If the Wall Emergency is Sustained by the Courts Then What?

[toomuchtime_]

Will the Blue dog caucus defecting to the Rs first or will the release of illegal aliens to commit crimes in other states lead to accessory before the fact indictments of the D state machines, particularly for murders be the more damaging? Or are there other major problems that I missed? Nancy has set up the Ds for a massive problem in 2020 but sequence and what level of government matters too, so, what is your take?

Don't get excited. The national emergency will NOT be sustained by the courts.

There's certainly no "emergency" at all to be found. Sure wasn't for 2 years while Don had majoroties in both houses.

Are you trying to sound stupid? It would have taken 60 votes in the Senate to overcome Democratic opposition to the border fence and the Republicans never had that many votes in the Senate. For the first two years of his administration, the President repeatedly offered Democrats things they had claimed they wanted, such as a path to citizenship for the so called "dreamers" and the Democrats never responded with counter offers. The emergency is that for purely political reasons the Democrats have rendered Congress dysfunctional on this issue, and the power to declare a state of emergency was given to the President for precisely this reason, that Congress is unable to act effectively.

 

[task0778]

Shockedcanadian: "So what would be more dangerous, Trump declaring an Emergency when obviously there is one, or the courts deciding he has no power, nor any president after to declare one? In effect, nullifying an election."


One and all, please consider this a little more deeply. What if the courts, up to and including the SCOTUS, sustain an injunction against Trump's wall, what then? Do we allow one person, an unelected district court judge to arbitrarily determine national security policy? Would that person (and the courts that follow) in effect be usurping the powers and duties ascribed by the Constitution to the Legislative Branch? Do we want that? It is their duty, not the Judicial Branch, to specify what he can and can't do and when and where money is authorized and appropriated to be spent, and if they don't do their job as they should then it should NOT be up to the Judiciary to do it for them. I assume we all recognize that if this decision is made, then all future presidents will in effect be neutered from any executive order or action that the opposition determines to be against their political ideology.

To me, this is not and should not be up to the courts to second-guess the president when it comes to declaring a national emergency on the grounds of national security or a humanitarian crisis, which in this case I assume we all know that President Obama declared that to be the case when he was in office. This is pure power politics that an unbiased and impartial Judiciary should stay out of.

 

[william the wie]

So what would be more dangerous, Trump declaring an Emergency when obviously there is one, or the courts deciding he has no power, nor any president after to declare one? In effect, nullifying an election.

What will it mean for your sovereignty and future elections? The safety of citizens, and those vulnerable to illegal substances?

If you don't support Trump and bring back American sovereignty from the global socialists, you're nation will be bankrupt within 20 years and we will all be ruled by Communist China., they were bloody close before Trumps win.

Some want that. Americans will have to choose.

You are correct. It simply amazes me that some people here think the way they do, especially if they care for their children and grand children.

So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot.
George Orwell.

Yup. We have plenty of idiots who don't care about the billions of dollars illegals cost us every year.

They don't care about the citizens killed by illegals every year.

They don't care about the drugs brought across the border every year.

The only thing they do care about is being against anything Trump is trying to do.

Morons one and all.

I think you are mistaking satanic evil for stupidity.

 

[my2¢]

I see no reason why it wouldn't be sustained. And if sustained, a bunch of money once allocated to areas across the country will end up instead being spent in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. Yippie-ki-yo-ki-yay.

 

[The Original Tree]

Mueller will save Left Tards from The Wall.

You just wait!

Any

Day

Now

 

[william the wie]

Mueller will save Left Tards from The Wall.

You just wait!

Any

Day

Now

If you are serious then I have a great bridge to sell you by quit-claim deed.

 

[Siete]

look at the direction the wall has taken since Trump first announced there would be a wall -

constantly straight F'n downhill . NOT ONE SINGLE SIGN OF PROGRESS -

SOLID CONCRETE, 2000 MILES LONG, 20 FEET HIGH, MEXICO WILL PAY -

... My TEXAS ASS !

like I've said since day one, and will continue to say ......... THERE AIN'T GONNA BE NO DAMN WALL.

SUCKERS - GOLDILOCKS PUNKED YOUR STUPID ASS.

THE END.

 

[80zephyr]

Shockedcanadian: "So what would be more dangerous, Trump declaring an Emergency when obviously there is one, or the courts deciding he has no power, nor any president after to declare one? In effect, nullifying an election."


