Trump threatens to close US-Mexico border

[Farmer77]

6 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

and yet everything he did was in accordance with the Constitution, @Farmer77  

The Constitution gives the President powers to - under certain limited conditions -  bypass Congress. And Trump did exactly that. All in line with the constitution. 

You're just wrong mate

[RAyMO]

8 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

The Constitution gives the President powers to - under certain limited conditions -  bypass Congress. And Trump did exactly that. All in line with the constitution.

I think that may end being for the courts to decide.

That said the court system in the US at the ultimate level is no more an independent platform than Trumps family dinners.

That is clearly not Trump's fault though, it is clearly the fault of the constitution itself.

Edited April 6, 2019 by RAyMO

[RAyMO]

The more you look at it the more evident it is that the US has a terrible format for implementing the  legislature, the executive and the judiciary. 

Edited April 6, 2019 by RAyMO

[RoofGardener]

6 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

You're just wrong mate

Specify what actions President Trump took that where 'unconstitutional', and specifically WHICH parts of the constitution they broke ? 

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

Specify what actions President Trump took that where 'unconstitutional', and specifically WHICH parts of the constitution they broke ? 

Kinda busy today so ill just quote some folks

Quote

To make constitutional sense of the emergency wall funding called for by Trump, the key case is not Youngstown, but Bill Clinton versus New York, which involved a challenge to the Line Item Veto Act. This law was passed in the 1990s in an effort to curb the federal deficit by giving the president a “line item veto” over specifically earmarked funds. President Clinton eventually used the law to veto a few provisions of a 1997 budgetary law, most importantly, a large transfer of funds to state governments intended to defray the costs of Medicaid administration. New York brought suit.

The Supreme Court declared the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional in 1998 because it gave the president the “unilateral power to change the text of duly enacted statutes.” When a bill passes through both chambers of Congress, the Supreme Court held, the president has just two options. He can sign it into law or he can veto it. What the president may not do is approve certain parts of a bill while rejecting others. He may not tinker or proceed piecemeal even if Congress prefers that option. On this point, the Clinton opinion could hardly be clearer. It does not matter whether Congress had “anticipated that the president might cancel” some of the enacted items. Short of amending the Constitution, Congress is disabled from “altering the procedures” already set out in the legislative process.

In other words, the authority to determine the content of bills lies with Congress, and Congress alone. Even if Congress does want to give the president the power to override bills part by part, the Constitution forbids it. Thus, Congress was constitutionally disabled from giving the president a line item veto. If the president wants to change a particular item in a statute, he must do it through new legislation. There are no shortcuts.

If the National Emergencies Act really allows the piecemeal override of budgetary acts, as Trump claims, then it is unconstitutional because it is attempting the same thing as the Legislative Veto Act. One month ago, Trump signed into law the bipartisan Consolidated Appropriations Act, which capped wall funding at less than $1.4 billion. By using the National Emergencies Act to boost the figure to $8 billion, Trump is effectively rewriting the new law, just as Clinton, by using the line item veto power, was effectively rewriting the budget in 1997. That Trump is rewriting to spend more, while Clinton rewrote to spend less, federal funds is without constitutional significance. If anything, given the concern of the framers about executive profligacy, this could make this violation even worse.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/433923-national-emergency-funding-of-border-wall-is-unconstitutional

 

 

[RoofGardener]

 

26 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Kinda busy today so ill just quote some folks

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/433923-national-emergency-funding-of-border-wall-is-unconstitutional

No. 

It would require a finding by the Supreme Court to over-rule the National Emergencies Act of 1976.  At which point that entire act would become null and void, and would be stripped from the books.

Prior to that.. well.. lets take a look at the act. 

Quote

Congress has delegated at least 136 distinct statutory emergency powers to the President upon the declaration of an emergency. Only 13 require a declaration from Congress; the remaining 123 are invoked by an executive declaration with no Congressional input.[2]

Emergency presidential powers are dramatic, and range from suspending all laws regulating chemical and biological weapons, including the ban on human testing (50 U.S.C. § 1515, passed 1969); to suspending any Clean Air Act implementation plan or excess emissions penalty upon petition of a state governor (42 U.S.C. (f) § 7410 (f), passed 1977); to authorizing and constructing military construction projects (10 U.S.C. (a) § 2808 (a), passed 1982) using any existing defense appropriations for such military constructions ($10.4 billion in FY2018[18]) ; to drafting any retired Coast Guard officers (14 U.S.C. § 331, passed 1963) or enlisted members (14 U.S.C. § 359, passed 1949) into active duty.

Well, it SEEMS clear that President Trump is using the National Emergency Act in the manner in which it was intended, so 'no foul' there.

