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

Trump threatens to close US-Mexico border

263 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Farmer77
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Ooooh right... well spotted. 

However... what court are they in, and what ability do those courts actually HAVE to annul a Presidential Finding of a National Emergency ? 

 

They're in federal district courts who absolutely have the power to annul anything the president does if it doesnt fit within the scope of the constitution. Thats basically their job description.

Dont forget POTUS is supposed to be just a cog (albeit obviously an important one) in the machinery equal to that of the SCOTUS and congress.

 

Edited by Farmer77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
12 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

They're in federal district courts who absolutely have the power to annul anything the president does if it doesnt fit within the scope of the constitution. Thats basically their job description.

Dont forget POTUS is supposed to be just a cog (albeit obviously an important one) in the machinery equal to that of the SCOTUS and congress.

 

So a federal court can nullify a National Emergency ? I thought only  Congress could do that ? (requiring majorities in both the Congress and the Senate... AND the approval of the president, who COULD veto such a move, requiring a 2/3 majority back in the senate to over-ride the veto). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

So a federal court can nullify a National Emergency ? I thought only  Congress could do that ? (requiring majorities in both the Congress and the Senate... AND the approval of the president, who COULD veto such a move, requiring a 2/3 majority back in the senate to over-ride the veto). 

You are correct. The court wouldnt be addressing the emergency itself , just the actions taken by the president as they relate to the constitution. If they find his actions are not within the scope laid out by the constitution they would rule on that. Its quite likely the declaration of emergency itself would stand, even if certain actions taken under the guise of an emergency are struck down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

You are correct. The court wouldnt be addressing the emergency itself , just the actions taken by the president as they relate to the constitution. If they find his actions are not within the scope laid out by the constitution they would rule on that. Its quite likely the declaration of emergency itself would stand, even if certain actions taken under the guise of an emergency are struck down.

Any such ruling would have seismic repercussions, @Farmer77. I don't believe there is any precedent for a court to challenge a Presidential finding of a National Emergency ? The 1976 Act puts this entirely at the gift of the President ? 

I quote here from the pertinent Wikipedia article on the topic... 

Quote

Procedure for new emergencies and rescinding emergency declarations[edit]

The Act authorized the President to activate emergency provisions of law via an emergency declaration on the conditions that the President specifies the provisions so activated and notifies Congress. An activation would expire if the President expressly terminated the emergency, or did not renew the emergency annually, or if each house of Congress passed a resolution terminating the emergency. After presidents objected to this "Congressional termination" provision on separation of powers grounds, and the Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha (1983) held such provisions to be an unconstitutional legislative veto,[16] it was replaced in 1985 with termination by an enacted joint resolution. A joint resolution passed by both chambers requires presidential signature,  giving the president veto power over the termination (requiring a two-thirds majority in both houses in the case of a contested termination).[17] The Act also requires the President and executive agencies to maintain records of all orders and regulations that proceed from use of emergency authority, and to regularly report the cost incurred to Congress.

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

Note that there is NO reference to a federal court having any jurisdiction whatsoever ? Nor any involvement in judging the 'constitutionality' of the emergency ?

Congress can act... but not the courts.  

In regards a court judging the constitutionality of his actions under the National Emergency; his actions regarding the Wall are expliticly granted within the 1976 Act itself. (or rather, the 1982 ammendment called "Title 10". 

Quote

(a)

In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that requires use of thearmed forces, the Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces.

 

 

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2808

Edited by RoofGardener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

ny such ruling would have seismic repercussions, @Farmer77. I don't believe there is any precedent for a court to challenge a Presidential finding of a National Emergency ? The 1976 Act puts this entirely at the gift of the President ? 

I quote here from the pertinent Wikipedia article on the topic... 

Again though the court wouldnt be challenging the national emergency. They would just be ensuring the POTUS' actions under the guise of a national emergency are within the scope of the constitution.

