Why Isn't 20,000 Border Patrol Agents Enough

[Maxdeath]

Trump wants 15,000 more agents on the southern border. The border is 2,000 miles. That means there would be 18 agents for ever mile of border or an agent for every 290 feet. This seems like a big overkill when you consider the difficulty in crossing large portions of the border and the technology we have available today to detect and track intruders.

God liberals have such a hard time with simple math and understanding simple concepts.
Not all border agents are working every minute of every day. Sleep, time off, sick leave, vacations, other parts of real work need to be taken into consideration. Then you have those that are not in the field such as supervisors, transportation etc. Then you have those at the northern border. Those at other ports of entry.

Now we need to consider that we will be lucky if we even get ten added border patrol because the fight is not about borders but about not allowing Trump to do anything. The other part of the equation is that without a wall it will be extremely easy for those that are in control to say look at what border security is costing we need to cut back. Border security would immediately drop. With a wall it would remain even with defunding.

You very wrong son.
Before this lunatic start starving people with his sexy wall.
They are already trying to hire 15,000 new CBP 2 years ago but applicants are hard to come by. Remember this is dated 2019.

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

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.

So you are claiming that all the border patrol that that the op claims are going to stand side by side are not only not available but are not being hired. You are claiming that there are less border patrol then there were. Plus you are claiming that building a wall will somehow starve people.

Do you see any problem with those claims? If not let me point them out.
First off there are not enough border patrol to stand side by side. Useing your own post we have less now then we did. We are unable to hire enough replacements yet Democrats say we only need to add to the number we already have.

Countries that have walls say they work. Areas on our border that have walls have seen dramatic decreases in illegal traffic. We even have those who pay more to live in gated communities.

As far as people starving if a wall is built. No one is going to take away your food stamps. We could very easily take the money from the billions being used to help fund abortions in South America. Less incursion into the U.S. less unborn killed a win win.

Funny how almost every Democrat in congress only six years ago voted for a barrier on our southern border. Now suddenly because it is Trump it is "immoral" .

You are funny little one. You don't want a barrier because you follow a party line. But then make the case for one. Good job.

You are very wrong again son.

1. What I mean of Trump starving people is when he shut the government down. Because of his sexy walls. Lots of these people are living paycheck to paycheck and businesses loss income.
These people has nothing to do with your wall.

2. Since you don’t know anything about the current border security. ZERO. For your information CBP are doing an excellent job apprehending illegal crossings. That is why they netted about 300,000 in 2018.

3. About foreign aids. What stopping you. Trump is the POTUS.

4. It’s very silly of you to compare other walls from other countries to southern border.
If you look at those foreign walls that you glorified. There are no customers or incentives breaching those walls. Here you are talking about future of your family. Plus drug addiction of Americans.

5. We support border security but not that ugly border Trump wall.

OK little one lets go over your assurances one at a time. Basically because English is hard for some people and I don't want you to have anymore of a hard time then you already are.

First of you were the one stating that we have fewer border patrol then we did. You are the one claiming we can not. Hire enough.

You talk about no incentive for breaching a wall. I know a young child such as you does not know about things like a devided Berlin after World War II. Perhaps you were not aware that Berlin did not have a wall before the Soviets put one up to keep a population in. Perhaps you are even unaware of the border between Israel and Palestine.

Border patrol has been doing a very good job but they are the ones that have said for years that we need a barrier on the southern border. They are the experts. If you have not worked with them you are no where near the expert you want to think you are.

The Democratic Party does not care about border security they only care about obstructing Trump. If a Democrat ever gets into the White House they would gladly allocate money for barriers.

Read my post again I did not talk about foreign aid. I talked about one of the places money could be obtained for a barrier without taking it away from your welfare check.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I figure that a one ton hydraulic bar spreader jack would probably make short work of the wall.

 

[Flopper]

Trump wants 15,000 more agents on the southern border. The border is 2,000 miles. That means there would be 18 agents for ever mile of border or an agent for every 290 feet. This seems like a big overkill when you consider the difficulty in crossing large portions of the border and the technology we have available today to detect and track intruders.

God liberals have such a hard time with simple math and understanding simple concepts.
Not all border agents are working every minute of every day. Sleep, time off, sick leave, vacations, other parts of real work need to be taken into consideration. Then you have those that are not in the field such as supervisors, transportation etc. Then you have those at the northern border. Those at other ports of entry.

Now we need to consider that we will be lucky if we even get ten added border patrol because the fight is not about borders but about not allowing Trump to do anything. The other part of the equation is that without a wall it will be extremely easy for those that are in control to say look at what border security is costing we need to cut back. Border security would immediately drop. With a wall it would remain even with defunding.

You very wrong son.
Before this lunatic start starving people with his sexy wall.
They are already trying to hire 15,000 new CBP 2 years ago but applicants are hard to come by. Remember this is dated 2019.

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

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.

CBP is losing agents faster than it can hire and train them. The problem is easy to understand. For most potential recruits, the southwest border is not considered a desirable location, however that is where almost all new recruits get assigned. Positions for the typical agent are a unique mix of both law enforcement and military-type duties. Many agents have to work in remote and austere environments. CBP established forward operating bases, where agents camp out for one or two weeks at a time so they can respond more quickly to border incursions. However, this is akin to a short-term military deployment without the military benefits, and tends to have a negative impact on morale. Unless the agent is stationed in one of the few major population centers such as El Paso, they are likely to find living conditions in many of the small towns well below most of the rest of nation.
Also, most Border Patrol Agents are Hispanic. With the crackdown on illegal immigrants and constant attention in the news media, they find themselves often treated as outsider in their own community and sometimes within their own family.

CBP Is Losing More Agents Than It Can Hire

 

[Flopper]

Trump wants 15,000 more agents on the southern border. The border is 2,000 miles. That means there would be 18 agents for ever mile of border or an agent for every 290 feet. This seems like a big overkill when you consider the difficulty in crossing large portions of the border and the technology we have available today to detect and track intruders.

God liberals have such a hard time with simple math and understanding simple concepts.
Not all border agents are working every minute of every day. Sleep, time off, sick leave, vacations, other parts of real work need to be taken into consideration. Then you have those that are not in the field such as supervisors, transportation etc. Then you have those at the northern border. Those at other ports of entry.

Now we need to consider that we will be lucky if we even get ten added border patrol because the fight is not about borders but about not allowing Trump to do anything. The other part of the equation is that without a wall it will be extremely easy for those that are in control to say look at what border security is costing we need to cut back. Border security would immediately drop. With a wall it would remain even with defunding.

You very wrong son.
Before this lunatic start starving people with his sexy wall.
They are already trying to hire 15,000 new CBP 2 years ago but applicants are hard to come by. Remember this is dated 2019.

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

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.

So you are claiming that all the border patrol that that the op claims are going to stand side by side are not only not available but are not being hired. You are claiming that there are less border patrol then there were. Plus you are claiming that building a wall will somehow starve people.

Do you see any problem with those claims? If not let me point them out.
First off there are not enough border patrol to stand side by side. Useing your own post we have less now then we did. We are unable to hire enough replacements yet Democrats say we only need to add to the number we already have.

Countries that have walls say they work. Areas on our border that have walls have seen dramatic decreases in illegal traffic. We even have those who pay more to live in gated communities.

As far as people starving if a wall is built. No one is going to take away your food stamps. We could very easily take the money from the billions being used to help fund abortions in South America. Less incursion into the U.S. less unborn killed a win win.

Funny how almost every Democrat in congress only six years ago voted for a barrier on our southern border. Now suddenly because it is Trump it is "immoral" .

