Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
The drug interdiction money is held by the Treasury but it is not part of the Treasury funds that were collected through taxes, so Congress has no jurisdiction over it. Why even argue this? It's a done deal that this money will be used to build the border fence.First off, defending our borders is a national security matter and that falls under the executive, not the Congress. Paul is arguing that the President must bend to the will of Congress on a national security issue, which is clearly contrary to the intent of the Constitution. Let's keep in mind that this vote is just a gesture and will have no practical effect on building the fence, so Paul's chest thumping is just theater he will not have to take any real responsibility for.lol After 58 national emergencies declared by every president since 1976 and thirteen by Obama and three previous national emergencies by Trump, Paul decided this was a good time to defend the Constitution?
None of them directly confront the Constitution the way this does. The only one that dealt with domestic policy was overturned by the courts.
Rand Paul
"To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation. In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security. It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.
Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers. Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.
Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress. This turns that principle on its head.
I, and many of my fellow members, called out President Obama for abusing executive authority. President Obama famously said that if Congress wouldn’t do what he wanted, he had his pen and his phone ready. That was wrong. Many of those voting now spent a good portion of their campaigns running ads against these words and actions of President Obama. They will and should be condemned for hypocrisy if they vote to allow this because they want the policy or want to stand with the president in a partisan fight."
No, he’s stating that the constitution says congress allocates the money and looting those previously allocated funds is something he can’t support
33 U.S. Code § 2293, says: "Reprogramming during national emergencies," permits the president to "apply the resources of the Department of the Army’s civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense."
It really can't be anymore clearcut than that.
Mark
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 7
It really can't be more clear cut than that since the Constitution has priority over a law.
Rand Paul and three others have decided that they are “no” votes on the Emergency Declaration.
Senate Seems to Have Enough Votes to Reject Trump’s Emergency Declaration
View attachment 248674
The doesn’t seem to be enough to over-ride the assured Presidential veto however.
Yet.
First off, defending our borders is a national security matter and that falls under the executive, not the Congress. Paul is arguing that the President must bend to the will of Congress on a national security issue, which is clearly contrary to the intent of the Constitution. Let's keep in mind that this vote is just a gesture and will have no practical effect on building the fence, so Paul's chest thumping is just theater he will not have to take any real responsibility for.lol After 58 national emergencies declared by every president since 1976 and thirteen by Obama and three previous national emergencies by Trump, Paul decided this was a good time to defend the Constitution?
None of them directly confront the Constitution the way this does. The only one that dealt with domestic policy was overturned by the courts.
Rand Paul
"To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation. In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security. It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.
Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers. Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.
Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress. This turns that principle on its head.
I, and many of my fellow members, called out President Obama for abusing executive authority. President Obama famously said that if Congress wouldn’t do what he wanted, he had his pen and his phone ready. That was wrong. Many of those voting now spent a good portion of their campaigns running ads against these words and actions of President Obama. They will and should be condemned for hypocrisy if they vote to allow this because they want the policy or want to stand with the president in a partisan fight."
No, he’s stating that the constitution says congress allocates the money and looting those previously allocated funds is something he can’t support
33 U.S. Code § 2293, says: "Reprogramming during national emergencies," permits the president to "apply the resources of the Department of the Army’s civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense."
It really can't be anymore clearcut than that.
Mark
Congress allocates the funds. Declaring an emergency probably isn't going to render Article I null and void.
It'll be decided by the courts.
I doubt the court wants to get into the argument on whether this or that or the other is a "national emergency". I think the court will want to weigh in on whether the President can loot the treasury to fulfill a campaign promise.
How will they rule? I don't know.
If a corrupt Obama judge tries to block it in a lower court, he will be overturned.There is nothing for the courts to decide. The Democrats are just making noise to cover up the fact they screwed up an opportunity to use funding for the border fence as leverage to get a deal for the "dreamers" and others they claim to care about but clearly don't.The debate is over and the President has legal authority to build the fence with the unallocated funds from the military construction fund and from the drug interdiction funds held by the Treasury.Illegal immigration is a new condition? We've had over a million arrests in a year in this young century. There was no need for a re-prioritization then; there is no need now.That's bullshit. The Pentagon re prioritizes projects all the time depending on changing conditions.
This isn't a military operation.The money was allocated to the military constructive fund and it is the military that allocates the money to those projects it deems necessary.
Your bizarre contention that Congress can make all decisions for the military is no where in the Constitution. Of course, none of this matters since even the House will not be able to overcome a veto. Just more political theater.