The case you quoted was actually a decent example of what im talking about. Congress had enacted a measure that the SCOTUS found to be outside the scope of the constitution so they were forced to rewrite the measure to make it fit within that scope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Again though the court wouldnt be challenging the national emergency. They would just be ensuring the POTUS' actions under the guise of a national emergency are within the scope of the constitution.

The case you quoted was actually a decent example of what im talking about. Congress had enacted a measure that the SCOTUS found to be outside the scope of the constitution so they were forced to rewrite the measure to make it fit within that scope.

My apologies @Farmer77 - I had added to my previous post while you where posting yours. You may want to scroll up and read the addition ? 

Now then.. it was my understanding that the various "inferior" courts made evaluations of THE LAW... and NOT of the Constitution. 

Evaluations of the Constitution are the sole purview of the Supreme Court !

So if Donald Trump had somehow mis-applied the 1976 Act, then perhaps they could intervene. But I don't think he HAS. Military construction is EXPLICITLY permitted under the Act. (Title 10, US code 2808). 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2808

Edited by RoofGardener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
4 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

So if Donald Trump had somehow mis-applied the 1976 Act, then perhaps they could intervene. But I don't think he HAS. Military construction is EXPLICITLY permitted under the Act. (Title 10, US code 2808). 

I think the context is the important qualifier here. Congress has said no so Trump is now using the emergency act in a manner it has never been used before. Plus we have his own words saying that he didnt have to declare an emergency which throws the legitimacy of the entire declaration into question and adds to the appearance that the move was solely political.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

I think the context is the important qualifier here. Congress has said no so Trump is now using the emergency act in a manner it has never been used before. Plus we have his own words saying that he didnt have to declare an emergency which throws the legitimacy of the entire declaration into question and adds to the appearance that the move was solely political.

 

 

From a legal and constitutional point of view, that is a VERY dangerous statement, @Farmer77. Courts are supposed to judge on the facts of the matter, in relation to the laws. They are NOT supposed to seek extended 'context'. 

The 9th circuit did this in the so-called "Muslim Travel Ban" case.... basing their decision on their IMPRESSION of what President Trump MIGHT have been THINKING, rather than sticking to the facts. Their decision was reversed by the Supreme Court, and rightly so. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

From a legal and constitutional point of view, that is a VERY dangerous statement, @Farmer77. Courts are supposed to judge on the facts of the matter, in relation to the laws. They are NOT supposed to seek extended 'context'. 

The 9th circuit did this in the so-called "Muslim Travel Ban" case.... basing their decision on their IMPRESSION of what President Trump MIGHT have been THINKING, rather than sticking to the facts. Their decision was reversed by the Supreme Court, and rightly so. 

 

I just flatly disagree. In the muslim ban case it was a fact that Trump had publicly declared he wanted to ban all muslims and it was a fact that his attorney said the same. The end decision may be the same but those are facts that should be considered.

In this case it is a fact that Trump said publicly he didnt have to declare an emergency to get his wall built. Thats not getting an impression of what someone may have been thinking, that is what someone said publicly. Thats called evidence.

This actually is perhaps  the best example of something ive been trying to figure out how to verbalize for a while. That basically America's infrastructure as it relates to its highest offices is really built to be dependent upon the personal character of the individual holding office. It seems like we have some work to do to close loopholes such as those in the emergency act in order to legislate accountability. (which is sad)

Edited by Farmer77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I just flatly disagree. In the muslim ban case it was a fact that Trump had publicly declared he wanted to ban all muslims and it was a fact that his attorney said the same. The end decision may be the same but those are facts that should be considered.

In this case it is a fact that Trump said publicly he didnt have to declare an emergency to get his wall built. Thats not getting an impression of what someone may have been thinking, that is what someone said publicly. Thats called evidence.

This actually is perhaps  the best example of something ive been trying to figure out how to verbalize for a while. That basically America's infrastructure as it relates to its highest offices is really built to be dependent upon the personal character of the individual holding office. It seems like we have some work to do to close loopholes such as those in the emergency act in order to legislate accountability. (which is sad)

@Farmer77, in your first two paragraphs you describe a situation in which the courts sought to analyse the Presidents motives, rather than the text of his Executive Orders. 

