Why Isn't 20,000 Border Patrol Agents Enough

[Flopper]

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.

When the president issues an executive order to use funds contrary to allocations approve by congress, he is overriding Congress. The courts certainly do have the power to issue injunctions against the executive branch and have done so many times. "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Article III of the Constitution.

 

[charwin95]

Well so far I have not heard or seen any one using 4wd to cross or even get close to a border.
Have you heard such thing?

Do really want to post here that you are so naive that you sincerely believe that smugglers, drug runners, human traffickers do NOT use vehicles to cross our Southern Border in rural desolate areas?

If they'll attempt this, will they really NOT use more rural, difficult to access areas? Really?

Do you honestly believe that is a real or fake?

Let’s say it’s real. Those fence are located near the border that are accessible to vehicles.
Sadly you’ve never been to the border. You make it sound just hop in to your 4wd then just cross the desert drive 10 miles then there you are. That’s the most silly thing I ever heard crossing a border.
Why all the attentions? Have you heard or seen anyone get caught with 4wd?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

When the president issues an executive order to use funds contrary to allocations approve by congress, he is overriding Congress. The courts certainly do have the power to issue injunctions against the executive branch and have done so many times. "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Article III of the Constitution.

Wrong Article dumbass. Try Article II.

 

[Flopper]

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.

When the president issues an executive order to use funds contrary to allocations approve by congress, he is overriding Congress. The courts certainly do have the power to issue injunctions against the executive branch and have done so many times. "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Article III of the Constitution.

Wrong Article dumbass. Try Article II.

You should know by now that I don't take anything you write for granted. It's Article III and no I don't call people a dumbass when they make a mistake.
Article III
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Constitution of the United States - We the People

 

[charwin95]

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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

You are very wrong again.

1. I never said we have fewer CBP. I said they start hiring since this moron got elected 2 years ago but so far only 33 hired.

2. Berlin Wall. Very silly. Berlin Walls was located mostly in the city. So how the hell are you going to breach that when you are exposed out there trying to dig or climb over? Please explain.

Israel/Palestinial wall. Again this is located mostly in the heavily populated area. And what is the incentives in breaching Israeli wall? Please explain.

3. Yes I know CBP are doing an excellent job. I never said they are doing a lousy jobs.
I never claimed to be an expert but I know several CBP agents that are stationed at the southern border. And we talk about your sexy wall.

In reality. Why in the world they will support a wall when their jobs might get eliminated?

4. You’ve been listening too much of that liar hypocrite POTUS.
You are either delusional or just plain ignorant.
Democrat do care about border security. We support border security but not an ugly wall.
Majority of Americans do not support your wall by 2 to 1. You may want to read this link to gain some experience.

Fox News' Chris Wallace Hammers Pence: You Could Open The Government Tomorrow

The majority of Americans oppose the wall, according to a number of polls. Of 17 representatives and senators whose districts in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California include the southern border, only two — Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) — support the wall.

5. You mentioned we are paying for foreign country abortions.

 

[Markle]

Do you honestly believe that is a real or fake?

Let’s say it’s real. Those fence [fences] are located near the border that are [is] accessible to vehicles.
Sadly you’ve never been to the border. You make it sound just hop in to [into] your 4wd then just cross the desert drive 10 miles then there you are. That’s the most silly [silliest] thing I ever heard crossing a border.
Why all the attentions [attention]? Have you heard or seen anyone get caught with 4wd?

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Markle]

Israel/Palestinial wall. Again this is located mostly in the heavily populated area. And what is [are] the incentives in breaching Israeli wall? Please explain.

What are the incentives? Hmmmm...yes, what are the incentives? How about stopping suicide bombers and terrorists. Is that a good enough incentive?

The majority of Americans oppose the wall, according to a number of polls. Of 17 representatives and senators whose districts in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California include the southern border, only two — Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) — support the wall.

Why don't you ask the people who matter the most? The men and women who are tasked with patrolling that border.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Israel/Palestinial wall. Again this is located mostly in the heavily populated area. And what is [are] the incentives in breaching Israeli wall? Please explain.

What are the incentives? Hmmmm...yes, what are the incentives? How about stopping suicide bombers and terrorists. Is that a good enough incentive?