You are funny little one. You don't want a barrier because you follow a party line. But then make the case for one. Good job.

You are very wrong again son.

1. What I mean of Trump starving people is when he shut the government down. Because of his sexy walls. Lots of these people are living paycheck to paycheck and businesses loss income.
These people has nothing to do with your wall.

2. Since you don’t know anything about the current border security. ZERO. For your information CBP are doing an excellent job apprehending illegal crossings. That is why they netted about 300,000 in 2018.

3. About foreign aids. What stopping you. Trump is the POTUS.

4. It’s very silly of you to compare other walls from other countries to southern border.
If you look at those foreign walls that you glorified. There are no customers or incentives breaching those walls. Here you are talking about future of your family. Plus drug addiction of Americans.

5. We support border security but not that ugly border Trump wall.

OK little one lets go over your assurances one at a time. Basically because English is hard for some people and I don't want you to have anymore of a hard time then you already are.

First of you were the one stating that we have fewer border patrol then we did. You are the one claiming we can not. Hire enough.

You talk about no incentive for breaching a wall. I know a young child such as you does not know about things like a devided Berlin after World War II. Perhaps you were not aware that Berlin did not have a wall before the Soviets put one up to keep a population in. Perhaps you are even unaware of the border between Israel and Palestine.

Border patrol has been doing a very good job but they are the ones that have said for years that we need a barrier on the southern border. They are the experts. If you have not worked with them you are no where near the expert you want to think you are.

The Democratic Party does not care about border security they only care about obstructing Trump. If a Democrat ever gets into the White House they would gladly allocate money for barriers.

Read my post again I did not talk about foreign aid. I talked about one of the places money could be obtained for a barrier without taking it away from your welfare check.

FYI, Trump said he would take the money for the wall out the defense budget if congress refused him. Of course that means he has to declare a national emergency and ultimately convince the courts that the situation is enough of an emergency for the president to overrule congress and take the funds without their approval.

The idea that democrats don't support border security is nonsense. Most of the border fencing which was authorized by the 2006 Security Fence Act and supported by democrats as well as republicans was built by the Obama administration.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Trump wants 15,000 more agents on the southern border. The border is 2,000 miles. That means there would be 18 agents for ever mile of border or an agent for every 290 feet. This seems like a big overkill when you consider the difficulty in crossing large portions of the border and the technology we have available today to detect and track intruders.

God liberals have such a hard time with simple math and understanding simple concepts.
Not all border agents are working every minute of every day. Sleep, time off, sick leave, vacations, other parts of real work need to be taken into consideration. Then you have those that are not in the field such as supervisors, transportation etc. Then you have those at the northern border. Those at other ports of entry.

Now we need to consider that we will be lucky if we even get ten added border patrol because the fight is not about borders but about not allowing Trump to do anything. The other part of the equation is that without a wall it will be extremely easy for those that are in control to say look at what border security is costing we need to cut back. Border security would immediately drop. With a wall it would remain even with defunding.

You very wrong son.
Before this lunatic start starving people with his sexy wall.
They are already trying to hire 15,000 new CBP 2 years ago but applicants are hard to come by. Remember this is dated 2019.

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

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.

So you are claiming that all the border patrol that that the op claims are going to stand side by side are not only not available but are not being hired. You are claiming that there are less border patrol then there were. Plus you are claiming that building a wall will somehow starve people.

Do you see any problem with those claims? If not let me point them out.
First off there are not enough border patrol to stand side by side. Useing your own post we have less now then we did. We are unable to hire enough replacements yet Democrats say we only need to add to the number we already have.

Countries that have walls say they work. Areas on our border that have walls have seen dramatic decreases in illegal traffic. We even have those who pay more to live in gated communities.

As far as people starving if a wall is built. No one is going to take away your food stamps. We could very easily take the money from the billions being used to help fund abortions in South America. Less incursion into the U.S. less unborn killed a win win.

Funny how almost every Democrat in congress only six years ago voted for a barrier on our southern border. Now suddenly because it is Trump it is "immoral" .

You are funny little one. You don't want a barrier because you follow a party line. But then make the case for one. Good job.

You are very wrong again son.

1. What I mean of Trump starving people is when he shut the government down. Because of his sexy walls. Lots of these people are living paycheck to paycheck and businesses loss income.
These people has nothing to do with your wall.

2. Since you don’t know anything about the current border security. ZERO. For your information CBP are doing an excellent job apprehending illegal crossings. That is why they netted about 300,000 in 2018.

3. About foreign aids. What stopping you. Trump is the POTUS.

4. It’s very silly of you to compare other walls from other countries to southern border.
If you look at those foreign walls that you glorified. There are no customers or incentives breaching those walls. Here you are talking about future of your family. Plus drug addiction of Americans.

5. We support border security but not that ugly border Trump wall.

OK little one lets go over your assurances one at a time. Basically because English is hard for some people and I don't want you to have anymore of a hard time then you already are.

First of you were the one stating that we have fewer border patrol then we did. You are the one claiming we can not. Hire enough.

You talk about no incentive for breaching a wall. I know a young child such as you does not know about things like a devided Berlin after World War II. Perhaps you were not aware that Berlin did not have a wall before the Soviets put one up to keep a population in. Perhaps you are even unaware of the border between Israel and Palestine.

Border patrol has been doing a very good job but they are the ones that have said for years that we need a barrier on the southern border. They are the experts. If you have not worked with them you are no where near the expert you want to think you are.

The Democratic Party does not care about border security they only care about obstructing Trump. If a Democrat ever gets into the White House they would gladly allocate money for barriers.

Read my post again I did not talk about foreign aid. I talked about one of the places money could be obtained for a barrier without taking it away from your welfare check.

How dare you talk about someone's hard time with English and you respond with that abortion!

"then you already are"

"You are the one claiming we can not. Hire enough."

"like a devided Berlin"

Come on! Show some intelligence!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

God liberals have such a hard time with simple math and understanding simple concepts.
Not all border agents are working every minute of every day. Sleep, time off, sick leave, vacations, other parts of real work need to be taken into consideration. Then you have those that are not in the field such as supervisors, transportation etc. Then you have those at the northern border. Those at other ports of entry.

Now we need to consider that we will be lucky if we even get ten added border patrol because the fight is not about borders but about not allowing Trump to do anything. The other part of the equation is that without a wall it will be extremely easy for those that are in control to say look at what border security is costing we need to cut back. Border security would immediately drop. With a wall it would remain even with defunding.

You very wrong son.
Before this lunatic start starving people with his sexy wall.
They are already trying to hire 15,000 new CBP 2 years ago but applicants are hard to come by. Remember this is dated 2019.

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

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.

So you are claiming that all the border patrol that that the op claims are going to stand side by side are not only not available but are not being hired. You are claiming that there are less border patrol then there were. Plus you are claiming that building a wall will somehow starve people.

Do you see any problem with those claims? If not let me point them out.
First off there are not enough border patrol to stand side by side. Useing your own post we have less now then we did. We are unable to hire enough replacements yet Democrats say we only need to add to the number we already have.

Countries that have walls say they work. Areas on our border that have walls have seen dramatic decreases in illegal traffic. We even have those who pay more to live in gated communities.

As far as people starving if a wall is built. No one is going to take away your food stamps. We could very easily take the money from the billions being used to help fund abortions in South America. Less incursion into the U.S. less unborn killed a win win.

Funny how almost every Democrat in congress only six years ago voted for a barrier on our southern border. Now suddenly because it is Trump it is "immoral" .

