Kondor3
Cafeteria Centrist
- Jul 29, 2009
- 33,972
- 9,932
Au contraire... it is neither ignorant nor nonsense......Ignorant nonsence. There is ABSOLUTELY a provision in Constitution against a President using funds for the wall without congressional apropriation. Congress controlls the spending - PERIOD.
The context was a comparison to using a State of Emergency to seize legally-owned firearms...
The US Constitution prevents a President from "infringing" upon the right to bear arms... explicitly.
The US Constitution does NOT prevent a President from building a wall, explicitly or implicitly.
To put a Wall on the same par as firearms in this comparative context, there would need to be a passage in the Constitution similar to...
"An unimpeded flow of poor, uneducated foreign peasantry being necessary to both Big Business robber-barons and grateful future partisan voters within Inner City Ghetto-Plantations, the right of the Elites to an open border shall not be infringed."
The closest we come to any such bar to wall construction would be the idea that Congress is accorded the Power of the Purse.
That is an implicit control of such specific construction - embedded within control of the Purse - not explicit, like the right to bear arms.
You are correct in observing that the money for any such wall construction would ordinarily be controlled by Congress, however...
If the Creature in the Oval Office is upheld in his declaration by a 5-4 (or 5-3?) SCOTUS, even that safeguard is overridden.
Hell... he's been packing not only the Supreme Court, but the Appellate Courts as well in recent months... hasn't he?
Neither ignorant, nor nonsense.
Last edited: