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

and then
7 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

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 ? 

They'll always have the approval of the "Ninth Circus" :w00t:  Then, after a few months of wrangling, adult jurists will slap those losers down yet again.  If he manages to be re-elected, that circus may become decidedly more rational due to new members being appointed.  The Progs are crapping their nest and don't seem to care.  It's all going to become precedent setting and bite them in their collective rears in the future.  That will be a good thing :) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
20 minutes ago, and then said:

They'll always have the approval of the "Ninth Circus" :w00t:  Then, after a few months of wrangling, adult jurists will slap those losers down yet again.  If he manages to be re-elected, that circus may become decidedly more rational due to new members being appointed.  The Progs are crapping their nest and don't seem to care.  It's all going to become precedent setting and bite them in their collective rears in the future.  That will be a good thing :) 

Hmm.. that raises an interesting question. 

Does the Ninth Circus have the power to annul President Trump's declaration of a National Emergency ? I was under the impression that the ability to declare an emergency was within the gift of the President, and - unlike an Executive Order - was not within the remit of the courts to annul ? 

The Supreme Court COULD annul the order, but only by declaring the entirety of the 1976 act to be unconstitutional, and hence removing the Act from the law books.

(as I understand it, the SCOTUS can strike a law down, but it doesn't have the power to modify or 'tweak' a law. So it is an "all or nothing" proposition. Can any legal experts here clarify that for me ? )

Removing the Act would be a lengthy process, and also a very dramatic one. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Even NPR said the National Emergency is well within the Presidents powers.

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/09/683501440/congress-aims-to-control-presidents-emergency-powers

It says what Congress can do about it. Which is what Pelosi did, and which got Vetoed by Trump. All on the up and up. Checks and Balances, per the 1984 SCOTUS. 

There's no Constitutional crisis. Or removing of Congressional authority. It is all spelled out, and Trump won, and Pelosi lost. Simple as that.

Like the NPR article says, all that can be done is legislate to adjust the Act, for next time.

Share this post


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

Does the Ninth Circus have the power to annul President Trump's declaration of a National Emergency ? I was under the impression that the ability to declare an emergency was within the gift of the President, and - unlike an Executive Order - was not within the remit of the courts to annul ? 

I'd tend to believe it is not within their power, though by grandstanding, they might delay it a short while till the SCOTUS overturns any order. Since that's probably all they can do, it probably is what they will do. 

Quote

The Supreme Court COULD annul the order, but only by declaring the entirety of the 1976 act to be unconstitutional, and hence removing the Act from the law books.

(as I understand it, the SCOTUS can strike a law down, but it doesn't have the power to modify or 'tweak' a law. So it is an "all or nothing" proposition. Can any legal experts here clarify that for me ? )

Removing the Act would be a lengthy process, and also a very dramatic one. 

The SCOTUS isn't going to overrule the Act. If found part of it unconstitutional back in the 1980s and Congress had to pass legislation to patch it. Perhaps that might happen again, but thanks to Trump putting Conservatives on the Bench, I think that unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
8 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

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.

Well man I think a good test of that is to put a different party in Trump's shoes and see if you still feel the same.

So if after congress passes a budget the next POTUS looks at the healthcare crisis and declares a national emergency to secure funds for universal healthcare would you consider that to be constitutional?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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 ? 

What? 

16 states file lawsuit to stop Trump's national emergency declaration

First lawsuits filed against President Donald Trump's national emergency order

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Even if it goes to the SCOTUS, and is found unconstitutional, that isn't a guarantee the Declaration can be overturned. It more likely will just mean that Congress will have to draft and enact legislation to edit the Act, like happened in 1984, (I think it was) with the same Act having something found to be unconstitutional. 

It might, depending on how fast the law was passed, prevent Trump from renewing his Emergency next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
9 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Well man I think a good test of that is to put a different party in Trump's shoes and see if you still feel the same.

So if after congress passes a budget the next POTUS looks at the healthcare crisis and declares a national emergency to secure funds for universal healthcare would you consider that to be constitutional?

I think that is what Pelosi might be thinking,  and why she's basically shut up about it.

Right now that appears to be Constitutional. Congress could override it it appears too crazy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
13 hours ago, DieChecker said:

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.

Reread your first sentence man. If the money was budgeted, that budget was approved by congress, spending that money outside of how congress has approved is adding or taking away to a law congress wrote.

Hell yes the next GOP congress should use that to their advantage. More to the point they should use it for America's advantage but that ship appears to have sailed long ago. Anyways thats what the checks and balances are all about, ensuring no one man stands above the populace.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think that is what Pelosi might be thinking,  and why she's basically shut up about it.

Yeah thats ****ing terrifying.

Just now, DieChecker said:

Right now that appears to be Constitutional. Congress could override it it appears too crazy.

Well they did vote against it to quell their consciences but when rubber met the road after Trump vetoed it the GOP are too afraid of their base to cross Trump.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

...after Trump vetoed it the GOP are too afraid of their base to cross Trump.

That probably should be more scary then anything Pelosi has planned.... at least as far is the Liberal agenda us concerned. Trump us sitting pretty and well in control it would appear.

The Left needs to PRAY, if they know how, that Ginsburg can hang in for 6 more years, or the SCOTUS will be flipped Conservative for the next 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
10 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Reread your first sentence man. If the money was budgeted, that budget was approved by congress, spending that money outside of how congress has approved is adding or taking away to a law congress wrote.

Man, have you looked at things like the actual Defence budget? Last time I did, much of it is so vague you could drive "off the books" UFOs through it for hundreds of billions of dollars.

There's no worrys about moving the money. Budgeting is basically semantics anyway. They could have money specified for new rifle designs and still figure out a way that money could be moved... Perhaps to call part of the wall a target range or some such.

Share this post


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

That probably should be more scary then anything Pelosi has planned.... at least as far is the Liberal agenda us concerned. Trump us sitting pretty and well in control it would appear.

I dont care about the liberal agenda, just America. 

You're right though he is in control. Thank god he's a bumbling retard who cant get out of his own way. It would be truly terrifying if he were competent.

3 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

The Left needs to PRAY, if they know how, that Ginsburg can hang in for 6 more years, or the SCOTUS will be flipped Conservative for the next 20 years.

Shoot im just hoping she gets through the next 8 months. If she can make it to Jan1 2020 then we at least have a year to not have to think about Trump appointing someone.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

There's no worrys about moving the money. Budgeting is basically semantics anyway. They could have money specified for new rifle designs and still figure out a way that money could be moved... Perhaps to call part of the wall a target range or some such.

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.

Im simply floored by the defense of this. Hell you even acknowledged that its likely Pelosi is just chomping at the bit to use the same tactic to enact liberal goals so its not like you guys dont understand that this act is fundamentally altering to the way America has operated , you're just OK with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
4 minutes ago, 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.

Im simply floored by the defense of this. Hell you even acknowledged that its likely Pelosi is just chomping at the bit to use the same tactic to enact liberal goals so its not like you guys dont understand that this act is fundamentally altering to the way America has operated , you're just OK with it.

It's the law.

We can pressure Congress to fix it, which I advised back before Trump even declared his Emergency. But the "damage" is done, the law has been followed.

Saying Trump could be dictator is going into that "Obama wants to be dictator / Birther" category if you ask me. Do you really want to go that far?

Share this post


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

I dont care about the liberal agenda, just America. 

You're right though he is in control. Thank god he's a bumbling retard who cant get out of his own way. It would be truly terrifying if he were competent.

Imagine if he wanted 10 nuclear carriers, each named after a member of his family, or something? Trillions might have to be reallocated, rather then a hand full of billions.

Quote

Shoot im just hoping she gets through the next 8 months. If she can make it to Jan1 2020 then we at least have a year to not have to think about Trump appointing someone.

Maybe... was 2015 a precedent, or a one off?