One and all, please consider this a little more deeply. What if the courts, up to and including the SCOTUS, sustain an injunction against Trump's wall, what then? Do we allow one person, an unelected district court judge to arbitrarily determine national security policy? Would that person (and the courts that follow) in effect be usurping the powers and duties ascribed by the Constitution to the Legislative Branch? Do we want that? It is their duty, not the Judicial Branch, to specify what he can and can't do and when and where money is authorized and appropriated to be spent, and if they don't do their job as they should then it should NOT be up to the Judiciary to do it for them. I assume we all recognize that if this decision is made, then all future presidents will in effect be neutered from any executive order or action that the opposition determines to be against their political ideology.

To me, this is not and should not be up to the courts to second-guess the president when it comes to declaring a national emergency on the grounds of national security or a humanitarian crisis, which in this case I assume we all know that President Obama declared that to be the case when he was in office. This is pure power politics that an unbiased and impartial Judiciary should stay out of.

Excellent point. If a judge can determine what an emergency is or isn't, what happens if a judge stops a president when another emergency situation comes up?

Mark

 

[Dragonlady]

So what would be more dangerous, Trump declaring an Emergency when obviously there is one, or the courts deciding he has no power, nor any president after to declare one? In effect, nullifying an election.

What will it mean for your sovereignty and future elections? The safety of citizens, and those vulnerable to illegal substances?

If you don't support Trump and bring back American sovereignty from the global socialists, your nation will be bankrupt within 20 years and we will all be ruled by Communist China., they were bloody close before Trumps win.

Some want that. Americans will have to choose.

Where is there an emergency? Illegal border crossings are at their lowest numbers in 70 years, so that isn't an emergency. The ONLY current national emergency in the USA is the opoiod crisis which Trump is totally ignoring, or claiming is being caused by drugs crossing the border.

Instead of focusing on prescription mills and the under regulation of over marketing and selling of prescription opioids by Big Pharma, Trump claims the opioid crisis is being caused by illegal drugs. Nothing could be further from the truth, but the opioid crisis is complicated and requires complex solutions, just like immigration. But Dumb Donald doesn't do complicated solutions. Donald Trump's fixes fit on a bumper sticker. Build that wall!! Doesn't matter if they work or not, can we sell the idea?

 

[task0778]

I see no reason why it wouldn't be sustained. And if sustained, a bunch of money once allocated to areas across the country will end up instead being spent in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. Yippie-ki-yo-ki-yay.

To my knowledge, no presidential declaration of a national emergency has ever been enjoined, let alone sustained. It's one thing to dispute an executive order or action, but it's another to invalidate or issue an injunction against the President who has declared a national emergency. So, precedence is against you. Tell us why you think such an injunction would be sustained. Do you think one unelected federal district court judge should have the power to issue an injunction covering the entire country? Do you think the federal court system at ANY level ought to decide what is and is not a national emergency as it regards national security, or a humanitarian crisis? Should they be deciding what is and is not relevant to national security? Actually, isn't that within the purview of the Congress? And if they delegate that power to the President without parameters, by what authority does the Judiciary overturn that decision?

It's not as if the Congress has not already authorized such expenditures to build a wall/fence/barrier/whatever in the past, you know that right? They authorized it but didn't appropriate the funds to do it, but should that matter in cases of a declared national emergency for security reasons? I assume you also know that past presidents have spent money on some things with Congress did not appropriate money for, called by some "unobligated funds or balances". Unobligated balances are the amounts of budget authority that have not yet been committed by contract or other legally binding action by the government. It is believed that unobligated balances were used by Johnson to help fund his Great Society, by both Johnson and Nixon to help with funding for the Vietnam War, to assist with Carter's expanding domestic programs, to go toward Reagan's work to bring down the Soviet empire, to help fund both Iraq wars by Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, and by President Clinton to help him stay within Republican congressional budget limits. So far, neither President Obama or Trump have done that; as a result, there will be an estimated $1.156 trillion in unobligated balances by the end of F.Y. 2019.

https://www.americanthinker.com/art..._with_unobligated_balances.html#ixzz5dvq222s0

These are reasons why such an injunction should NOT be sustained; somebody tell me why it should be. Opinions are nice, but if unsupported they really don't carry a lot of weight. And I am not poking My2 or anyone else in the eye with a stick, but put some meat on those bones.

 

[my2¢]

I see no reason why it wouldn't be sustained. And if sustained, a bunch of money once allocated to areas across the country will end up instead being spent in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. Yippie-ki-yo-ki-yay.

To my knowledge, no presidential declaration of a national emergency has ever been enjoined, let alone sustained. It's one thing to dispute an executive order or action, but it's another to invalidate or issue an injunction against the President who has declared a national emergency. So, precedence is against you. Tell us why you think such an injunction would be sustained. Do you think one unelected federal district court judge should have the power to issue an injunction covering the entire country? Do you think the federal court system at ANY level ought to decide what is and is not a national emergency as it regards national security, or a humanitarian crisis? Should they be deciding what is and is not relevant to national security? Actually, isn't that within the purview of the Congress? And if they delegate that power to the President without parameters, by what authority does the Judiciary overturn that decision?

It's not as if the Congress has not already authorized such expenditures to build a wall/fence/barrier/whatever in the past, you know that right? They authorized it but didn't appropriate the funds to do it, but should that matter in cases of a declared national emergency for security reasons? I assume you also know that past presidents have spent money on some things with Congress did not appropriate money for, called by some "unobligated funds or balances". Unobligated balances are the amounts of budget authority that have not yet been committed by contract or other legally binding action by the government. It is believed that unobligated balances were used by Johnson to help fund his Great Society, by both Johnson and Nixon to help with funding for the Vietnam War, to assist with Carter's expanding domestic programs, to go toward Reagan's work to bring down the Soviet empire, to help fund both Iraq wars by Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, and by President Clinton to help him stay within Republican congressional budget limits. So far, neither President Obama or Trump have done that; as a result, there will be an estimated $1.156 trillion in unobligated balances by the end of F.Y. 2019.

https://www.americanthinker.com/art..._with_unobligated_balances.html#ixzz5dvq222s0

These are reasons why such an injunction should NOT be sustained; somebody tell me why it should be. Opinions are nice, but if unsupported they really don't carry a lot of weight. And I am not poking My2 or anyone else in the eye with a stick, but put some meat on those bones.

I took the question of: If the Wall Emergency is Sustained by the Courts Then What? to mean if the emergency was sustained, not sustaining any injunction against the wall.

 

[task0778]

I see no reason why it wouldn't be sustained. And if sustained, a bunch of money once allocated to areas across the country will end up instead being spent in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. Yippie-ki-yo-ki-yay.

To my knowledge, no presidential declaration of a national emergency has ever been enjoined, let alone sustained. It's one thing to dispute an executive order or action, but it's another to invalidate or issue an injunction against the President who has declared a national emergency. So, precedence is against you. Tell us why you think such an injunction would be sustained. Do you think one unelected federal district court judge should have the power to issue an injunction covering the entire country? Do you think the federal court system at ANY level ought to decide what is and is not a national emergency as it regards national security, or a humanitarian crisis? Should they be deciding what is and is not relevant to national security? Actually, isn't that within the purview of the Congress? And if they delegate that power to the President without parameters, by what authority does the Judiciary overturn that decision?

It's not as if the Congress has not already authorized such expenditures to build a wall/fence/barrier/whatever in the past, you know that right? They authorized it but didn't appropriate the funds to do it, but should that matter in cases of a declared national emergency for security reasons? I assume you also know that past presidents have spent money on some things with Congress did not appropriate money for, called by some "unobligated funds or balances". Unobligated balances are the amounts of budget authority that have not yet been committed by contract or other legally binding action by the government. It is believed that unobligated balances were used by Johnson to help fund his Great Society, by both Johnson and Nixon to help with funding for the Vietnam War, to assist with Carter's expanding domestic programs, to go toward Reagan's work to bring down the Soviet empire, to help fund both Iraq wars by Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, and by President Clinton to help him stay within Republican congressional budget limits. So far, neither President Obama or Trump have done that; as a result, there will be an estimated $1.156 trillion in unobligated balances by the end of F.Y. 2019.

https://www.americanthinker.com/art..._with_unobligated_balances.html#ixzz5dvq222s0

These are reasons why such an injunction should NOT be sustained; somebody tell me why it should be. Opinions are nice, but if unsupported they really don't carry a lot of weight. And I am not poking My2 or anyone else in the eye with a stick, but put some meat on those bones.

I took the question of: If the Wall Emergency is Sustained by the Courts Then What? to mean if the emergency was sustained, not sustaining any injunction against the wall.

Sorry, my bad.

 

[H B Lowrie]

So what would be more dangerous, Trump declaring an Emergency when obviously there is one, or the courts deciding he has no power, nor any president after to declare one? In effect, nullifying an election.

What will it mean for your sovereignty and future elections? The safety of citizens, and those vulnerable to illegal substances?

If you don't support Trump and bring back American sovereignty from the global socialists, your nation will be bankrupt within 20 years and we will all be ruled by Communist China., they were bloody close before Trumps win.

Some want that. Americans will have to choose.

