Will trump be forced to use national emergency to build wall

[playtime]

You are of course correct that an impeachment is just an indictment and the President would have to be convicted by the Senate to be removed from office, however, since the Constitution gives us no clue as to what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" for the purpose of impeachment, it will effectively be whatever the House says it is.

Well misdemeanors do have a definition, but I don't know if there is a legal definition for high crimes. You are correct, the Congress may try it anyway, but Piglosi herself said she's not anxious to exercise impeachment unless it's a good enough reason. She may get her girdle in a bunch, but I don't think she'd get pissed off enough to try an impeachment over a wall.

not over a wall but

conspiracy to defraud the united states
obstruction of justice
witness tampering
witness intimidation
violating the emoluments clause
dereliction of duty
abuse of power

might do it. however, impeachment starts with jerry nadler, chair of the judiciary committee.

All of which are a phony as a blonde wig on a black woman.

who's next 'in the barrel'? it's a toss up between traitor tot, panty waist jared, or human sausage casing steve bannon.......................

I guess that would have to be who did what before they even met Trump.

uh, sure.

 

[playtime]

i'm talking about the concept that the vast majority of public opinion & judicial opinion & congressional opinion against such a thing should carry weight with the 'president' of this country. not just what a rw tranny & oxy laden draft dodging radio talker has to say.

No matter what a President does or says, he will always have critics. So what? If he doesn't declare a national emergency he's going to have harsh critics anyway, just different ones.

'cept tribbles is swayed by harsh critics if they are from the 'right'.

No, he isn't, that's what MSM told you to believe.

sure ray ray, sure. donny's ego can't stand it when he's criticized. he obsesses over it.

Well name me one time he ever said Ann or Rush had anything to do with his decisions. He never said that--the MSM did. But I'm sure you believe the MSM is so great they can even read minds.

gimmee a break - he quotes & goes by what fox news says alllllll the time, so why not the tranny or drug addict?

 

[playtime]

Recognizing the need for the President to take action when Congress cannot act effectively on an issue the Congress passed laws in 1979 that in effect have Congress rubber stamping whatever the President does under a declaration of national emergency. Certainly, the Constitution does not prohibit Congress from doing that. If a President abuses this authority, Congress still have the power to impeach him and convict him, hence removing him from office.

Well.......not really. Impeaching a President does not remove him from office. And whatever "abuse" he's accused of would have to fall under the category of high crimes or misdemeanors.

You are of course correct that an impeachment is just an indictment and the President would have to be convicted by the Senate to be removed from office, however, since the Constitution gives us no clue as to what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" for the purpose of impeachment, it will effectively be whatever the House says it is.

Well misdemeanors do have a definition, but I don't know if there is a legal definition for high crimes. You are correct, the Congress may try it anyway, but Piglosi herself said she's not anxious to exercise impeachment unless it's a good enough reason. She may get her girdle in a bunch, but I don't think she'd get pissed off enough to try an impeachment over a wall.

not over a wall but

conspiracy to defraud the united states
obstruction of justice
witness tampering
witness intimidation
violating the emoluments clause
dereliction of duty
abuse of power

might do it. however, impeachment starts with jerry nadler, chair of the judiciary committee.

And so far not a single piece of evidence to support any of these allegations. An impeachment hearing would only be for the purpose of setting up a venue for talking trash about the President.

well mueller hasn't written & submitted his report .... yet. & when the (R)s had the chairs of the intel committee, AND the judiciary committees, the 'investigations' were a sham. they asked soft ball questions & let all the key players give vague answers without any real follow ups by the (D)s. & then *POOF* it was all shut down because they were satisfied that there was nothing there.

that all gets to change.... bigley.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Well.......not really. Impeaching a President does not remove him from office. And whatever "abuse" he's accused of would have to fall under the category of high crimes or misdemeanors.

You are of course correct that an impeachment is just an indictment and the President would have to be convicted by the Senate to be removed from office, however, since the Constitution gives us no clue as to what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" for the purpose of impeachment, it will effectively be whatever the House says it is.

Well misdemeanors do have a definition, but I don't know if there is a legal definition for high crimes. You are correct, the Congress may try it anyway, but Piglosi herself said she's not anxious to exercise impeachment unless it's a good enough reason. She may get her girdle in a bunch, but I don't think she'd get pissed off enough to try an impeachment over a wall.

not over a wall but

conspiracy to defraud the united states
obstruction of justice
witness tampering
witness intimidation
violating the emoluments clause
dereliction of duty
abuse of power

might do it. however, impeachment starts with jerry nadler, chair of the judiciary committee.

And so far not a single piece of evidence to support any of these allegations. An impeachment hearing would only be for the purpose of setting up a venue for talking trash about the President.

well mueller hasn't written & submitted his report .... yet. & when the (R)s had the chairs of the intel committee, AND the judiciary committees, the 'investigations' were a sham. they asked soft ball questions & let all the key players give vague answers without any real follow ups by the (D)s. & then *POOF* it was all shut down because they were satisfied that there was nothing there.

that all gets to change.... bigley.

Nothing is going to change. The Democrats will continue to talk trash about the President, only now they will called what they have been doing for two years an investigation instead of attending to the nation's business.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

the 'investigations' were a sham. they asked soft ball questions & let all the key players give vague answers without any real follow ups by the (D)s. & then *POOF* it was all shut down because they were satisfied that there was nothing there.

You mean kind of like with Hillary?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No matter what a President does or says, he will always have critics. So what? If he doesn't declare a national emergency he's going to have harsh critics anyway, just different ones.