You are funny little one. You don't want a barrier because you follow a party line. But then make the case for one. Good job.

You are very wrong again son.

1. What I mean of Trump starving people is when he shut the government down. Because of his sexy walls. Lots of these people are living paycheck to paycheck and businesses loss income.
These people has nothing to do with your wall.

2. Since you don’t know anything about the current border security. ZERO. For your information CBP are doing an excellent job apprehending illegal crossings. That is why they netted about 300,000 in 2018.

3. About foreign aids. What stopping you. Trump is the POTUS.

4. It’s very silly of you to compare other walls from other countries to southern border.
If you look at those foreign walls that you glorified. There are no customers or incentives breaching those walls. Here you are talking about future of your family. Plus drug addiction of Americans.

5. We support border security but not that ugly border Trump wall.

OK little one lets go over your assurances one at a time. Basically because English is hard for some people and I don't want you to have anymore of a hard time then you already are.

First of you were the one stating that we have fewer border patrol then we did. You are the one claiming we can not. Hire enough.

You talk about no incentive for breaching a wall. I know a young child such as you does not know about things like a devided Berlin after World War II. Perhaps you were not aware that Berlin did not have a wall before the Soviets put one up to keep a population in. Perhaps you are even unaware of the border between Israel and Palestine.

Border patrol has been doing a very good job but they are the ones that have said for years that we need a barrier on the southern border. They are the experts. If you have not worked with them you are no where near the expert you want to think you are.

The Democratic Party does not care about border security they only care about obstructing Trump. If a Democrat ever gets into the White House they would gladly allocate money for barriers.

Read my post again I did not talk about foreign aid. I talked about one of the places money could be obtained for a barrier without taking it away from your welfare check.

FYI, Trump said he would take the money for the wall out the defense budget if congress refused him. Of course that means he has to declare a national emergency and ultimately convince the courts that the situation is enough of an emergency for the president to overrule congress and take the funds without their approval.

The idea that democrats don't support border security is nonsense. Most of the border fencing which was authorized by the 2006 Security Fence Act and supported by democrats as well as republicans was built by the Obama administration.

No, that is where you are wrong. Trump can ignore anything the court says because they do not have the Constitutional authority to do so.

As Andrew Jackson once said of a Supreme Court decision, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

 

[Maxdeath]

God liberals have such a hard time with simple math and understanding simple concepts.
Not all border agents are working every minute of every day. Sleep, time off, sick leave, vacations, other parts of real work need to be taken into consideration. Then you have those that are not in the field such as supervisors, transportation etc. Then you have those at the northern border. Those at other ports of entry.

Now we need to consider that we will be lucky if we even get ten added border patrol because the fight is not about borders but about not allowing Trump to do anything. The other part of the equation is that without a wall it will be extremely easy for those that are in control to say look at what border security is costing we need to cut back. Border security would immediately drop. With a wall it would remain even with defunding.

You very wrong son.
Before this lunatic start starving people with his sexy wall.
They are already trying to hire 15,000 new CBP 2 years ago but applicants are hard to come by. Remember this is dated 2019.

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

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.

So you are claiming that all the border patrol that that the op claims are going to stand side by side are not only not available but are not being hired. You are claiming that there are less border patrol then there were. Plus you are claiming that building a wall will somehow starve people.

Do you see any problem with those claims? If not let me point them out.
First off there are not enough border patrol to stand side by side. Useing your own post we have less now then we did. We are unable to hire enough replacements yet Democrats say we only need to add to the number we already have.

Countries that have walls say they work. Areas on our border that have walls have seen dramatic decreases in illegal traffic. We even have those who pay more to live in gated communities.

As far as people starving if a wall is built. No one is going to take away your food stamps. We could very easily take the money from the billions being used to help fund abortions in South America. Less incursion into the U.S. less unborn killed a win win.

Funny how almost every Democrat in congress only six years ago voted for a barrier on our southern border. Now suddenly because it is Trump it is "immoral" .

You are funny little one. You don't want a barrier because you follow a party line. But then make the case for one. Good job.

You are very wrong again son.

1. What I mean of Trump starving people is when he shut the government down. Because of his sexy walls. Lots of these people are living paycheck to paycheck and businesses loss income.
These people has nothing to do with your wall.

2. Since you don’t know anything about the current border security. ZERO. For your information CBP are doing an excellent job apprehending illegal crossings. That is why they netted about 300,000 in 2018.

3. About foreign aids. What stopping you. Trump is the POTUS.

4. It’s very silly of you to compare other walls from other countries to southern border.
If you look at those foreign walls that you glorified. There are no customers or incentives breaching those walls. Here you are talking about future of your family. Plus drug addiction of Americans.

5. We support border security but not that ugly border Trump wall.

OK little one lets go over your assurances one at a time. Basically because English is hard for some people and I don't want you to have anymore of a hard time then you already are.

First of you were the one stating that we have fewer border patrol then we did. You are the one claiming we can not. Hire enough.

You talk about no incentive for breaching a wall. I know a young child such as you does not know about things like a devided Berlin after World War II. Perhaps you were not aware that Berlin did not have a wall before the Soviets put one up to keep a population in. Perhaps you are even unaware of the border between Israel and Palestine.

Border patrol has been doing a very good job but they are the ones that have said for years that we need a barrier on the southern border. They are the experts. If you have not worked with them you are no where near the expert you want to think you are.

The Democratic Party does not care about border security they only care about obstructing Trump. If a Democrat ever gets into the White House they would gladly allocate money for barriers.

Read my post again I did not talk about foreign aid. I talked about one of the places money could be obtained for a barrier without taking it away from your welfare check.

How dare you talk about someone's hard time with English and you respond with that abortion!

"then you already are"

"You are the one claiming we can not. Hire enough."

"like a devided Berlin"

Come on! Show some intelligence!

You are correct. I should be more careful when I am typing fast on my iPad. Perhaps it would be better to wait until I have the time to properly reply and review my reply.

 

[busybee01]

You very wrong son.
Before this lunatic start starving people with his sexy wall.
They are already trying to hire 15,000 new CBP 2 years ago but applicants are hard to come by. Remember this is dated 2019.

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

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.

So you are claiming that all the border patrol that that the op claims are going to stand side by side are not only not available but are not being hired. You are claiming that there are less border patrol then there were. Plus you are claiming that building a wall will somehow starve people.

Do you see any problem with those claims? If not let me point them out.
First off there are not enough border patrol to stand side by side. Useing your own post we have less now then we did. We are unable to hire enough replacements yet Democrats say we only need to add to the number we already have.

Countries that have walls say they work. Areas on our border that have walls have seen dramatic decreases in illegal traffic. We even have those who pay more to live in gated communities.

As far as people starving if a wall is built. No one is going to take away your food stamps. We could very easily take the money from the billions being used to help fund abortions in South America. Less incursion into the U.S. less unborn killed a win win.

Funny how almost every Democrat in congress only six years ago voted for a barrier on our southern border. Now suddenly because it is Trump it is "immoral" .

You are funny little one. You don't want a barrier because you follow a party line. But then make the case for one. Good job.

You are very wrong again son.

1. What I mean of Trump starving people is when he shut the government down. Because of his sexy walls. Lots of these people are living paycheck to paycheck and businesses loss income.
These people has nothing to do with your wall.

2. Since you don’t know anything about the current border security. ZERO. For your information CBP are doing an excellent job apprehending illegal crossings. That is why they netted about 300,000 in 2018.