Can you not see how dangerous this is, and corrosive to the Constitution ? If a judge is going to start guessing motives rather than looking at facts, then you are in danger of creating a Judicial Oligarchy with powers that exceed those of Congress. 

In regard your idea of legislating for accountability; that is ALSO a highly subjective act. It all depends on whether you personally agree with the Presidents actions or not, rather than evaluating those actions in terms of the Law. 

It's not as though President Trump wants to invade a small, non-aligned country, or commit genocide against small furry animals.  He just wants to build a wall. 

Oh.. speaking of walls.. it appears that he is NOT going to close the border after all. At least, not for another year. So your avocado supplies are safe !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, RoofGardener said:

@Farmer77, in your first two paragraphs you describe a situation in which the courts sought to analyse the Presidents motives, rather than the text of his Executive Orders. 

Can you not see how dangerous this is, and corrosive to the Constitution ? If a judge is going to start guessing motives rather than looking at facts, then you are in danger of creating a Judicial Oligarchy with powers that exceed those of Congress. 

No in fact I would argue the exact opposite. If motive isnt examined then law, especially executive orders, really become an arsenal for the elected class to assault the citizenry with.

You're really OK with a world where a man could run around proclaiming his hatred for a group, declare his intentions to harm that group, then pass a law which harms that group as long as he doesnt say he hates them or wants to harm them in the text of that law?

5 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

In regard your idea of legislating for accountability; that is ALSO a highly subjective act. It all depends on whether you personally agree with the Presidents actions or not, rather than evaluating those actions in terms of the Law. 

It's not as though President Trump wants to invade a small, non-aligned country, or commit genocide against small furry animals.  He just wants to build a wall. 

Its not about the wall. Its about the constitution and the bypassing of congress.

I would argue that the moment Trump said he didnt have to declare the emergency he was saying it wasnt about the wall.

Which for the record he was offered 25 billion to build the wall and turned it down. Weird that someone would turn down a solution to an "emergency" huh? 

 

9 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Oh.. speaking of walls.. it appears that he is NOT going to close the border after all. At least, not for another year. So your avocado supplies are safe !

IDK now that Stephen Miller seems to have fully taken over immigration issues for the regime closing the border may be the most humanitarian thing to do.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Look at it this way wouldn't you all protect your family from harm? Out here a 20 yr old illegal Mexican who already had convictions for D.U.I And weapons charges, got into a road rage and shot at a family who pulled up in front of there house. Father still in hospital BUT there 10 yr old daughter died from it.

If alot of people think wall is bad then take down the walls around your house. If it is ok for our military to go to other countries help out there people why can't we protect our own? Yes I know it is about shutting it down all comes together. The reason why Trump is not doing it because Mexico turned 25,000 yes that number of there people from coming in at that time. And because Mexico don't want to have any loss of revenue.

We have MS13 in my neighborhood and about 7 yrs ago they gun down a 87 yr old Gila reservation man who was visiting his grandchild because he wouldn't do as they asked.

It is a shame were ppl wanna put them above the American people. That includes all  legal citizens.

Edited by Abilityperson
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Look at it this way wouldn't you all protect your family from harm? Out here a 20 yr old illegal Mexican who already had convictions for D.U.I And weapons charges, got into a road rage and shot at a family who pulled up in front of there house. Father still in hospital BUT there 10 yr old daughter died from it.

If alot of people think wall is bad then take down the walls around your house. If it is ok for our military to go to other countries help out there people why can't we protect our own? Yes I know it is about shutting it down all comes together. The reason why Trump is not doing it because Mexico turned 25,000 yes that number of there people from coming in at that time. And because Mexico don't want to have any loss of revenue.

We have MS13 in my neighborhood and about 7 yrs ago they gun down a 87 yr old Gila reservation man who was visiting his grandchild because he wouldn't do as they asked.

It is a shame were ppl wanna put them above the American people. That includes all  legal citizens.