That wasn't the contention (what ever a contention is)....
Congress funds programs; be it the F22, the Bush aircraft carrier, a new barracks at Fort Riley.... It expressly funded what the President signed in the CR for border security.
The fact is, the Democrats screwed up. They had considerable leverage to strike a deal with the President to legalize many of the illegals already in the US, but they weren't interested in helping them if the President got some of the credit for it. So now all the Democrats can do is make noise.
Correct. The debate will be decided by the courts. In my view, the Congress (regardless of Party) should be opposing this looting of the treasury.
Yes there is. Trump's own people are telling him it will be blocked by the courts. Alan Dershowitz who is pro-Trump says the only question is whether a court will issue a restraining order. Judge Napolitano also agrees the courts will block this.
Something that happens that requires an immediate response.
If I told you that more migrant families were arrested at the border in the past 5 months then in any previous full year, would you believe that to be an emergency?
Mark
No. Around the year 2000 we had over a million arrests. There was no national emergency then.
In the ensuing 18 years...
*GDP has doubled in this nation.
*The Stock Market has doubled a great many times.
*Family wealth has increased on the average which is remarkable considering that the power of labor has gone from being on life support to being legally dead
*Violent crime continues to decrease
*Standards of living continue to increase
*The drug problem has gotten worse but as we have seen with prisons, walls and guards do little to stop drugs from getting in to those places so it's foolish to think it will stop a measurable quantity from getting over a 2,000 mile barrier.
My turn: Please justify declaring a "national emergency" in 02/19? Why wasn't it a national emergency in 01/17 when the President took office?
I understand not getting funding through Congress was frustrating but Congress is not there to be a rubber stamp for the President.
Doesn't this open the door to funding any campaign promise through declaration of a National Emergency?
Wasn't Mexico supposed to pay for the wall?
The emergency is real. And Trump tried to get funding from day 1. Pelosi and the Democrats understand that giving Trump his wall will ensure his re-election. They would rather burn the country down than allow that.
Mark
All law is civilian law and teh military can defend our borders by any means necessary.They are there to defend the border in the event the Border Patrol fails.------------------------- i think that we have USA Military on the Border right now Bulldog .The military construction fund isn't a slush fund that can be tapped on a presidential whim. It was funded for specific military construction projects, and can not be redirected without some military reason to do so. We are not under attack, and there is no military reason to build a wall.
They are not there in a military role since the military cannot enforce civilian law.
They cannot arrest anyone as they cannot enforce civilian law.
If a corrupt Obama judge tries to block it in a lower court, he will be overturned.There is nothing for the courts to decide. The Democrats are just making noise to cover up the fact they screwed up an opportunity to use funding for the border fence as leverage to get a deal for the "dreamers" and others they claim to care about but clearly don't.The debate is over and the President has legal authority to build the fence with the unallocated funds from the military construction fund and from the drug interdiction funds held by the Treasury.Illegal immigration is a new condition? We've had over a million arrests in a year in this young century. There was no need for a re-prioritization then; there is no need now.
This isn't a military operation.
That wasn't the contention (what ever a contention is)....
Congress funds programs; be it the F22, the Bush aircraft carrier, a new barracks at Fort Riley.... It expressly funded what the President signed in the CR for border security.
The fact is, the Democrats screwed up. They had considerable leverage to strike a deal with the President to legalize many of the illegals already in the US, but they weren't interested in helping them if the President got some of the credit for it. So now all the Democrats can do is make noise.
Correct. The debate will be decided by the courts. In my view, the Congress (regardless of Party) should be opposing this looting of the treasury.
Yes there is. Trump's own people are telling him it will be blocked by the courts. Alan Dershowitz who is pro-Trump says the only question is whether a court will issue a restraining order. Judge Napolitano also agrees the courts will block this.
lol A Democrat arguing for original intent after decades of arguing the Constitution is a living document?First off, defending our borders is a national security matter and that falls under the executive, not the Congress. Paul is arguing that the President must bend to the will of Congress on a national security issue, which is clearly contrary to the intent of the Constitution. Let's keep in mind that this vote is just a gesture and will have no practical effect on building the fence, so Paul's chest thumping is just theater he will not have to take any real responsibility for.None of them directly confront the Constitution the way this does. The only one that dealt with domestic policy was overturned by the courts.
Rand Paul
"To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation. In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security. It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.
Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers. Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.
Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress. This turns that principle on its head.