We did, Don doesn't like what we chose so he's pouting. But hey, at least we got to turn some more public funding over to lazy assed socialist corporate state america for nothing. And who needs communist China when our own oligarchs want us walled in?

"Two years after President Trump signed orders to hire 15,000 new border agents and immigration officers, the administration has spent tens of millions of dollars in the effort — but has thousands more vacancies than when it began.

In a sign of the difficulties, Customs and Border Protection allocated $60.7 million to Accenture Federal Services, a management consulting firm, as part of a $297-million contract to recruit, vet and hire 7,500 border officers over five years, but the company has produced only 33 new hires so far.

The president’s promised hiring surge steadily lost ground even as he publicly hammered away at the need for stiffer border security, warned of a looming migrant invasion and shut down parts of the government for five weeks over his demands for $5.7 billion from Congress for a border wall.

The Border Patrol gained a total of 120 agents in 2018, the first net gain in five years.

But the agency has come nowhere close to adding more than 2,700 agents annually, the rate that Kevin McAleenan, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, has said is necessary to meet Trump’s mandated 26,370 border agents by the end of 2021.

Beyond that, given historically low illegal immigration on the southern border, even the Homeland Security inspector general has questioned the need for the surge."

Trump ordered 15,000 new border and immigration officers — but got thousands of vacancies instead
Trump ordered 15,000 new border and immigration officers — but got thousands of vacancies instead

 

[airplanemechanic]

So what would be more dangerous, Trump declaring an Emergency when obviously there is one, or the courts deciding he has no power, nor any president after to declare one? In effect, nullifying an election.

What will it mean for your sovereignty and future elections? The safety of citizens, and those vulnerable to illegal substances?

If you don't support Trump and bring back American sovereignty from the global socialists, your nation will be bankrupt within 20 years and we will all be ruled by Communist China., they were bloody close before Trumps win.

Some want that. Americans will have to choose.

Where is there an emergency? Illegal border crossings are at their lowest numbers in 70 years, so that isn't an emergency. The ONLY current national emergency in the USA is the opoiod crisis which Trump is totally ignoring, or claiming is being caused by drugs crossing the border.

Instead of focusing on prescription mills and the under regulation of over marketing and selling of prescription opioids by Big Pharma, Trump claims the opioid crisis is being caused by illegal drugs. Nothing could be further from the truth, but the opioid crisis is complicated and requires complex solutions, just like immigration. But Dumb Donald doesn't do complicated solutions. Donald Trump's fixes fit on a bumper sticker. Build that wall!! Doesn't matter if they work or not, can we sell the idea?

Wrong. Illegal border crossings have skyrocketed recently.


As border crossings surge, a Mexican couple tests Trump’s policies


And as it was pointed out before, a long time ago it was mostly single males that could be processed quickly. Now 80% of illegals are family units which take much more time to process and use up more of our precious resources to deal with. So it's definitely a crisis. It's just one that liberals have ignored and now Trump isn't.

Just take their word for it:

FACT CHECK: Did Barack Obama Express Opposition to 'Undetected, Undocumented, Unchecked' Immigration?

 

[HenryBHough]

Liberals WILL take it before an Obama judge WHEN the emergency order comes down. The Supreme Court will quickly lay that to rest.

That's when liberals will riot and have to be put out of their misery when they take their torches and baseball bats up against guns.

 

[miketx]

Don had two years with majorities in both houses. He was blathering on about this during the campaign. He couldn't even get his own party's support with this shit.

That's because they are filled with greedy liberal scumbags.

 

[H B Lowrie]

Don had two years with majorities in both houses. He was blathering on about this during the campaign. He couldn't even get his own party's support with this shit.

That's because they are filled with greedy liberal scumbags.

Why do you Republicans elect those damn liberals? Man. I couldn't support qa party like that. I guess there's that other crooked one.

 

[H B Lowrie]

So what would be more dangerous, Trump declaring an Emergency when obviously there is one, or the courts deciding he has no power, nor any president after to declare one? In effect, nullifying an election.

What will it mean for your sovereignty and future elections? The safety of citizens, and those vulnerable to illegal substances?

If you don't support Trump and bring back American sovereignty from the global socialists, your nation will be bankrupt within 20 years and we will all be ruled by Communist China., they were bloody close before Trumps win.

Some want that. Americans will have to choose.

Where is there an emergency? Illegal border crossings are at their lowest numbers in 70 years, so that isn't an emergency. The ONLY current national emergency in the USA is the opoiod crisis which Trump is totally ignoring, or claiming is being caused by drugs crossing the border.