But is the act itself unconstitutional ? Well, the two authors (both Yale professors of Law) who wrote the opinion piece for The Hill that you quoted are expressing THE OPINION that the 1976 National Emergencies Act is unconstitutional. However, this is merely their opinion. It also - in my opinion - falls down on the issue of allocation of funds. The President is not seeking to redirect money allocated - or denied - by Congress. He is merely reallocating existing existing defense appropriations.

Either way, only the Supreme Court could make a finding of unconstitutionality. It's also worth noting that this law has been in existence for over 40 years. I find it curious that it is only when President Trump is using the Act that - suddenly - gosh and zounds, it is unconstitutional. 

 

 

 

Edited April 6, 2019 by RoofGardener

[Farmer77]

Just now, RoofGardener said:

No. 

It would require a finding by the Supreme Court to over-rule the National Emergencies Act of 1976. 

It certainly appears that will be the outcome of all of this. The lawsuits have been filed.

1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

Prior to that.. well.. lets take a look at the act. 

Yeah the more I do look at it the more solid my conviction in its unconstitutionality becomes.

Quote

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, forthe Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

 

[Farmer77]

14 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

He is merely reallocating existing existing defense appropriations.

Correct but how that money was to be spent was already decided by congress.

 

19 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Either way, only the Supreme Court could make a finding of unconstitutionality. It's also worth noting that this law has been in existence for over 40 years. I find it curious that it is only when President Trump is using the Act that - suddenly - gosh and zounds, it is unconstitutional. 

I really hate this simpleton mindset.

Has any other POTUS used the emergency act to appropriate funds after congress said no? 

[RoofGardener]

9 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

It certainly appears that will be the outcome of all of this. The lawsuits have been filed.

Yeah the more I do look at it the more solid my conviction in its unconstitutionality becomes.

 

 

Umm.. how does the National Emergencies Act clash with ANY of the provisions of Section 8 ? 

[RoofGardener]

2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Correct but how that money was to be spent was already decided by congress.

 

I really hate this simpleton mindset.

Has any other POTUS used the emergency act to appropriate funds after congress said no? 

Weeeell.. that's the nub of it, isn't it ? Under the NEA, he's NOT appropriating funds. He's merely juggling the military budget ? 

[Farmer77]

Just now, RoofGardener said:

Umm.. how does the National Emergencies Act clash with ANY of the provisions of Section 8 ? 

Just on the surface congress has the power to spend, congress has the power to raise and support armies.

Beyond that though it has been decided by the supremes that POTUS cant add or take away to law written by congress. They didnt say "except for this, this and this scenario". 

 

3 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Weeeell.. that's the nub of it, isn't it ? Under the NEA, he's NOT appropriating funds. He's merely juggling the military budget ? 

IDK on this point. If it is an itemized budget that was approved, and he is taking funds from one of those itemized areas,  then he is violating the constitution by changing what congress approved. What im not sure of is all the areas he is trying to take funds from.

[RoofGardener]

6 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Just on the surface congress has the power to spend, congress has the power to raise and support armies.

Beyond that though it has been decided by the supremes that POTUS cant add or take away to law written by congress. They didnt say "except for this, this and this scenario". 

But the President isn't doing that. He's not adding or taking away from a law written by Congress. He is - in effect - entirely side-stepping the whole funding issue, and using his Constitutional powers (as provided by the 1976 National Emergency Act) to spend money WITHOUT approval by Congress. This is what the Law provides for. He is just following the law. 

6 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

IDK on this point. If it is an itemized budget that was approved, and he is taking funds from one of those itemized areas,  then he is violating the constitution by changing what congress approved. What im not sure of is all the areas he is trying to take funds from.

According to the 1976 Act, he is ALLOWED to do that. 

You might criticise the Act, and want the Supreme Court to review the act (for the first time in 40 years). You might criticise the Presidents choice to USE the act.  But you can't accuse President Trump of acting unconstitutionally. 

Edited April 6, 2019 by RoofGardener

[RoofGardener]

30 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

It certainly appears that will be the outcome of all of this. The lawsuits have been filed.

Yes, in a blaze of publicity. And that is probably the last we will hear from them. In my opinion, the purpose of these filings is NOT to seek Redress in Law, but to seek Publicity in the Media. I believe these techniques are sometimes referred to as Lawfare ? The suits are without legal merit, and the suitors have no intention of following through with them, once they have secured a few headlines. 

 They are - in effect - vexatious lawsuits. It's a shame the USA doesn't have any form of redress for this sort of thing. Such as debarring lawyers who make frivolous or  vexatious claims like this. 

Edited April 6, 2019 by RoofGardener

[Farmer77]

8 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

But the President isn't doing that. He's not adding or taking away from a law written by Congress.

Yeah bro youre simply wrong on this one.

8 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

According to the 1976 Act, he is ALLOWED to do that. 

Not after congress said no. There is simply no way that is constitutional.

 

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

Yes, in a blaze of publicity. And that is probably the last we will hear from them. In my opinion, the purpose of these filings is NOT to seek Redress in Law, but to seek Publicity in the Media. I believe these techniques are sometimes referred to as Lawfare ? The suits are without legal merit, and the suitors have no intention of following through with them, once they have secured a few headlines. 

Yeah thats simply moronic.  Sure people are using the legal proceedings for publicity but people on both sides of the aisle are passionate about the constitution, not just candy assed gun nuts. To simply dismiss all of it as not having legal merit is a rather exposing statement.

[RoofGardener]

4 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Yeah bro youre simply wrong on this one.

Not after congress said no. There is simply no way that is constitutional.

 

I don't believe I AM wrong, @Farmer77. I think that you're failing to understand the provisions of the 1976 Act. 

It CLEARLY states that - among its many OTHER provisions - it allows the President to directly and unilaterally redirect defence budgets onto specific projects. (in this case, The Wall). It doesn't allow him to allocate additional funds - that WOULD require Congressional approval - but it DOES allow him to reallocate existing funds. 

Now, you've cited a couple of professors who reckon that makes the 1976 Act unconstitutional. Curiously, we've not noticed this for 40+ years. But lets assume they are correct. It would STILL require a Supreme Court decision on the issue. And until such a decision is handed down, President Trump's use of the 1976 Act is NOT unconstitutional. 

[RoofGardener]

7 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Yeah thats simply moronic.  Sure people are using the legal proceedings for publicity but people on both sides of the aisle are passionate about the constitution, not just candy assed gun nuts. To simply dismiss all of it as not having legal merit is a rather exposing statement.

Oh REALLY ? I'm being moronic, am I ? 

Well then @Farmer77, why don't we see what - exactly - happens to these lawsuits ? Lets see who gets 'exposed'. 

[Farmer77]

Just now, RoofGardener said:

don't believe I AM wrong, @Farmer77. I think that you're failing to understand the provisions of the 1976 Act. 

No what Im saying is no act can subvert the constitution. Yes what he is doing is currently legal, but I dont believe that under SCOTUS scrutiny it will be found constitutional.

1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

And until such a decision is handed down, President Trump's use of the 1976 Act is NOT unconstitutional. 

God damn you you pedantic little mother ****er.....yes you are right

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Not after congress said no. There is simply no way that is constitutional.

That raises the question if Congress had the authority to say no? In this instance? Pelosi simply was grasping at straws in an attempt, to do anything.

She seems to pretty much have given up at this point. Given up on Mueller, Collusion, Obstruction, the Wall... 

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

hat raises the question if Congress had the authority to say no?

Of course congress is in charge of moneys.

2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

She seems to pretty much have given up at this point. Given up on Mueller, Collusion, Obstruction, the Wall... 

Or just given up trying to fight publicly. The lawsuits are definitely ongoing.

[Abilityperson]

Well maybe because they know there lies and fake news b.s is done and over, no one with brains is believing them any more. Democrats are leaving the party by the thousands. Just remember the one president we all had to suffer threw for 8 very long yrs. Remember his favorite saying?????

I got a pen and a phone!!!!!!

Or is that just ok for the left to do and say and violate our rights????

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Of course congress is in charge of moneys.

Even after it is budgeted and handed out? Every time, spent anywhere?

Cool. The next Republican Congress will be sure to use that to advantage.

[Gromdor]

Sooo....  It's Avacados: 1, National Security Emergency Border Shutdown: 0?

At least for the next year?

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

7 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

No what Im saying is no act can subvert the constitution. Yes what he is doing is currently legal, but I dont believe that under SCOTUS scrutiny it will be found constitutional.

God damn you you pedantic little mother ****er.....yes you are right

Now Farmer, mon ami, you know and I know... that if Trump *ever* did anything closely resembling and unconstitutional act, they'd be lining up the firing squad right now.  You know how many times I'v heard some lib call Trump a traitor..???  holy carp. No, he is not subverting the constitution. MO.

Edited April 7, 2019 by Earl.Of.Trumps

[RoofGardener]

10 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Of course congress is in charge of moneys.

Or just given up trying to fight publicly. The lawsuits are definitely ongoing.

Hmm... on a quick browse of t'internet, the various parties are "preparing" lawsuits, but none have been actually filed ? 

More posturing for the Media ?