I, and many of my fellow members, called out President Obama for abusing executive authority. President Obama famously said that if Congress wouldn’t do what he wanted, he had his pen and his phone ready. That was wrong. Many of those voting now spent a good portion of their campaigns running ads against these words and actions of President Obama. They will and should be condemned for hypocrisy if they vote to allow this because they want the policy or want to stand with the president in a partisan fight."
No, he’s stating that the constitution says congress allocates the money and looting those previously allocated funds is something he can’t support
33 U.S. Code § 2293, says: "Reprogramming during national emergencies," permits the president to "apply the resources of the Department of the Army’s civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense."
It really can't be anymore clearcut than that.
Mark
Congress allocates the funds. Declaring an emergency probably isn't going to render Article I null and void.
It'll be decided by the courts.
I doubt the court wants to get into the argument on whether this or that or the other is a "national emergency". I think the court will want to weigh in on whether the President can loot the treasury to fulfill a campaign promise.
How will they rule? I don't know.
It depends on whether they will follow the Constitution. If they follow the original intent then it is not even close. If they want to ignore the Constitution then you could be right.
Nonsense, the only way to overturn it is to declare the National Emergency Act unConstitutional. Short of that, any judge who tries to stop the fence is acting on political biases, corrupt.If a corrupt Obama judge tries to block it in a lower court, he will be overturned.There is nothing for the courts to decide. The Democrats are just making noise to cover up the fact they screwed up an opportunity to use funding for the border fence as leverage to get a deal for the "dreamers" and others they claim to care about but clearly don't.The debate is over and the President has legal authority to build the fence with the unallocated funds from the military construction fund and from the drug interdiction funds held by the Treasury.
The fact is, the Democrats screwed up. They had considerable leverage to strike a deal with the President to legalize many of the illegals already in the US, but they weren't interested in helping them if the President got some of the credit for it. So now all the Democrats can do is make noise.
Correct. The debate will be decided by the courts. In my view, the Congress (regardless of Party) should be opposing this looting of the treasury.
Yes there is. Trump's own people are telling him it will be blocked by the courts. Alan Dershowitz who is pro-Trump says the only question is whether a court will issue a restraining order. Judge Napolitano also agrees the courts will block this.
In this case, the corrupt judge will be the one who overturns it. The Obama judge will be following the Constitution.
The debate is over and the President has legal authority to build the fence with the unallocated funds from the military construction fund and from the drug interdiction funds held by the Treasury.Illegal immigration is a new condition? We've had over a million arrests in a year in this young century. There was no need for a re-prioritization then; there is no need now.That's bullshit. The Pentagon re prioritizes projects all the time depending on changing conditions.First off, defending our borders is a national security matter and that falls under the executive, not the Congress. Paul is arguing that the President must bend to the will of Congress on a national security issue, which is clearly contrary to the intent of the Constitution. Let's keep in mind that this vote is just a gesture and will have no practical effect on building the fence, so Paul's chest thumping is just theater he will not have to take any real responsibility for.None of them directly confront the Constitution the way this does. The only one that dealt with domestic policy was overturned by the courts.
Rand Paul
"To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation. In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security. It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.
Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers. Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.
Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress. This turns that principle on its head.
I, and many of my fellow members, called out President Obama for abusing executive authority. President Obama famously said that if Congress wouldn’t do what he wanted, he had his pen and his phone ready. That was wrong. Many of those voting now spent a good portion of their campaigns running ads against these words and actions of President Obama. They will and should be condemned for hypocrisy if they vote to allow this because they want the policy or want to stand with the president in a partisan fight."
No, he’s stating that the constitution says congress allocates the money and looting those previously allocated funds is something he can’t support
This isn't a military operation.The money was allocated to the military constructive fund and it is the military that allocates the money to those projects it deems necessary.
Your bizarre contention that Congress can make all decisions for the military is no where in the Constitution. Of course, none of this matters since even the House will not be able to overcome a veto. Just more political theater.
That wasn't the contention (what ever a contention is)....
Congress funds programs; be it the F22, the Bush aircraft carrier, a new barracks at Fort Riley.... It expressly funded what the President signed in the CR for border security.
The fact is, the Democrats screwed up. They had considerable leverage to strike a deal with the President to legalize many of the illegals already in the US, but they weren't interested in helping them if the President got some of the credit for it. So now all the Democrats can do is make noise.