Instead of focusing on prescription mills and the under regulation of over marketing and selling of prescription opioids by Big Pharma, Trump claims the opioid crisis is being caused by illegal drugs. Nothing could be further from the truth, but the opioid crisis is complicated and requires complex solutions, just like immigration. But Dumb Donald doesn't do complicated solutions. Donald Trump's fixes fit on a bumper sticker. Build that wall!! Doesn't matter if they work or not, can we sell the idea?

Wrong. Illegal border crossings have skyrocketed recently.


As border crossings surge, a Mexican couple tests Trump’s policies


And as it was pointed out before, a long time ago it was mostly single males that could be processed quickly. Now 80% of illegals are family units which take much more time to process and use up more of our precious resources to deal with. So it's definitely a crisis. It's just one that liberals have ignored and now Trump isn't.

Just take their word for it:

FACT CHECK: Did Barack Obama Express Opposition to 'Undetected, Undocumented, Unchecked' Immigration?

Bullshit, bring something substantial or just stop.

 

[miketx]

So what would be more dangerous, Trump declaring an Emergency when obviously there is one, or the courts deciding he has no power, nor any president after to declare one? In effect, nullifying an election.

What will it mean for your sovereignty and future elections? The safety of citizens, and those vulnerable to illegal substances?

If you don't support Trump and bring back American sovereignty from the global socialists, your nation will be bankrupt within 20 years and we will all be ruled by Communist China., they were bloody close before Trumps win.

Some want that. Americans will have to choose.

Where is there an emergency? Illegal border crossings are at their lowest numbers in 70 years, so that isn't an emergency. The ONLY current national emergency in the USA is the opoiod crisis which Trump is totally ignoring, or claiming is being caused by drugs crossing the border.

Instead of focusing on prescription mills and the under regulation of over marketing and selling of prescription opioids by Big Pharma, Trump claims the opioid crisis is being caused by illegal drugs. Nothing could be further from the truth, but the opioid crisis is complicated and requires complex solutions, just like immigration. But Dumb Donald doesn't do complicated solutions. Donald Trump's fixes fit on a bumper sticker. Build that wall!! Doesn't matter if they work or not, can we sell the idea?

Wrong. Illegal border crossings have skyrocketed recently.


As border crossings surge, a Mexican couple tests Trump’s policies


And as it was pointed out before, a long time ago it was mostly single males that could be processed quickly. Now 80% of illegals are family units which take much more time to process and use up more of our precious resources to deal with. So it's definitely a crisis. It's just one that liberals have ignored and now Trump isn't.

Just take their word for it:

FACT CHECK: Did Barack Obama Express Opposition to 'Undetected, Undocumented, Unchecked' Immigration?

Bullshit, bring something substantial or just stop.

liberals dont do facts.

 

[H B Lowrie]

So what would be more dangerous, Trump declaring an Emergency when obviously there is one, or the courts deciding he has no power, nor any president after to declare one? In effect, nullifying an election.

What will it mean for your sovereignty and future elections? The safety of citizens, and those vulnerable to illegal substances?

If you don't support Trump and bring back American sovereignty from the global socialists, your nation will be bankrupt within 20 years and we will all be ruled by Communist China., they were bloody close before Trumps win.

Some want that. Americans will have to choose.

Where is there an emergency? Illegal border crossings are at their lowest numbers in 70 years, so that isn't an emergency. The ONLY current national emergency in the USA is the opoiod crisis which Trump is totally ignoring, or claiming is being caused by drugs crossing the border.

Instead of focusing on prescription mills and the under regulation of over marketing and selling of prescription opioids by Big Pharma, Trump claims the opioid crisis is being caused by illegal drugs. Nothing could be further from the truth, but the opioid crisis is complicated and requires complex solutions, just like immigration. But Dumb Donald doesn't do complicated solutions. Donald Trump's fixes fit on a bumper sticker. Build that wall!! Doesn't matter if they work or not, can we sell the idea?

Wrong. Illegal border crossings have skyrocketed recently.


As border crossings surge, a Mexican couple tests Trump’s policies


And as it was pointed out before, a long time ago it was mostly single males that could be processed quickly. Now 80% of illegals are family units which take much more time to process and use up more of our precious resources to deal with. So it's definitely a crisis. It's just one that liberals have ignored and now Trump isn't.

Just take their word for it:

FACT CHECK: Did Barack Obama Express Opposition to 'Undetected, Undocumented, Unchecked' Immigration?

Bullshit, bring something substantial or just stop.

liberals dont do facts.

I do not base my version of truth on one youtube clip. Got a label for that?