The majority of Americans oppose the wall, according to a number of polls. Of 17 representatives and senators whose districts in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California include the southern border, only two — Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) — support the wall.

Why don't you ask the people who matter the most? The men and women who are tasked with patrolling that border.

As a matter of fact, I live 35 miles from the border, and my weekly poker game includes 2 BP guys, who tell me that the wall is a sick joke. Of course, they are both Latinos, so why should we listen to them, right?

 

[Rustic]

The vast majority of illegal aliens cross the border without getting caught…

 

[busybee01]

Israel/Palestinial wall. Again this is located mostly in the heavily populated area. And what is [are] the incentives in breaching Israeli wall? Please explain.

What are the incentives? Hmmmm...yes, what are the incentives? How about stopping suicide bombers and terrorists. Is that a good enough incentive?

The majority of Americans oppose the wall, according to a number of polls. Of 17 representatives and senators whose districts in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California include the southern border, only two — Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) — support the wall.

Why don't you ask the people who matter the most? The men and women who are tasked with patrolling that border.

The people who matter are voters and they are opposed to a wall.

 

[Flopper]

Israel/Palestinial wall. Again this is located mostly in the heavily populated area. And what is [are] the incentives in breaching Israeli wall? Please explain.

What are the incentives? Hmmmm...yes, what are the incentives? How about stopping suicide bombers and terrorists. Is that a good enough incentive?

The majority of Americans oppose the wall, according to a number of polls. Of 17 representatives and senators whose districts in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California include the southern border, only two — Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) — support the wall.

Why don't you ask the people who matter the most? The men and women who are tasked with patrolling that border.

As a matter of fact, I live 35 miles from the border, and my weekly poker game includes 2 BP guys, who tell me that the wall is a sick joke.

There is no agreement about a wall among border patrol agents. Trump arrange a round table of agents who supported a wall after he made it part of his agenda. It was plastered all over the Internet and TV to help build support, like some border patrol agent is going to tell the president, he doesn't think the wall is a good idea. That would be like a buck private telling the Chief of Staff that he thinks his pet project sucks.

A report based on internal Customs and Border Protection documents from the 2017 fiscal year concluded that less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ mentioned the need for a wall in securing the border.
What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

When the president issues an executive order to use funds contrary to allocations approve by congress, he is overriding Congress. The courts certainly do have the power to issue injunctions against the executive branch and have done so many times. "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Article III of the Constitution.

Wrong Article dumbass. Try Article II.

You should know by now that I don't take anything you write for granted. It's Article III and no I don't call people a dumbass when they make a mistake.
Article III
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Constitution of the United States - We the People

What does that Article have to do with presidential authority. Like I said, it's Article II, dumbass!

Learn to read, or forever be known a a dumbass!

 

[The Original Tree]

Obama's Border Patraol wanted The Wall too. So what's the issue?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Israel/Palestinial wall. Again this is located mostly in the heavily populated area. And what is [are] the incentives in breaching Israeli wall? Please explain.

What are the incentives? Hmmmm...yes, what are the incentives? How about stopping suicide bombers and terrorists. Is that a good enough incentive?

The majority of Americans oppose the wall, according to a number of polls. Of 17 representatives and senators whose districts in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California include the southern border, only two — Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) — support the wall.

Why don't you ask the people who matter the most? The men and women who are tasked with patrolling that border.

As a matter of fact, I live 35 miles from the border, and my weekly poker game includes 2 BP guys, who tell me that the wall is a sick joke.

There is no agreement about a wall among border patrol agents. Trump arrange a round table of agents who supported a wall after he made it part of his agenda. It was plastered all over the Internet and TV to help build support, like some border patrol agent is going to tell the president, he doesn't think the wall is a good idea. That would be like a buck private telling the Chief of Staff that he thinks his pet project sucks.

A report based on internal Customs and Border Protection documents from the 2017 fiscal year concluded that less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ mentioned the need for a wall in securing the border.
What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)

Look at your source! The most unreliable newspaper in America should NEVER be used as a source.

If that were the case, where are all these CBP agents? Why do not of them ever appear on the liberal media's networks?

It is because they only exist in the NY Slime's imagination.

 

[Markle]

The people who matter are voters and they are opposed to a wall.

Hardly surprising. Every network, and most cable, news programs are on board with the Democrats and push what they are told by Progressives.

As you know, polls all depend on the manner in which the question is posed. Especially true since the vast majority of voters are ignorant regarding the issue.

Try looking at the poll questions.
Misleading Report from Politico/Morning Consult on Government Shutdown & Border Wall Poll – and Morning Consult’s Baffling Response - iMediaEthics

 

[Flopper]

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.

When the president issues an executive order to use funds contrary to allocations approve by congress, he is overriding Congress. The courts certainly do have the power to issue injunctions against the executive branch and have done so many times. "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Article III of the Constitution.

Wrong Article dumbass. Try Article II.

You should know by now that I don't take anything you write for granted. It's Article III and no I don't call people a dumbass when they make a mistake.
Article III
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Constitution of the United States - We the People

What does that Article have to do with presidential authority. Like I said, it's Article II, dumbass!

Learn to read, or forever be known a a dumbass!

We are on separate pages. I was discussing authority of the courts and you are discussing authority of the president. OK let talk about the authority of the president per Article II. It does not give the president authority to ignore the Supreme Court. If that is your claim then state where in the constitution the president has such authority.
Constitution of the United States - We the People

 

[Flopper]

Israel/Palestinial wall. Again this is located mostly in the heavily populated area. And what is [are] the incentives in breaching Israeli wall? Please explain.

What are the incentives? Hmmmm...yes, what are the incentives? How about stopping suicide bombers and terrorists. Is that a good enough incentive?

The majority of Americans oppose the wall, according to a number of polls. Of 17 representatives and senators whose districts in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California include the southern border, only two — Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) — support the wall.

Why don't you ask the people who matter the most? The men and women who are tasked with patrolling that border.

As a matter of fact, I live 35 miles from the border, and my weekly poker game includes 2 BP guys, who tell me that the wall is a sick joke.

There is no agreement about a wall among border patrol agents. Trump arrange a round table of agents who supported a wall after he made it part of his agenda. It was plastered all over the Internet and TV to help build support, like some border patrol agent is going to tell the president, he doesn't think the wall is a good idea. That would be like a buck private telling the Chief of Staff that he thinks his pet project sucks.

A report based on internal Customs and Border Protection documents from the 2017 fiscal year concluded that less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ mentioned the need for a wall in securing the border.
What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)

Look at your source! The most unreliable newspaper in America should NEVER be used as a source.

If that were the case, where are all these CBP agents? Why do not of them ever appear on the liberal media's networks?

It is because they only exist in the NY Slime's imagination.

Do you really think agents are going to buck the President of the United States and the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Get serious.

"The report finds that additional personnel and technology are the top border security needs identified by agents, and that agents rarely suggested fencing or walls as solutions to specific problems they encountered along the border."
Read the report.
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Border Security - Analysis of Vulnerabilities Identified by Frontline Agents.pdf

 

[The Original Tree]

What needs to be done is build the wall and cut off the supply of Brown Slaves to The Leftist Elites who employ them on their plantations and sweat shops. Doing this will force The Leftist Plantation Owners to raise wages, and maybe stop The Slavers from asking The Taxpayers to subsidize The Leftist Institution of Slavery.

A physical barrier has to be part of that.

Border patrol chief says the wall is 'not just a dumb barrier'

 

[Godboy]

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.

The millions of illegals who are currently getting through would beg to differ.

 

[Likkmee]

Israel/Palestinial wall. Again this is located mostly in the heavily populated area. And what is [are] the incentives in breaching Israeli wall? Please explain.

What are the incentives? Hmmmm...yes, what are the incentives? How about stopping suicide bombers and terrorists. Is that a good enough incentive?

The majority of Americans oppose the wall, according to a number of polls. Of 17 representatives and senators whose districts in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California include the southern border, only two — Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) — support the wall.

Why don't you ask the people who matter the most? The men and women who are tasked with patrolling that border.

As a matter of fact, I live 35 miles from the border, and my weekly poker game includes 2 BP guys, who tell me that the wall is a sick joke. Of course, they are both Latinos, so why should we listen to them, right?

Do they snag free weed ?