3. About foreign aids. What stopping you. Trump is the POTUS.

4. It’s very silly of you to compare other walls from other countries to southern border.
If you look at those foreign walls that you glorified. There are no customers or incentives breaching those walls. Here you are talking about future of your family. Plus drug addiction of Americans.

5. We support border security but not that ugly border Trump wall.

OK little one lets go over your assurances one at a time. Basically because English is hard for some people and I don't want you to have anymore of a hard time then you already are.

First of you were the one stating that we have fewer border patrol then we did. You are the one claiming we can not. Hire enough.

You talk about no incentive for breaching a wall. I know a young child such as you does not know about things like a devided Berlin after World War II. Perhaps you were not aware that Berlin did not have a wall before the Soviets put one up to keep a population in. Perhaps you are even unaware of the border between Israel and Palestine.

Border patrol has been doing a very good job but they are the ones that have said for years that we need a barrier on the southern border. They are the experts. If you have not worked with them you are no where near the expert you want to think you are.

The Democratic Party does not care about border security they only care about obstructing Trump. If a Democrat ever gets into the White House they would gladly allocate money for barriers.

Read my post again I did not talk about foreign aid. I talked about one of the places money could be obtained for a barrier without taking it away from your welfare check.

FYI, Trump said he would take the money for the wall out the defense budget if congress refused him. Of course that means he has to declare a national emergency and ultimately convince the courts that the situation is enough of an emergency for the president to overrule congress and take the funds without their approval.

The idea that democrats don't support border security is nonsense. Most of the border fencing which was authorized by the 2006 Security Fence Act and supported by democrats as well as republicans was built by the Obama administration.

No, that is where you are wrong. Trump can ignore anything the court says because they do not have the Constitutional authority to do so.

As Andrew Jackson once said of a Supreme Court decision, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Trump cannot ignore the courts. The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse and does not give a President the authority to override that. Any military people who obey a unlawful order should be court-martialed and dishonorably discharged.

Republican Justin Amish got it right. You cannot declare a national emergency and take action just because you can't get something through Congress. Fascist pigs like you are showing your true colors. You are the ones who want to stage a coup.

 

[Flopper]

You very wrong son.
Before this lunatic start starving people with his sexy wall.
They are already trying to hire 15,000 new CBP 2 years ago but applicants are hard to come by. Remember this is dated 2019.

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

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.

So you are claiming that all the border patrol that that the op claims are going to stand side by side are not only not available but are not being hired. You are claiming that there are less border patrol then there were. Plus you are claiming that building a wall will somehow starve people.

Do you see any problem with those claims? If not let me point them out.
First off there are not enough border patrol to stand side by side. Useing your own post we have less now then we did. We are unable to hire enough replacements yet Democrats say we only need to add to the number we already have.

Countries that have walls say they work. Areas on our border that have walls have seen dramatic decreases in illegal traffic. We even have those who pay more to live in gated communities.

As far as people starving if a wall is built. No one is going to take away your food stamps. We could very easily take the money from the billions being used to help fund abortions in South America. Less incursion into the U.S. less unborn killed a win win.

Funny how almost every Democrat in congress only six years ago voted for a barrier on our southern border. Now suddenly because it is Trump it is "immoral" .

You are funny little one. You don't want a barrier because you follow a party line. But then make the case for one. Good job.

You are very wrong again son.

1. What I mean of Trump starving people is when he shut the government down. Because of his sexy walls. Lots of these people are living paycheck to paycheck and businesses loss income.
These people has nothing to do with your wall.

2. Since you don’t know anything about the current border security. ZERO. For your information CBP are doing an excellent job apprehending illegal crossings. That is why they netted about 300,000 in 2018.

3. About foreign aids. What stopping you. Trump is the POTUS.

4. It’s very silly of you to compare other walls from other countries to southern border.
If you look at those foreign walls that you glorified. There are no customers or incentives breaching those walls. Here you are talking about future of your family. Plus drug addiction of Americans.

5. We support border security but not that ugly border Trump wall.

OK little one lets go over your assurances one at a time. Basically because English is hard for some people and I don't want you to have anymore of a hard time then you already are.

First of you were the one stating that we have fewer border patrol then we did. You are the one claiming we can not. Hire enough.

You talk about no incentive for breaching a wall. I know a young child such as you does not know about things like a devided Berlin after World War II. Perhaps you were not aware that Berlin did not have a wall before the Soviets put one up to keep a population in. Perhaps you are even unaware of the border between Israel and Palestine.

Border patrol has been doing a very good job but they are the ones that have said for years that we need a barrier on the southern border. They are the experts. If you have not worked with them you are no where near the expert you want to think you are.

The Democratic Party does not care about border security they only care about obstructing Trump. If a Democrat ever gets into the White House they would gladly allocate money for barriers.

Read my post again I did not talk about foreign aid. I talked about one of the places money could be obtained for a barrier without taking it away from your welfare check.

FYI, Trump said he would take the money for the wall out the defense budget if congress refused him. Of course that means he has to declare a national emergency and ultimately convince the courts that the situation is enough of an emergency for the president to overrule congress and take the funds without their approval.

The idea that democrats don't support border security is nonsense. Most of the border fencing which was authorized by the 2006 Security Fence Act and supported by democrats as well as republicans was built by the Obama administration.

No, that is where you are wrong. Trump can ignore anything the court says because they do not have the Constitutional authority to do so.

As Andrew Jackson once said of a Supreme Court decision, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Of course he can ignore any court, even SOCTUS provide congress allows him to do so. When a president ignores the will of Congress by using unauthorized funds and ignores the highest court in the land, then congress will impeach him. If congress does not impeach the president then the entire concept of checks and balances becomes meaningless.

The best example of a check on the president’s power to ignore Court decisions came in the early 1970s, when Pres. Nixon took eight hours to consider whether or not to abide by a vote by the Supreme Court that he turn over the White House tapes. The House Judiciary Committee stated clearly that if Nixon did NOT turn over the tapes, that refusal in and of itself could be considered grounds for impeachment.

If Trump ignored the will congress and the high court he would be impeached.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So you are claiming that all the border patrol that that the op claims are going to stand side by side are not only not available but are not being hired. You are claiming that there are less border patrol then there were. Plus you are claiming that building a wall will somehow starve people.

Do you see any problem with those claims? If not let me point them out.
First off there are not enough border patrol to stand side by side. Useing your own post we have less now then we did. We are unable to hire enough replacements yet Democrats say we only need to add to the number we already have.

Countries that have walls say they work. Areas on our border that have walls have seen dramatic decreases in illegal traffic. We even have those who pay more to live in gated communities.

As far as people starving if a wall is built. No one is going to take away your food stamps. We could very easily take the money from the billions being used to help fund abortions in South America. Less incursion into the U.S. less unborn killed a win win.

Funny how almost every Democrat in congress only six years ago voted for a barrier on our southern border. Now suddenly because it is Trump it is "immoral" .

You are funny little one. You don't want a barrier because you follow a party line. But then make the case for one. Good job.

You are very wrong again son.

1. What I mean of Trump starving people is when he shut the government down. Because of his sexy walls. Lots of these people are living paycheck to paycheck and businesses loss income.
These people has nothing to do with your wall.

2. Since you don’t know anything about the current border security. ZERO. For your information CBP are doing an excellent job apprehending illegal crossings. That is why they netted about 300,000 in 2018.

3. About foreign aids. What stopping you. Trump is the POTUS.

4. It’s very silly of you to compare other walls from other countries to southern border.
If you look at those foreign walls that you glorified. There are no customers or incentives breaching those walls. Here you are talking about future of your family. Plus drug addiction of Americans.

