the republican in you talking. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice
Just now, Captain Risky said:

still i read that Trump unilaterism is not a foregone conclusion. apparently the supreme court will challenge it. surely there must be some definition of a 'national emergency' that independent of the presidents wishes. another thing that came to mind is may be Trump is looking to quickly exploit a loophole before its shut down, legally. cleaver if he is.    

It's hard to say what he's thinking. I have no doubt something has to be done to secure our border. I'm just not sure about what's happening here. Never in all my years have I seen a National Emergency called that I can recollect.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
1 minute ago, and then said:

The U.S. government uses a concept called "Eminent Domain" to basically steal land from anyone they feel they need to.  The idea is that when the government takes the land it is for the good of the public and individual citizens have to just "get over it".  They are supposed to be given fair-market value but that's usually not what happens.  My point was that many of the large landholders on the border are ranchers and farmers and they support the wall.

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
1 minute ago, Captain Risky said:

i think that statement^^^is the republican in you talking. 

you're saying like its a bad thing

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
Just now, susieice said:

It's hard to say what he's thinking. I have no doubt something has to be done to secure our border. I'm just not sure about what's happening here. Never in all my years have I seen a National Emergency called that I can recollect.

the article i posted mentions that past presidents have used it for external events, like terrorism. maybe Bush used it to shut down national airspace after 9/11. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
Just now, aztek said:

you're saying like its a bad thing

well i guess I've come across that way. but what i tried to say is that you're bias. personally i think its hard to support this action by Trump regardless of which political party to support. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
5 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

i think that statement^^^is the republican in you talking. 

I actually think you'd be amazed at just how many Democrats support 2A.  You'd never know it because the 5th column works assiduously to cast ALL Democrats as being in lockstep on this issue as well as immigration.  Aztec's point is absolutely correct.  The Dems may find a similar type of issue to use a declaration on but outlawing guns or ammo at the national level would never stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.  The Supremes have firmly established what 2A means and the only way to remove the right to bear arms from Americans would be the Constitutional amendment process.  That takes 75% approval.  I'm not trying to be argumentative, it's just the truth.  The two issues are like apples and oranges.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice
10 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

the article i posted mentions that past presidents have used it for external events, like terrorism. maybe Bush used it to shut down national airspace after 9/11. 

That's possible. I wasn't thinking about the airspace after 9/11. No flights were even allowed to enter US airspace. Many inbound were landed in Canada or other countries until the ban was lifted. I looked it up quick and here's the Wiki. It seems the FAA closed down US airspace and also Canadian. Some flights from South America were landed in Mexico but their airspace remained opened. Some states also declared a state of emergency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closings_and_cancellations_following_the_September_11_attacks

Edited by susieice
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

Here is what will happen and what trump plans on to save face. This is nothing to get worked up over. Trump shut down the government over the wall, then signed a budget but declared an emergency knowing that his declaration will be challenged in court. During the hearings there will be no construction allowed and since there is no real emergency the courts won’t allow him to act any further. At that point he will tell his base that he exhausted every path open to him but was stopped by the democrats. He knows the above is exactly what will happen but has to do each step so he can honestly say he gave every effort possible. Zzzzzz.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
4 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

also sets a dangerous precedent for any future president to do the same. by passing U.S. law makers. i think the republicans are not going to like what Trump is planning on doing. 

He plans on this effort failing and there is no constitutional crisis 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice

I've also found a link to Wiki regarding Presidents declaring national emergencies. There have been 59 of them and we are still under 31 of them that are renewed every year. The oldest one is from Carter over Iranian properties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

Are there any migratory animals that traverse that border ? Too bad for them !

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
1 minute ago, Habitat said:

Are there any migratory animals that traverse that border ? Too bad for them !

Yes. Bats. Oh and also Monarch Butterflies.

Edited by OverSword
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

He plans on this effort failing and there is no constitutional crisis 

Nah, he's not stupid.  He KNOWS his base and he knows they'd see that path as a sellout.  The legal challenge will be decided by the Supreme Court and even if the Progs win, they lose.  They'll have set precedent and limited ALL future presidents, including theirs. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 minute 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.

Sounds plausible. " I tried, but I was blocked...…."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

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.

Edited by Black Red Devil
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
Just now, and then said:

Nah, he's not stupid.  He KNOWS his base and he knows they'd see that path as a sellout.  The legal challenge will be decided by the Supreme Court and even if the Progs win, they lose.  They'll have set precedent and limited ALL future presidents, including theirs. 

I don’t think it will go to the Supreme Court a lower court will rule that there’s no emergency, that ruling won’t effect the emergency powers it will only apply to this case. The Supreme Court won’t agree to hear this and let the lower courts ruling stand 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I’m going to ignore the whole situation

I've learned to treat nearly every new spasm of media hysteria that way.  It just gets old and tiresome.  I prefer to spend time walking and training for shooting competitions that I want to enter.  New hobby.  International Defensive Pistol Association.  I'm very, very, not good with handguns still so I'll need to study and train for a year or so before I can hope to be good enough not to embarrass myself too much :w00t:  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
2 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

can't imagine the Mexican government prepared to openly allow cross border raids and drone attacks but that would get a better result than a wall, imo.

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.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

The problem I see is that so many Mexican officials are corrupt. It is fairly evident when anyone going against the cartels are assassinated shortly after being elected. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice
44 minutes ago, and then said:

Nah, he's not stupid.  He KNOWS his base and he knows they'd see that path as a sellout.  The legal challenge will be decided by the Supreme Court and even if the Progs win, they lose.  They'll have set precedent and limited ALL future presidents, including theirs. 

That's the whole thing and then. What happens here will affect all future presidents.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice
44 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I don’t think it will go to the Supreme Court a lower court will rule that there’s no emergency, that ruling won’t effect the emergency powers it will only apply to this case. The Supreme Court won’t agree to hear this and let the lower courts ruling stand 

Hope you are right.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Impedancer

 I love the tp with trump on take a dump with trump.

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.