The liberal view in 2015 was there was no right for Congress to impose such a demand.

https://www.afj.org/myths-vs-facts-on-scotus-vacancy

Quote

MYTH: The “Biden Rule” stands for the principle that the Senate should never confirm a president’s nominee to the Supreme Court during a presidential election year.

FACT: The “Biden Rule” had never existed until Republicans in the Senate decided to obstruct President Obama and abort their own constitutional duties to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. The rule is based on a floor speech then-Senator Joe Biden gave in the summer of 1992, but the situation that he was speaking about—a Supreme Court justice all of a sudden deciding to retire only months before a presidential election—never came to pass. Biden never spoke about what should happen if, instead, a justice passed away.

FACT: The Full Biden Rule takes into account the rest of Biden’s floor speech that Republicans conveniently leave out:

“If the president consults and cooperates with the Senate [in naming a Supreme Court nominee], or moderates his selection absent consultation, then his nominee may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.”

The Full Biden Rule, then, stands for the principle that a consensus nominee that enjoys support from both sides of the aisle—like Judge Merrick Garland—should be acted upon by the Senate without reservation

Just saying....

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
7 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Saying Trump could be dictator is going into that "Obama wants to be dictator / Birther" category if you ask me. Do you really want to go that far?

The above is a great political response but its not even close and perhaps im wrong but id bet dollars to donuts its only political bias that is allowing you to even type that. You're not a stupid Alabaman, you understand the difference between a POTUS acting in a manner that has potential ramifications for the long term health of America and baseless racist conspiracy theories.

11 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

It's the law.

The two words most used throughout history to justify the most horrible things.

Share this post


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

Maybe... was 2015 a precedent, or a one off?

While I dont personally like the rule IMO its the kind of precedent that if violated by the same individuals who instituted it should lead to a shooting war. At that point it would be clear that what was happening was the hijacking of our democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
15 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

The above is a great political response but its not even close and perhaps im wrong but id bet dollars to donuts its only political bias that is allowing you to even type that. You're not a stupid Alabaman, you understand the difference between a POTUS acting in a manner that has potential ramifications for the long term health of America and baseless racist conspiracy theories.

Nope. It is pure Conspiricy Theory, just as with Obama and his use of Executive Orders. He left office just like everyone else.

Quote

The two words most used throughout history to justify the most horrible things.

Three words actually. :lol:

And... used to run the world the other 99.99% of the time. I like the odds there.

Share this post


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

While I dont personally like the rule IMO its the kind of precedent that if violated by the same individuals who instituted it should lead to a shooting war. At that point it would be clear that what was happening was the hijacking of our democracy.

It was a hijack. I always thought it was. And I never understood why Obama went along with it. 

Did he ever explain why he did go along with It? I'm curious now, so I'll go look.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It was a hijack. I always thought it was. And I never understood why Obama went along with it. 

Did he ever explain why he did go along with It? I'm curious now, so I'll go look.

I guess I assumed it was because congress is a coequal branch of government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
10 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I guess I assumed it was because congress is a coequal branch of government.

I was just reading up on it, and McConnell apparently had some nuts at the time and simply refused to bring it to the floor. 

Kind of reminds me that there are hundreds of government leadership posts still not filled 2 years into Trump's Administration. Obstructionism seems to come from both sides. :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
21 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Kind of reminds me that there are hundreds of government leadership posts still not filled 2 years into Trump's Administration. Obstructionism seems to come from both sides. :cry:

 Im actually confused on that issue. Right wing sources say its obstructionism, left wing ones say Trump has only actually nominated a few out of the hundreds and he himself has said he prefers the flexibility of interim candidates rather than fully confirmed ones.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 Im actually confused on that issue. Right wing sources say its obstructionism, left wing ones say Trump has only actually nominated a few out of the hundreds and he himself has said he prefers the flexibility of interim candidates rather than fully confirmed ones.

Looks like the issue is complex, but not clearly the fault of anyone. Though Trump could kick it faster if he wanted.

Senate probably needs to buckle down and get stuff done.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
7 hours ago, Farmer77 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 ? 

 

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.