5. We support border security but not that ugly border Trump wall.

OK little one lets go over your assurances one at a time. Basically because English is hard for some people and I don't want you to have anymore of a hard time then you already are.

First of you were the one stating that we have fewer border patrol then we did. You are the one claiming we can not. Hire enough.

You talk about no incentive for breaching a wall. I know a young child such as you does not know about things like a devided Berlin after World War II. Perhaps you were not aware that Berlin did not have a wall before the Soviets put one up to keep a population in. Perhaps you are even unaware of the border between Israel and Palestine.

Border patrol has been doing a very good job but they are the ones that have said for years that we need a barrier on the southern border. They are the experts. If you have not worked with them you are no where near the expert you want to think you are.

The Democratic Party does not care about border security they only care about obstructing Trump. If a Democrat ever gets into the White House they would gladly allocate money for barriers.

Read my post again I did not talk about foreign aid. I talked about one of the places money could be obtained for a barrier without taking it away from your welfare check.

FYI, Trump said he would take the money for the wall out the defense budget if congress refused him. Of course that means he has to declare a national emergency and ultimately convince the courts that the situation is enough of an emergency for the president to overrule congress and take the funds without their approval.

The idea that democrats don't support border security is nonsense. Most of the border fencing which was authorized by the 2006 Security Fence Act and supported by democrats as well as republicans was built by the Obama administration.

No, that is where you are wrong. Trump can ignore anything the court says because they do not have the Constitutional authority to do so.

As Andrew Jackson once said of a Supreme Court decision, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Of course he can ignore any court, even SOCTUS provide congress allows him to do so. When a president ignores the will of Congress by using unauthorized funds and ignores the highest court in the land, then congress will impeach him. If congress does not impeach the president then the entire concept of checks and balances becomes meaningless.

The best example of a check on the president’s power to ignore Court decisions came in the early 1970s, when Pres. Nixon took eight hours to consider whether or not to abide by a vote by the Supreme Court that he turn over the White House tapes. The House Judiciary Committee, which was then considering articles of impeachment, stated clearly that if Nixon did NOT turn over the tapes, that refusal in and of itself could be considered grounds for impeachment.

If Trump ignored the will congress and the high court he would be impeached.

WTF is SOCTUS? Did you mean SCOTUS?

They have no constitutional authority to override a declaration of a national emergency. In the case you cited, they did have authority.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

You didn't know about Jackson's refusal to abide by SCOTUS decision regarding a Georgia law regarding removal of Native American tribes, did you?

SCOTUS could do nothing to force him to do it.

 

[Flopper]

You are very wrong again son.

1. What I mean of Trump starving people is when he shut the government down. Because of his sexy walls. Lots of these people are living paycheck to paycheck and businesses loss income.
These people has nothing to do with your wall.

2. Since you don’t know anything about the current border security. ZERO. For your information CBP are doing an excellent job apprehending illegal crossings. That is why they netted about 300,000 in 2018.

3. About foreign aids. What stopping you. Trump is the POTUS.

4. It’s very silly of you to compare other walls from other countries to southern border.
If you look at those foreign walls that you glorified. There are no customers or incentives breaching those walls. Here you are talking about future of your family. Plus drug addiction of Americans.

5. We support border security but not that ugly border Trump wall.

OK little one lets go over your assurances one at a time. Basically because English is hard for some people and I don't want you to have anymore of a hard time then you already are.

First of you were the one stating that we have fewer border patrol then we did. You are the one claiming we can not. Hire enough.

You talk about no incentive for breaching a wall. I know a young child such as you does not know about things like a devided Berlin after World War II. Perhaps you were not aware that Berlin did not have a wall before the Soviets put one up to keep a population in. Perhaps you are even unaware of the border between Israel and Palestine.

Border patrol has been doing a very good job but they are the ones that have said for years that we need a barrier on the southern border. They are the experts. If you have not worked with them you are no where near the expert you want to think you are.

The Democratic Party does not care about border security they only care about obstructing Trump. If a Democrat ever gets into the White House they would gladly allocate money for barriers.

Read my post again I did not talk about foreign aid. I talked about one of the places money could be obtained for a barrier without taking it away from your welfare check.

FYI, Trump said he would take the money for the wall out the defense budget if congress refused him. Of course that means he has to declare a national emergency and ultimately convince the courts that the situation is enough of an emergency for the president to overrule congress and take the funds without their approval.

The idea that democrats don't support border security is nonsense. Most of the border fencing which was authorized by the 2006 Security Fence Act and supported by democrats as well as republicans was built by the Obama administration.

No, that is where you are wrong. Trump can ignore anything the court says because they do not have the Constitutional authority to do so.

As Andrew Jackson once said of a Supreme Court decision, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Of course he can ignore any court, even SOCTUS provide congress allows him to do so. When a president ignores the will of Congress by using unauthorized funds and ignores the highest court in the land, then congress will impeach him. If congress does not impeach the president then the entire concept of checks and balances becomes meaningless.

The best example of a check on the president’s power to ignore Court decisions came in the early 1970s, when Pres. Nixon took eight hours to consider whether or not to abide by a vote by the Supreme Court that he turn over the White House tapes. The House Judiciary Committee, which was then considering articles of impeachment, stated clearly that if Nixon did NOT turn over the tapes, that refusal in and of itself could be considered grounds for impeachment.

If Trump ignored the will congress and the high court he would be impeached.

WTF is SOCTUS? Did you mean SCOTUS?

They have no constitutional authority to override a declaration of a national emergency. In the case you cited, they did have authority.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

You didn't know about Jackson's refusal to abide by SCOTUS decision regarding a Georgia law regarding removal of Native American tribes, did you?

SCOTUS could do nothing to force him to do it.

I agreed with you. SCOTUS can not force the president to do anything. However, Congress can and would in this instance.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

OK little one lets go over your assurances one at a time. Basically because English is hard for some people and I don't want you to have anymore of a hard time then you already are.

First of you were the one stating that we have fewer border patrol then we did. You are the one claiming we can not. Hire enough.

You talk about no incentive for breaching a wall. I know a young child such as you does not know about things like a devided Berlin after World War II. Perhaps you were not aware that Berlin did not have a wall before the Soviets put one up to keep a population in. Perhaps you are even unaware of the border between Israel and Palestine.

Border patrol has been doing a very good job but they are the ones that have said for years that we need a barrier on the southern border. They are the experts. If you have not worked with them you are no where near the expert you want to think you are.

The Democratic Party does not care about border security they only care about obstructing Trump. If a Democrat ever gets into the White House they would gladly allocate money for barriers.

Read my post again I did not talk about foreign aid. I talked about one of the places money could be obtained for a barrier without taking it away from your welfare check.

FYI, Trump said he would take the money for the wall out the defense budget if congress refused him. Of course that means he has to declare a national emergency and ultimately convince the courts that the situation is enough of an emergency for the president to overrule congress and take the funds without their approval.

The idea that democrats don't support border security is nonsense. Most of the border fencing which was authorized by the 2006 Security Fence Act and supported by democrats as well as republicans was built by the Obama administration.

No, that is where you are wrong. Trump can ignore anything the court says because they do not have the Constitutional authority to do so.

As Andrew Jackson once said of a Supreme Court decision, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Of course he can ignore any court, even SOCTUS provide congress allows him to do so. When a president ignores the will of Congress by using unauthorized funds and ignores the highest court in the land, then congress will impeach him. If congress does not impeach the president then the entire concept of checks and balances becomes meaningless.