The fact is you have no idea what the facts are. In his 2018 SOTU address, the first item he dealt with was an offer to provide a path to citizenship for 1,800,000 illegals who had special circumstances, including all the so called "dreamers" and 1,000,000 more in return for funds to build the border fence. Clearly, to the Democrats, the dreamers were never anything but a political prop.The debate is over and the President has legal authority to build the fence with the unallocated funds from the military construction fund and from the drug interdiction funds held by the Treasury.Illegal immigration is a new condition? We've had over a million arrests in a year in this young century. There was no need for a re-prioritization then; there is no need now.That's bullshit. The Pentagon re prioritizes projects all the time depending on changing conditions.First off, defending our borders is a national security matter and that falls under the executive, not the Congress. Paul is arguing that the President must bend to the will of Congress on a national security issue, which is clearly contrary to the intent of the Constitution. Let's keep in mind that this vote is just a gesture and will have no practical effect on building the fence, so Paul's chest thumping is just theater he will not have to take any real responsibility for.
No, he’s stating that the constitution says congress allocates the money and looting those previously allocated funds is something he can’t support
This isn't a military operation.The money was allocated to the military constructive fund and it is the military that allocates the money to those projects it deems necessary.
Your bizarre contention that Congress can make all decisions for the military is no where in the Constitution. Of course, none of this matters since even the House will not be able to overcome a veto. Just more political theater.
That wasn't the contention (what ever a contention is)....
Congress funds programs; be it the F22, the Bush aircraft carrier, a new barracks at Fort Riley.... It expressly funded what the President signed in the CR for border security.
The fact is, the Democrats screwed up. They had considerable leverage to strike a deal with the President to legalize many of the illegals already in the US, but they weren't interested in helping them if the President got some of the credit for it. So now all the Democrats can do is make noise.
The debate is just getting started. Trump does not have the CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to spend it without Congressional authorization. The Constitution is crystal clear on this.
The fact is that Trump never offered any immigration deal nor ewould his base of far right extremists who have taken over the Republican Party allow it.
The President has legal authority to use the funds from the military construction fund and from drug interdiction money held by the Treasury under existing law, so if the court wants to stop him, it must declare the National Emergency Act and other laws allowing the President emergency powers unConstitutional. That's the only way the courts can stop the President from defending our borders.The debate is over and the President has legal authority to build the fence with the unallocated funds from the military construction fund and from the drug interdiction funds held by the Treasury.Illegal immigration is a new condition? We've had over a million arrests in a year in this young century. There was no need for a re-prioritization then; there is no need now.That's bullshit. The Pentagon re prioritizes projects all the time depending on changing conditions.First off, defending our borders is a national security matter and that falls under the executive, not the Congress. Paul is arguing that the President must bend to the will of Congress on a national security issue, which is clearly contrary to the intent of the Constitution. Let's keep in mind that this vote is just a gesture and will have no practical effect on building the fence, so Paul's chest thumping is just theater he will not have to take any real responsibility for.
No, he’s stating that the constitution says congress allocates the money and looting those previously allocated funds is something he can’t support
This isn't a military operation.The money was allocated to the military constructive fund and it is the military that allocates the money to those projects it deems necessary.
Your bizarre contention that Congress can make all decisions for the military is no where in the Constitution. Of course, none of this matters since even the House will not be able to overcome a veto. Just more political theater.
That wasn't the contention (what ever a contention is)....
Congress funds programs; be it the F22, the Bush aircraft carrier, a new barracks at Fort Riley.... It expressly funded what the President signed in the CR for border security.
The fact is, the Democrats screwed up. They had considerable leverage to strike a deal with the President to legalize many of the illegals already in the US, but they weren't interested in helping them if the President got some of the credit for it. So now all the Democrats can do is make noise.
The debate is just getting started. Trump does not have the CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to spend it without Congressional authorization. The Constitution is crystal clear on this.
The fact is that Trump never offered any immigration deal nor ewould his base of far right extremists who have taken over the Republican Party allow it.
DHS has discretion over wall building..
1 main reason U.S. border wall hasn't been built - WND - WND
'Where's the fence?' activist asks Congress - WND - WND
Not bad reading if one wants to learn something. The site definitely skews right, but info is where one finds it.
I'm going to make this prediction: Being asshats about getting a wall built is going to cost Democrats dearly in 2020.
DHS has discretion over wall building..
1 main reason U.S. border wall hasn't been built - WND - WND
'Where's the fence?' activist asks Congress - WND - WND
Not bad reading if one wants to learn something. The site definitely skews right, but info is where one finds it.
I'm going to make this prediction: Being asshats about getting a wall built is going to cost Democrats dearly in 2020.
Congress in this case was very specific in how the money is to be spent. There are numerous restrictions which overrides that discretion.
Just like it cost Republicans the House. 2020 will see further erosion of Republican power. The question is whether they will lose the White House or Senate or both.