'cept tribbles is swayed by harsh critics if they are from the 'right'.

No, he isn't, that's what MSM told you to believe.

sure ray ray, sure. donny's ego can't stand it when he's criticized. he obsesses over it.

Well name me one time he ever said Ann or Rush had anything to do with his decisions. He never said that--the MSM did. But I'm sure you believe the MSM is so great they can even read minds.

gimmee a break - he quotes & goes by what fox news says alllllll the time, so why not the tranny or drug addict?

Instead of going into a long explanation again, I started a topic on why. It didn't gain much interest, but it explains why you think that. Just read the OP and then you'll understand.

The Leftist Puppet Show

 

[MAGAman]

I think it will happen because democrats hate american values

Um, no, it has to be an actual emergency to use emergency powers.

The lowest level of illegal crossings in 30 years... This is not only a crisis, we are making real progress without a wall just doing what we are doing.

History disagrees.

The number of lives lost and the cost of not having a wall is much greater than many previous emergencies.

 

[MAGAman]

The botox bitch Nancy and her Democrat hoard won't change and the deadline will pass without giving the American people their Wall.

So our beloved Pres.Trump will have no choice but to declare a National Emergency and have the Wall built.

Which is absolutely fine with me. ...

And the Courts will slap him down when he tries it, assuming someone in the Justice Department doesn't talk some sense into him before he tries it.

By "Talk Sense" you must mean to convince him to allow more illegals, drugs, gang members, and slave children to be brought into America.

The opposite of his duty as POTUS.

 

[MAGAman]

And the Courts will slap him down when he tries it, assuming someone in the Justice Department doesn't talk some sense into him before he tries it.

The President can both Constitutionally and legally declare a National Emergency, and the courts can't stop him from building the Wall. ...

They will certainly try. And could possibly delay it for years.

 

[Siete]

THERE WAS NO NATIONAL EMERGENCY THE DAY BEFORE THE DEMS TOOK CONTROL OF THE HOUSE ..

ONLY DUMB SHITS BUY THE EMERGENCY CRAP .

in the event of a real national emergency Trump woudnt have dicked around with a disaster - not even the RW Congressional fucktards would have let him.

NO EMERGENCY - NO WALL.

deal with it children ...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

THERE WAS NO NATIONAL EMERGENCY THE DAY BEFORE THE DEMS TOOK CONTROL OF THE HOUSE ..

ONLY DUMB SHITS BUY THE EMERGENCY CRAP .

in the event of a real national emergency Trump woudnt have dicked around with a disaster - not even the RW Congressional fucktards would have let him.

NO EMERGENCY - NO WALL.

deal with it children ...

Actually it's been an emergency for some time now, except nobody wanted to do anything about it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And the Courts will slap him down when he tries it, assuming someone in the Justice Department doesn't talk some sense into him before he tries it.

The President can both Constitutionally and legally declare a National Emergency, and the courts can't stop him from building the Wall. ...

They will certainly try. And could possibly delay it for years.

I don't think for years. The left will find some rogue commie judge somewhere to stop it, but when it gets to a real judge, it will be overturned. If it makes it's way to the Supreme Court, it's a slam dunk for Republicans, but I don't think it will take years.

 

[candycorn]

Build the wall in 2 years? Logistically...is it even possible?

 

[candycorn]

THERE WAS NO NATIONAL EMERGENCY THE DAY BEFORE THE DEMS TOOK CONTROL OF THE HOUSE ..

ONLY DUMB SHITS BUY THE EMERGENCY CRAP .

in the event of a real national emergency Trump woudnt have dicked around with a disaster - not even the RW Congressional fucktards would have let him.

NO EMERGENCY - NO WALL.

deal with it children ...

Actually it's been an emergency for some time now, except nobody wanted to do anything about it.

False. Unless you want to admit the blob was derelict in his duty.

 

[Sunni Man]

Build the wall in 2 years? Logistically...is it even possible?

Yes ....

 

[Mr Natural]

I wish these assholes would build their fucking wall already so we can move on.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Trumps republican dominated supreme court will uphold any decision he makes.

Build the wall.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

THERE WAS NO NATIONAL EMERGENCY THE DAY BEFORE THE DEMS TOOK CONTROL OF THE HOUSE ..

ONLY DUMB SHITS BUY THE EMERGENCY CRAP .

in the event of a real national emergency Trump woudnt have dicked around with a disaster - not even the RW Congressional fucktards would have let him.

NO EMERGENCY - NO WALL.

deal with it children ...

Actually it's been an emergency for some time now, except nobody wanted to do anything about it.

False. Unless you want to admit the blob was derelict in his duty.

How? He was never able to get the wall because we never had enough votes in the Senate.

Now that every avenue that can possibly be exhausted, is, we move to a national emergency to get the wall.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't want to start another topic on this as we have enough topics about the wall already, so I'l start a sub-topic here. This is for the Democrats to answer:

Why are Democrats stopping this wall if not for the desire to keep illegals flowing? It can't be because of money. It already cost us more for the shutdown than Trump was asking for. It can't be because the wall won't work since it's worked everyplace else it's tried including in the US. It can't be humanitarian since many who take the trip lose their lives, their children's innocence, their own innocence, and being kidnapped for slavery. So what is it?

I'm just curious if there is one honest Democrat out there that can admit why they "really" want to stop this wall.

 

[task0778]

There are 2 major reasons why the Dems won't support building the wall:

1. Future Dem voters won't be getting into the US, and

2. They oppose Trump, partly due to TDS and partly to beat him in 2020.

Everything else they say is bullshit.