The best example of a check on the president’s power to ignore Court decisions came in the early 1970s, when Pres. Nixon took eight hours to consider whether or not to abide by a vote by the Supreme Court that he turn over the White House tapes. The House Judiciary Committee, which was then considering articles of impeachment, stated clearly that if Nixon did NOT turn over the tapes, that refusal in and of itself could be considered grounds for impeachment.

If Trump ignored the will congress and the high court he would be impeached.

WTF is SOCTUS? Did you mean SCOTUS?

They have no constitutional authority to override a declaration of a national emergency. In the case you cited, they did have authority.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

You didn't know about Jackson's refusal to abide by SCOTUS decision regarding a Georgia law regarding removal of Native American tribes, did you?

SCOTUS could do nothing to force him to do it.

I agreed with you. SCOTUS can not force the president to do anything. However, Congress can and would in this instance.

Congress ain't gonna do shit!

There, I wrote that like a teenager so you might understand.

 

[Rustic]

Trump wants 15,000 more agents on the southern border. The border is 2,000 miles. That means there would be 18 agents for ever mile of border or an agent for every 290 feet. This seems like a big overkill when you consider the difficulty in crossing large portions of the border and the technology we have available today to detect and track intruders.

 

[Flopper]

You are very wrong again son.

1. What I mean of Trump starving people is when he shut the government down. Because of his sexy walls. Lots of these people are living paycheck to paycheck and businesses loss income.
These people has nothing to do with your wall.

2. Since you don’t know anything about the current border security. ZERO. For your information CBP are doing an excellent job apprehending illegal crossings. That is why they netted about 300,000 in 2018.

3. About foreign aids. What stopping you. Trump is the POTUS.

4. It’s very silly of you to compare other walls from other countries to southern border.
If you look at those foreign walls that you glorified. There are no customers or incentives breaching those walls. Here you are talking about future of your family. Plus drug addiction of Americans.

5. We support border security but not that ugly border Trump wall.

OK little one lets go over your assurances one at a time. Basically because English is hard for some people and I don't want you to have anymore of a hard time then you already are.

First of you were the one stating that we have fewer border patrol then we did. You are the one claiming we can not. Hire enough.

You talk about no incentive for breaching a wall. I know a young child such as you does not know about things like a devided Berlin after World War II. Perhaps you were not aware that Berlin did not have a wall before the Soviets put one up to keep a population in. Perhaps you are even unaware of the border between Israel and Palestine.

Border patrol has been doing a very good job but they are the ones that have said for years that we need a barrier on the southern border. They are the experts. If you have not worked with them you are no where near the expert you want to think you are.

The Democratic Party does not care about border security they only care about obstructing Trump. If a Democrat ever gets into the White House they would gladly allocate money for barriers.

Read my post again I did not talk about foreign aid. I talked about one of the places money could be obtained for a barrier without taking it away from your welfare check.

FYI, Trump said he would take the money for the wall out the defense budget if congress refused him. Of course that means he has to declare a national emergency and ultimately convince the courts that the situation is enough of an emergency for the president to overrule congress and take the funds without their approval.

The idea that democrats don't support border security is nonsense. Most of the border fencing which was authorized by the 2006 Security Fence Act and supported by democrats as well as republicans was built by the Obama administration.

No, that is where you are wrong. Trump can ignore anything the court says because they do not have the Constitutional authority to do so.

As Andrew Jackson once said of a Supreme Court decision, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Of course he can ignore any court, even SOCTUS provide congress allows him to do so. When a president ignores the will of Congress by using unauthorized funds and ignores the highest court in the land, then congress will impeach him. If congress does not impeach the president then the entire concept of checks and balances becomes meaningless.

The best example of a check on the president’s power to ignore Court decisions came in the early 1970s, when Pres. Nixon took eight hours to consider whether or not to abide by a vote by the Supreme Court that he turn over the White House tapes. The House Judiciary Committee, which was then considering articles of impeachment, stated clearly that if Nixon did NOT turn over the tapes, that refusal in and of itself could be considered grounds for impeachment.

If Trump ignored the will congress and the high court he would be impeached.

WTF is SOCTUS? Did you mean SCOTUS?

They have no constitutional authority to override a declaration of a national emergency. In the case you cited, they did have authority.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

You didn't know about Jackson's refusal to abide by SCOTUS decision regarding a Georgia law regarding removal of Native American tribes, did you?

SCOTUS could do nothing to force him to do it.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if Trump issued his national emergency declaration and the courts shot it down.

One scenario is:
The court issues a writ of prohibition not to just restrain the president but any other members of the executive branch such as cabinet secretaries. The Chief Justice of the United States or an Associate Justice would have the authority to uphold orders to agents of the United States Marshals' Service, that is, United States Marshals and United States Deputy Marshals to serve and to enforce the writs, to be complied with upon peril of contempt of Court.

The president of course can remove any of the people serving writs. That said, when a President uses executive orders to try to circumvent the Supreme Court, he has to be very tactful. The opinions of the Solicitor General of the United States as well as the Attorney-General of the United States would no doubt be considered, because in any Administration, causing a Constitutional crisis between the White House and the Court is not desirable.

The Court has also interpreted the language of the Appointments Clause to distinguish "principal officers" from "inferior officers". The advise-and-consent requirement gets the United States Senate involved in appointments the President seeks to make by nomination, and has been interpreted also to limit
the power of removal of these officers at the sole discretion of the President.
https://www.quora.com/What-would-ha...directly-defied-a-ruling-by-the-Supreme-Court

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

OK little one lets go over your assurances one at a time. Basically because English is hard for some people and I don't want you to have anymore of a hard time then you already are.

First of you were the one stating that we have fewer border patrol then we did. You are the one claiming we can not. Hire enough.

You talk about no incentive for breaching a wall. I know a young child such as you does not know about things like a devided Berlin after World War II. Perhaps you were not aware that Berlin did not have a wall before the Soviets put one up to keep a population in. Perhaps you are even unaware of the border between Israel and Palestine.

Border patrol has been doing a very good job but they are the ones that have said for years that we need a barrier on the southern border. They are the experts. If you have not worked with them you are no where near the expert you want to think you are.

The Democratic Party does not care about border security they only care about obstructing Trump. If a Democrat ever gets into the White House they would gladly allocate money for barriers.

Read my post again I did not talk about foreign aid. I talked about one of the places money could be obtained for a barrier without taking it away from your welfare check.

FYI, Trump said he would take the money for the wall out the defense budget if congress refused him. Of course that means he has to declare a national emergency and ultimately convince the courts that the situation is enough of an emergency for the president to overrule congress and take the funds without their approval.

The idea that democrats don't support border security is nonsense. Most of the border fencing which was authorized by the 2006 Security Fence Act and supported by democrats as well as republicans was built by the Obama administration.

No, that is where you are wrong. Trump can ignore anything the court says because they do not have the Constitutional authority to do so.

As Andrew Jackson once said of a Supreme Court decision, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Of course he can ignore any court, even SOCTUS provide congress allows him to do so. When a president ignores the will of Congress by using unauthorized funds and ignores the highest court in the land, then congress will impeach him. If congress does not impeach the president then the entire concept of checks and balances becomes meaningless.

The best example of a check on the president’s power to ignore Court decisions came in the early 1970s, when Pres. Nixon took eight hours to consider whether or not to abide by a vote by the Supreme Court that he turn over the White House tapes. The House Judiciary Committee, which was then considering articles of impeachment, stated clearly that if Nixon did NOT turn over the tapes, that refusal in and of itself could be considered grounds for impeachment.