You're talking about Joshua Gonzales?  He's a 20 yr old legal American......... 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
13 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

You're talking about Joshua Gonzales?  He's a 20 yr old legal American......... 

Wonder how long it will be until the argument morphs into "immigration status doesnt matter, its a culture thing"
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Wonder how long it will be until the argument morphs into "immigration status doesnt matter, its a culture thing"
 

It's more of a "Your whole argument is based on a lie." thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
On 4/7/2019 at 5:18 AM, Farmer77 said:

Yeah and im cool with department heads shifting funds not so much when the man doing it is in a position to become dictator though.

One thing wrong with that is that Trump has never shown any propensity to be dictator.  It’s not in his writings.  In fact, his actions have been the opposite.  He has been struggling against the real dictatorship paralyzing the nation now.  It’s not the tyranny of a single individual, but the tyranny of the Progressive Oligarchy.  You can take out one individual here and there or marginalize this organization or that one, but the machine keeps going.  He is taking on the Establishment and he is winning.  They do not like being outed in the open.  The longer he keeps pushing their buttons, the sooner their collapse.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

One thing wrong with that is that Trump has never shown any propensity to be dictator. 

Honestly im looking down the road more than I am directly at Trump. My greatest concern is for the long term health of America.

Whether it is someone twisted in the same way as Trump or someone on the extreme left I fear Trump and the current GOP are laying the groundwork for someone with competence who actually wants to be a dictator to make it happen.

Edited by Farmer77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
11 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Honestly im looking down the road more than I am directly at Trump. My greatest concern is for the long term health of America.

So is Trump.

 

Whether it is someone twisted in the same way as Trump or someone on the extreme left I fear Trump and the current GOP are laying the groundwork for someone with competence who actually wants to be a dictator to make it happen.

You seriously think that anything Trump does or doesn’t do will cause Progressives pause?  It didn’t in the previous regime.  Trump has pretty much erased that stain.  Returning this country back to our Constitution will make it that much harder for the next Obama/Hilary.  Progressives will continue to try to drag this nation into tyranny and they will keep trying until someone stops them.  They have been getting away with it for far too long.  Trump isn’t twisted.  He may be raw, but that is what is needed right now.  He can put a halt to this.  He can reign in the abuse to our system.  The thing is, is that they have been helping in their own demise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 minute ago, RavenHawk said:

Returning this country back to our Constitution will make it that much harder for the next Obama/Hilary. 

AAAaaannd our conversation dies right there LOL. Sorry Amigo you cant convince me Trump cares enough to learn how to properly pronounce constitution let alone actually work towards securing the future for something like it which is greater than himself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

AAAaaannd our conversation dies right there LOL. Sorry Amigo you cant convince me Trump cares enough to learn how to properly pronounce constitution let alone actually work towards securing the future for something like it which is greater than himself.

 

That’s your loss.  But it doesn’t die, you just ignore it.  You can’t allow yourself to contemplate the facts.  I’m not here to convince you.  Just helping you dig your hole a bit deeper.  Trump is working to pass on his legacy to his children and in doing so, it is all inclusive.  Just as Obama dragged down the American psyche with rhetoric like “you didn’t build that”, Trump is uplifting everybody with “MAGA”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

You can’t allow yourself to contemplate the facts.

Oh amigo I contemplate the facts all the time. The facts are that Trump has lived a quite public life of sloth, lies, greed and self promotion and not a single thing changed once he took office.

When a person shows you who they are believe them.

3 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Just as Obama dragged down the American psyche with rhetoric like “you didn’t build that”, Trump is uplifting everybody with “MAGA”.

I do have to say that Obama didnt drag down anyone's psyche with that speech, quite the opposite in fact,  but the talk show mongers who spread that bit of the speech without context sure as hell did.

 

Edited by Farmer77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Oh amigo I contemplate the facts all the time. The facts are that Trump has lived a quite public life of sloth, lies, greed and self promotion and not a single thing changed once he took office.

And the most important thing is, is that he is successful.  He is a model that we all should aspire to.  And he has the ability to stick it to the Progressives where the milk toast GOP never could.  He gives the rest of us a chance.  Because of that, it doesn’t matter what his human past is.

 

When a person shows you who they are believe them.

Yes he has and he’s no angel.  But in his heart, he loves this nation.  Never saw that from the last regime.  The last regime was bent on fundamental change.  That’s not representative of love of country.

 

I do have to say that Obama didnt drag down anyone's psyche with that speech, quite the opposite in fact,  but the talk show mongers who spread that bit of the speech without context sure as hell did.

He did extreme damage to this nation.  When you beat down on people that they didn’t do that, that they are not capable, that they are no good.  It creates a sense of dependency on the government and perpetuates the Plantation mentality.  Blaming the 'talk show mongers' is just an excuse to ignore the facts.  The most susceptible are probably the Millennials.  Developing PTSD because they can't find a safe place.  And toxic masculinity removes the nations backbone and turns it into a sheep farm to be ruled by Progressives that know better than the rest of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 minute ago, RavenHawk said:

And the most important thing is, is that he is successful.  He is a model that we all should aspire to.

We cant even agree on that much homie. He was given a multi-million dollar corporation to run in addition to what appears to be a couple of hundred million by his father on the sly.

He certainly is a great self promoter, "successful" however is a relative term. Dude started life on third, acting like he hit a triple is a little off base.

5 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

He did extreme damage to this nation.  When you beat down on people that they didn’t do that, that they are not capable, that they are no good.  It creates a sense of dependency on the government and perpetuates the Plantation mentality.  Blaming the 'talk show mongers' is just an excuse to ignore the facts.  The most susceptible are probably the Millennials.  Developing PTSD because they can't find a safe place. 

The entire spiel here is based on a false premise. Hell you even used that false premise , that Obama's speech was actually meant how you are spinning it, to claim that I'M ignoring the facts.

I've posted the entire speech for you before so I wont waste my time doing it again, just know that I know that you know your rhetoric here is B.S. :tu:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abilityperson
4 hours ago, Gromdor said:

You're talking about Joshua Gonzales?  He's a 20 yr old legal American......... 

Oh ok because when I seen it on 3 news out here they said illegal thank you for correcting that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
56 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

We cant even agree on that much homie. He was given a multi-million dollar corporation to run in addition to what appears to be a couple of hundred million by his father on the sly.

And there’s something wrong with that?  There has to be some penalty because he didn’t build it from the ground up?  He didn’t squander it away.  He took it and built it even further than what he received.  That’s still success.  That’s the way it should be.

 

He certainly is a great self promoter, "successful" however is a relative term. Dude started life on third, acting like he hit a triple is a little off base.

To be successful, one has to be a self-promoter.  Is there something wrong with starting life on third?  There’s a whole game to be played.  He’s been up several times since then.  Sometimes, he’s struck out but he’s gotten many hits and maybe a HR or two.  He’s never quit.

 

The entire spiel here is based on a false premise. Hell you even used that false premise , that Obama's speech was actually meant how you are spinning it, to claim that I'M ignoring the facts.

False?  I’m not spinning it.  He meant it as he spun it.  Yes of course, no man is an island.  People help you along your way.  But this is a given.  No reason to state the obvious unless it is setting something else up.  The thing is, is that people help you succeed but if you aren’t there to do it, there wouldn’t be a success.  Your success is all on you.  People helping you out is all dependent on how you take that help.  Which comes all back to whether you knock someone down by saying they didn’t built it or encouraging them by saying, yes you can.

 

I've posted the entire speech for you before so I wont waste my time doing it again, just know that I know that you know your rhetoric here is B.S.

I listened to it again.  It hasn’t changed.  The smooth talker at his best.  It’s his rhetoric that is B.S.  If it was a speech encouraging us to “shoot for the stars”, why focus on belittling the individual?  His speech was pushing the collective at the expense of the individual.  We are a collection of separate individuals, not a utopia of cogs.

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.