Why do you really oppose a wall?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Taking down some monster pots and getting on a heater in Poker, makes everything seem light and happy, even Ann Coulter......Even your bookies are happy for you!

You know you are on a losing streak when your bookies are sending you "Get Well" cards. But, you know what they say..."losing builds character".

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

You know you are on a losing streak when your bookies are sending you "Get Well" cards. But, you know what they say..."losing builds character".

I hear you're quite a character...

[FantasticDan]

Twitter

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

https://twitter.com/davidafrench/sta...53538291781632

Wow, Dan is getting desperate, quoting a conservative writer at a conservative publication.

As it happens, David French is very familiar with these issues. He is an attorney (concentrating his practice in constitutional law and the law of armed conflict), and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

As he points out in the article, Trump's authority to use troops on the border is questionable, and there is no way he has any authority to use the military or DOD funds to build a wall.

But let’s suppose that a court decides to grant even that degree of deference to the president. Let’s suppose that even in the total absence of armed conflict or the prospect of armed conflict that courts will buy Trump’s argument that the armed forces must deploy to the border. Even then, the statute limits their use. They can only “undertake military construction projects . . . that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces.”

The border wall does not fit that definition. How do we know? Because Congress has defined these terms. Let’s turn over to 10 U.S.C. 2801. It defines “military construction” as “any construction, development, conversion, or extension of any kind carried out with respect to a military installation, whether to satisfy temporary or permanent requirements, or any acquisition of land or construction of a defense access road.”

The intent is clear — to grant the military the power to build out military installations, and a “military installation” is a “base, camp, post, station, yard, center, or other activity under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of a military department or . . . without regard to the duration of operational control.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...f-rule-of-law/

[Clocker]

Somebody didn't read the bill before signing it, or properly delegate that task. And odds are few if any GOP senators knew what was in it when they passed it.

Democratic negotiators have further outfoxed Trump, as Daniel Horowitz’s review of the nearly 1,200-page legislative monstrosity revealed, by banning any concrete border barriers or new prototypes and allowing only a measly 55 miles of steel fencing and bollards. To build a significant wall, Trump will not only have to allocate money over the heads of Congress; he will also have to ignore the construction provisions of this latest budget bill.

https://www.city-journal.org/trump-n...cy-border-wall

[Clocker]

Sixteen states, all blue (surprise!), have filed suit to stop Trump's emergency actions on the border. The suit was filed with the Ninth Circuit (surprise, surprise!!).

Everyone knew it was coming from the moment the President suggested he was going to declare an emergency to fund the border wall. The members of the press knew it. The individual states were telegraphing their punches. The President himself knew it, predicting he would lose in the Ninth Circuit but perhaps win at the Supreme Court. There were always going to be lawsuits over the emergency declaration and now they’ve begun.

Trump thinks he can "perhaps win" at SCOTUS?

https://hotair.com/archives/2019/02/...wall-lawsuits/

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Sixteen states, all blue (surprise!), have filed suit to stop Trump's emergency actions on the border. The suit was filed with the Ninth Circuit (surprise, surprise!!).

Trump thinks he can "perhaps win" at SCOTUS?

https://hotair.com/archives/2019/02/...wall-lawsuits/

Both sides win on this issue. Trump wins politically with his base whether the wall gets built or not. The Dems win politically with their base whether the wall gets built or not.

I don't think winning in the 9th Circuit or SCOTUS is all that relevant to the real purpose of the fight.

... and it ain't the wall.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by tucker6

Both sides win on this issue. Trump wins politically with his base whether the wall gets built or not. The Dems win politically with their base whether the wall gets built or not.

I don't think winning in the 9th Circuit or SCOTUS is all that relevant to the real purpose of the fight.

... and it ain't the wall.

Little victories. Everyone loses in the long run if Trump is allowed to defy the Constitution, ignore the laws passed by Congress, and do whatever he pleases.

You are right, the issues go beyond the wall. They address the constitutional limits on the presidency.

[Tom]

Without an emergency he can get most of the 5 billion right now, now problem.
The rest, he will have plenty of leverage later in the year to force the dems to capitulate on it or forfeit billions more in the budget when limits kick in.

Not a good idea to set precedent that the libs will undoubtedly use later on.
Guns, climate, speech, elections......

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Little victories. Everyone loses in the long run if Trump is allowed to defy the Constitution, ignore the laws passed by Congress, and do whatever he pleases.

You are right, the issues go beyond the wall. They address the constitutional limits on the presidency.

I don’t know how old you are, but I’ve become jaded to your central point in this post.. I’ve seen too many on both sides deny the spirit of the founders, the constitution, and the needs of America for personal and party gain. So forgive me if I don’t care any longer.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by tucker6

I’ve seen too many on both sides deny the spirit of the founders, the constitution, and the needs of America for personal and party gain.

How does that apply to anything I have said or advocated? How did I "deny" the spirit of the founders or the Constitution? I don't have a dog in this fight, or a party, or any chance at personal gain.

Do you deny that Trump using a declaration of "emergency" to have the military build a wall would be contrary to existing law, and therefore unconstitutional?

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by Clocker

How does that apply to anything I have said or advocated? How did I "deny" the spirit of the founders or the Constitution? I don't have a dog in this fight, or a party, or any chance at personal gain.

Re-read my post again. I wasn’t talking about you but politicians.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Do you deny that Trump using a declaration of "emergency" to have the military build a wall would be contrary to existing law, and therefore unconstitutional?

No I do not agree with you. Congress ceded its authority. It will be a close vote and I can see it going either way.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by tucker6

Re-read my post again. I wasn’t talking about you but politicians.

My error!

[sammy the sage]

Originally Posted by Tom

Without an emergency he can get most of the 5 billion right now, now problem.
The rest, he will have plenty of leverage later in the year to force the dems to capitulate on it or forfeit billions more in the budget when limits kick in.

Not a good idea to set precedent that the libs will undoubtedly use later on.
Guns, climate, speech, elections......

Agreed...posted as such in other threads earlier...gonna come back and bite us all....hopefully the court will do it's job...and shoot this shit down...