If Trump ignored the will congress and the high court he would be impeached.

WTF is SOCTUS? Did you mean SCOTUS?

They have no constitutional authority to override a declaration of a national emergency. In the case you cited, they did have authority.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

You didn't know about Jackson's refusal to abide by SCOTUS decision regarding a Georgia law regarding removal of Native American tribes, did you?

SCOTUS could do nothing to force him to do it.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if Trump issued his national emergency declaration and the courts shot it down.

One scenario is:
The court issues a writ of prohibition not to just restrain the president but any other members of the executive branch such cabinet secretaries. The Chief Justice of the United States or an Associate Justice would have the authority to uphold orders to agents of the United States Marshals' Service, that is, United States Marshals and United States Deputy Marshals to serve and to enforce the writs, to be complied with upon peril of contempt of Court.

The president of course can remove any of the people serving writs. That said, when a President uses executive orders to try to circumvent the Supreme Court, he has to be very tactful. The opinions of the Solicitor General of the United States as well as the Attorney-General of the United States would no doubt be considered, because in any Administration, causing a Constitutional crisis between the White House and the Court is not a desirable.

That said, when a President uses executive orders to try to circumvent the Supreme Court, he has to be very tactful. The opinions of the Solicitor General of the United States as well as the Attorney-General of the United States would no doubt be considered, because in any Administration, causing a Constitutional crisis between the White House and the Court is not desirable.

The Court has also interpreted the language of the Appointments Clause to distinguish "principal officers" from "inferior officers". The advise-and-consent requirement gets the United States Senate involved in appointments the President seeks to make by nomination, and has been interpreted also to limit
the power of removal of these officers at the sole discretion of the President.
https://www.quora.com/What-would-ha...directly-defied-a-ruling-by-the-Supreme-Court

You wasted all that time just to say what can be summed up as , "I am a dumbass who has never read the Constitution and don't give a shit because I can post bullshit like this all day long and no will challenge me because they are lazier than I am!"

Too bad I know you are full of shit!

 

[Flopper]

FYI, Trump said he would take the money for the wall out the defense budget if congress refused him. Of course that means he has to declare a national emergency and ultimately convince the courts that the situation is enough of an emergency for the president to overrule congress and take the funds without their approval.

The idea that democrats don't support border security is nonsense. Most of the border fencing which was authorized by the 2006 Security Fence Act and supported by democrats as well as republicans was built by the Obama administration.

No, that is where you are wrong. Trump can ignore anything the court says because they do not have the Constitutional authority to do so.

As Andrew Jackson once said of a Supreme Court decision, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Of course he can ignore any court, even SOCTUS provide congress allows him to do so. When a president ignores the will of Congress by using unauthorized funds and ignores the highest court in the land, then congress will impeach him. If congress does not impeach the president then the entire concept of checks and balances becomes meaningless.

The best example of a check on the president’s power to ignore Court decisions came in the early 1970s, when Pres. Nixon took eight hours to consider whether or not to abide by a vote by the Supreme Court that he turn over the White House tapes. The House Judiciary Committee, which was then considering articles of impeachment, stated clearly that if Nixon did NOT turn over the tapes, that refusal in and of itself could be considered grounds for impeachment.

If Trump ignored the will congress and the high court he would be impeached.

WTF is SOCTUS? Did you mean SCOTUS?

They have no constitutional authority to override a declaration of a national emergency. In the case you cited, they did have authority.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

You didn't know about Jackson's refusal to abide by SCOTUS decision regarding a Georgia law regarding removal of Native American tribes, did you?

SCOTUS could do nothing to force him to do it.

I agreed with you. SCOTUS can not force the president to do anything. However, Congress can and would in this instance.

Congress ain't gonna do shit!

There, I wrote that like a teenager so you might understand.

Believe are not there are people in congress that understand the value of checks and balances. To allow a president to ignore the will of congress and the Supreme Court is to grant unlimited powers to the president. I doubt that either congress or the American people would stand for that.

 

[Flopper]

FYI, Trump said he would take the money for the wall out the defense budget if congress refused him. Of course that means he has to declare a national emergency and ultimately convince the courts that the situation is enough of an emergency for the president to overrule congress and take the funds without their approval.

The idea that democrats don't support border security is nonsense. Most of the border fencing which was authorized by the 2006 Security Fence Act and supported by democrats as well as republicans was built by the Obama administration.

No, that is where you are wrong. Trump can ignore anything the court says because they do not have the Constitutional authority to do so.

As Andrew Jackson once said of a Supreme Court decision, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Of course he can ignore any court, even SOCTUS provide congress allows him to do so. When a president ignores the will of Congress by using unauthorized funds and ignores the highest court in the land, then congress will impeach him. If congress does not impeach the president then the entire concept of checks and balances becomes meaningless.

The best example of a check on the president’s power to ignore Court decisions came in the early 1970s, when Pres. Nixon took eight hours to consider whether or not to abide by a vote by the Supreme Court that he turn over the White House tapes. The House Judiciary Committee, which was then considering articles of impeachment, stated clearly that if Nixon did NOT turn over the tapes, that refusal in and of itself could be considered grounds for impeachment.

If Trump ignored the will congress and the high court he would be impeached.

WTF is SOCTUS? Did you mean SCOTUS?

They have no constitutional authority to override a declaration of a national emergency. In the case you cited, they did have authority.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

You didn't know about Jackson's refusal to abide by SCOTUS decision regarding a Georgia law regarding removal of Native American tribes, did you?

SCOTUS could do nothing to force him to do it.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if Trump issued his national emergency declaration and the courts shot it down.

One scenario is:
The court issues a writ of prohibition not to just restrain the president but any other members of the executive branch such cabinet secretaries. The Chief Justice of the United States or an Associate Justice would have the authority to uphold orders to agents of the United States Marshals' Service, that is, United States Marshals and United States Deputy Marshals to serve and to enforce the writs, to be complied with upon peril of contempt of Court.

The president of course can remove any of the people serving writs. That said, when a President uses executive orders to try to circumvent the Supreme Court, he has to be very tactful. The opinions of the Solicitor General of the United States as well as the Attorney-General of the United States would no doubt be considered, because in any Administration, causing a Constitutional crisis between the White House and the Court is not a desirable.

That said, when a President uses executive orders to try to circumvent the Supreme Court, he has to be very tactful. The opinions of the Solicitor General of the United States as well as the Attorney-General of the United States would no doubt be considered, because in any Administration, causing a Constitutional crisis between the White House and the Court is not desirable.

The Court has also interpreted the language of the Appointments Clause to distinguish "principal officers" from "inferior officers". The advise-and-consent requirement gets the United States Senate involved in appointments the President seeks to make by nomination, and has been interpreted also to limit
the power of removal of these officers at the sole discretion of the President.
https://www.quora.com/What-would-ha...directly-defied-a-ruling-by-the-Supreme-Court

You wasted all that time just to say what can be summed up as , "I am a dumbass who has never read the Constitution and don't give a shit because I can post bullshit like this all day long and no will challenge me because they are lazier than I am!"

Too bad I know you are full of shit!

I admit your pretty good with your insults. Too bad you can't defend your position.

 

[busybee01]

FYI, Trump said he would take the money for the wall out the defense budget if congress refused him. Of course that means he has to declare a national emergency and ultimately convince the courts that the situation is enough of an emergency for the president to overrule congress and take the funds without their approval.

The idea that democrats don't support border security is nonsense. Most of the border fencing which was authorized by the 2006 Security Fence Act and supported by democrats as well as republicans was built by the Obama administration.

No, that is where you are wrong. Trump can ignore anything the court says because they do not have the Constitutional authority to do so.

As Andrew Jackson once said of a Supreme Court decision, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Of course he can ignore any court, even SOCTUS provide congress allows him to do so. When a president ignores the will of Congress by using unauthorized funds and ignores the highest court in the land, then congress will impeach him. If congress does not impeach the president then the entire concept of checks and balances becomes meaningless.

The best example of a check on the president’s power to ignore Court decisions came in the early 1970s, when Pres. Nixon took eight hours to consider whether or not to abide by a vote by the Supreme Court that he turn over the White House tapes. The House Judiciary Committee, which was then considering articles of impeachment, stated clearly that if Nixon did NOT turn over the tapes, that refusal in and of itself could be considered grounds for impeachment.

If Trump ignored the will congress and the high court he would be impeached.

WTF is SOCTUS? Did you mean SCOTUS?

They have no constitutional authority to override a declaration of a national emergency. In the case you cited, they did have authority.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

You didn't know about Jackson's refusal to abide by SCOTUS decision regarding a Georgia law regarding removal of Native American tribes, did you?

SCOTUS could do nothing to force him to do it.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if Trump issued his national emergency declaration and the courts shot it down.

One scenario is:
The court issues a writ of prohibition not to just restrain the president but any other members of the executive branch such cabinet secretaries. The Chief Justice of the United States or an Associate Justice would have the authority to uphold orders to agents of the United States Marshals' Service, that is, United States Marshals and United States Deputy Marshals to serve and to enforce the writs, to be complied with upon peril of contempt of Court.

The president of course can remove any of the people serving writs. That said, when a President uses executive orders to try to circumvent the Supreme Court, he has to be very tactful. The opinions of the Solicitor General of the United States as well as the Attorney-General of the United States would no doubt be considered, because in any Administration, causing a Constitutional crisis between the White House and the Court is not a desirable.

That said, when a President uses executive orders to try to circumvent the Supreme Court, he has to be very tactful. The opinions of the Solicitor General of the United States as well as the Attorney-General of the United States would no doubt be considered, because in any Administration, causing a Constitutional crisis between the White House and the Court is not desirable.

The Court has also interpreted the language of the Appointments Clause to distinguish "principal officers" from "inferior officers". The advise-and-consent requirement gets the United States Senate involved in appointments the President seeks to make by nomination, and has been interpreted also to limit
the power of removal of these officers at the sole discretion of the President.
https://www.quora.com/What-would-ha...directly-defied-a-ruling-by-the-Supreme-Court

You wasted all that time just to say what can be summed up as , "I am a dumbass who has never read the Constitution and don't give a shit because I can post bullshit like this all day long and no will challenge me because they are lazier than I am!"

Too bad I know you are full of shit!

You apparently have not read the Constitution. Tell me where the Constitution gives a President the power to override the Congress' Power of the Purse. If the courts issue a injunction, it would be a illegal order and the military would be required to disregard it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No, that is where you are wrong. Trump can ignore anything the court says because they do not have the Constitutional authority to do so.

As Andrew Jackson once said of a Supreme Court decision, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Of course he can ignore any court, even SOCTUS provide congress allows him to do so. When a president ignores the will of Congress by using unauthorized funds and ignores the highest court in the land, then congress will impeach him. If congress does not impeach the president then the entire concept of checks and balances becomes meaningless.

The best example of a check on the president’s power to ignore Court decisions came in the early 1970s, when Pres. Nixon took eight hours to consider whether or not to abide by a vote by the Supreme Court that he turn over the White House tapes. The House Judiciary Committee, which was then considering articles of impeachment, stated clearly that if Nixon did NOT turn over the tapes, that refusal in and of itself could be considered grounds for impeachment.

If Trump ignored the will congress and the high court he would be impeached.

WTF is SOCTUS? Did you mean SCOTUS?

They have no constitutional authority to override a declaration of a national emergency. In the case you cited, they did have authority.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

You didn't know about Jackson's refusal to abide by SCOTUS decision regarding a Georgia law regarding removal of Native American tribes, did you?

SCOTUS could do nothing to force him to do it.

I agreed with you. SCOTUS can not force the president to do anything. However, Congress can and would in this instance.

Congress ain't gonna do shit!

There, I wrote that like a teenager so you might understand.

Believe are not there are people in congress that understand the value of checks and balances. To allow a president to ignore the will of congress and the Supreme Court is to grant unlimited powers to the president. I doubt that either congress or the American people would stand for that.

Yeah, it is too bad that the Constitution is abundantly clear on it, but you refuse to push the "I believe" button!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No, that is where you are wrong. Trump can ignore anything the court says because they do not have the Constitutional authority to do so.

As Andrew Jackson once said of a Supreme Court decision, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Of course he can ignore any court, even SOCTUS provide congress allows him to do so. When a president ignores the will of Congress by using unauthorized funds and ignores the highest court in the land, then congress will impeach him. If congress does not impeach the president then the entire concept of checks and balances becomes meaningless.

The best example of a check on the president’s power to ignore Court decisions came in the early 1970s, when Pres. Nixon took eight hours to consider whether or not to abide by a vote by the Supreme Court that he turn over the White House tapes. The House Judiciary Committee, which was then considering articles of impeachment, stated clearly that if Nixon did NOT turn over the tapes, that refusal in and of itself could be considered grounds for impeachment.

If Trump ignored the will congress and the high court he would be impeached.

WTF is SOCTUS? Did you mean SCOTUS?

They have no constitutional authority to override a declaration of a national emergency. In the case you cited, they did have authority.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

You didn't know about Jackson's refusal to abide by SCOTUS decision regarding a Georgia law regarding removal of Native American tribes, did you?

SCOTUS could do nothing to force him to do it.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if Trump issued his national emergency declaration and the courts shot it down.

One scenario is:
The court issues a writ of prohibition not to just restrain the president but any other members of the executive branch such cabinet secretaries. The Chief Justice of the United States or an Associate Justice would have the authority to uphold orders to agents of the United States Marshals' Service, that is, United States Marshals and United States Deputy Marshals to serve and to enforce the writs, to be complied with upon peril of contempt of Court.

The president of course can remove any of the people serving writs. That said, when a President uses executive orders to try to circumvent the Supreme Court, he has to be very tactful. The opinions of the Solicitor General of the United States as well as the Attorney-General of the United States would no doubt be considered, because in any Administration, causing a Constitutional crisis between the White House and the Court is not a desirable.

That said, when a President uses executive orders to try to circumvent the Supreme Court, he has to be very tactful. The opinions of the Solicitor General of the United States as well as the Attorney-General of the United States would no doubt be considered, because in any Administration, causing a Constitutional crisis between the White House and the Court is not desirable.

The Court has also interpreted the language of the Appointments Clause to distinguish "principal officers" from "inferior officers". The advise-and-consent requirement gets the United States Senate involved in appointments the President seeks to make by nomination, and has been interpreted also to limit
the power of removal of these officers at the sole discretion of the President.
https://www.quora.com/What-would-ha...directly-defied-a-ruling-by-the-Supreme-Court

You wasted all that time just to say what can be summed up as , "I am a dumbass who has never read the Constitution and don't give a shit because I can post bullshit like this all day long and no will challenge me because they are lazier than I am!"

Too bad I know you are full of shit!

I admit your pretty good with your insults. Too bad you can't defend your position.

I don't have to defend my position. It is written in the Constitution if you would get off your lazy ass and actually read it! The problem is that you find it easier to simply make shit up than argue the facts.