It is NOT a national "security issue." These people are not coming in to attack us. They just want to live and work here. Yes, there are drug cartels sending their wares across the border illegally, as well, but they are coming in through customs and the Border Patrol will tell you that. The Wall will not solve a fraction of that problem.First off, defending our borders is a national security matter and that falls under the executive, not the Congress. Paul is arguing that the President must bend to the will of Congress on a national security issue, which is clearly contrary to the intent of the Constitution. Let's keep in mind that this vote is just a gesture and will have no practical effect on building the fence, so Paul's chest thumping is just theater he will not have to take any real responsibility for.lol After 58 national emergencies declared by every president since 1976 and thirteen by Obama and three previous national emergencies by Trump, Paul decided this was a good time to defend the Constitution?Rand Paul and three others have decided that they are “no” votes on the Emergency Declaration.
Senate Seems to Have Enough Votes to Reject Trump’s Emergency Declaration
View attachment 248674
The doesn’t seem to be enough to over-ride the assured Presidential veto however.
Yet.
None of them directly confront the Constitution the way this does. The only one that dealt with domestic policy was overturned by the courts.
Rand Paul
"To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation. In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security. It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.
Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers. Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.
Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress. This turns that principle on its head.
I, and many of my fellow members, called out President Obama for abusing executive authority. President Obama famously said that if Congress wouldn’t do what he wanted, he had his pen and his phone ready. That was wrong. Many of those voting now spent a good portion of their campaigns running ads against these words and actions of President Obama. They will and should be condemned for hypocrisy if they vote to allow this because they want the policy or want to stand with the president in a partisan fight."
Why do Dimms give a shit if there is a physical barrier on the US southern border? Specifically?
The money part is a lie. So list real problems.
The cartels pour a huge infusion of cash
Into DC via shadow organizations like La Raza and Centros los Americas. Keeping the Border pourous is important to them as the free flow of purchase money estimated to be between 65 and 100 billion annually moves back and forth on the backs of human mules. Members of both parties have been financially coopted.
Jo
Worry about the rapist Americans--do something about them before you start on Mexicans.Rand Paul and three others have decided that they are “no” votes on the Emergency Declaration.
Senate Seems to Have Enough Votes to Reject Trump’s Emergency Declaration
View attachment 248674
The doesn’t seem to be enough to over-ride the assured Presidential veto however.
Yet.
so you are cheering for more rapist killer illegal Mexicans in our country?
.
Why do Dimms give a shit if there is a physical barrier on the US southern border? Specifically?
The money part is a lie. So list real problems.
The cartels pour a huge infusion of cash
Into DC via shadow organizations like La Raza and Centros los Americas. Keeping the Border pourous is important to them as the free flow of purchase money estimated to be between 65 and 100 billion annually moves back and forth on the backs of human mules. Members of both parties have been financially coopted.
Jo
Bullshit. The DEA says that the vast majority of drugs come through POEs. The reason is sample. A much larger amount of drugs can be brought into the country through trucks and other large vehicles. The amount of drugs that can be carried across the border is much smaller and sticks out like a sore thumb.
Invaded? Yeah...whatever. Make me laugh harderYeah...those were actual emergencies. In retrospect, he probably should have declared a national emergency for the 10-15% who are not insured, looted already allocated funds and provided universal healthcare. After all, that is what Trump is doing; looting the treasury to fulfill a campaign promise
If those are actual emergencies, the country getting invaded is not only a national emergency, but a planetary, perhaps galactic emergency.
If you could get everyone's health care needs provided for 5 billion dollars, go for it. I am waiting for the plan.
Why stop at $5B? Future Presidents can take whatever they want for anything they want if we allow Trump to loot the treasury.
Why stop at 5 billion? CandyCorn, this may be the first legitimate questions I have seen you present here. Indeed, there is no reason to stop at 5 billion. It's the bare minimum to stop the country from being invaded. But, we should spend much more, and do a lot more to eliminate perhaps the biggest security issue in the entire planet / galaxy.
Yeah, those nannies and gardeners face a real threat. Ridiculous.
But to your point, if the President can loot the treasury, we no longer have a system of checks and balances. So why stop at $5B or even $50B?
It just underscores that we've elected a complete fucking clown as our President--Donald Trump. We shouldn't be surprised by the circus that follows.
Are you criticizing Trump for... doing what he was elected to do?
Now that is ridiculous. Indeed, he should use all and every measures necessary to guarantee that the border gets shut down and the invasion is stopped on its tracks.
