No, they don’t have to overturn the NEA to find Trump’s actions unconstitutional.
The NEA does not allow the President to appropriate funds against the will of Congress.
1 Like
I’ve stood firm on my adherence to the Constitution since I first understood my conservative principles would come to define me. It has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with my belief in the founding of this nation, what our system of governance is, and how beautiful of a system it is. Something I once upon a time believed you agreed with me on. Before Trump exposed the truth about some people. At least I see people clearly now. I thank Trump for that.
He didn’t appropriate squat and the law allows him to use the military construction funds in a declared emergency specifically which is what he’s doing.
Sour grapes from whiners that lost an election does not a convincing constitutional argument make.
1 Like
They yell you have. Five minutes after Trump was elected you threw what ever principles you ever had out the window and you were certainly never a conservative.
Up with Trump! Down with the Constitution!
Good work Rose! We see you.
ap·pro·pri·ate (verb):
to devote (money or assets) to a special purpose.
What law allows him to do that?
(Here’s a hint - it’s not the NEA)
Yep. I’m the one that abandoned all I have professed for years and years here. Nailed it! Good job. 
Ok let’s give you an opportunity to show that I’m wrong.
Cut and paste all of your posts ranting about a repeal or overturning of the NEA prior to Trump’s election.
Unlike you, I actually have principles and those principles don’t change based on whether or not I like the WH occupant.
The NEA in concert with 10 USC 2808 and 33 US 2293 enable him to do exactly what he’s doing completely within the law and constitution.
The key statutes are 10 USC 2808 and 33 USC 2293. Section 2808 allows redirection of Department of Defense construction funds that have not yet been obligated, under certain conditions. Section 2293 does something similar with respect to the Army’s civil works construction funds.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-president-trump-fund-wall-declaring-national-emergency
Whine all you want but it won’t change the outcome.
It has nothing to do with the NEA and you know it. It has to do with the power of appropriations and the Constitution.
You nailed it champ. Good work! I’m the one who abandoned everything I’ve ever stood for. That’s why between the two of us only one here is defending the Constitution and one is defending a New York City elitist conman. Be proud. The transformation is complete.
4 Likes
They have no principles
You sure about that?
10 USC 2808:
In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that requires use of the armed forces, the Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces.Such projects may be undertaken only within the total amount of funds that have been appropriated for military construction, including funds appropriated for family housing, that have not been obligated.
Is building a wall on our southern border a “national emergency that requires the armed services”? I’m fairly certain I could make a very convincing argument that it’s not.
Maybe in moot court or to a bunch of fellow travelers but not to the SCOTUS.
THis will play out in the courts and you won’t like the ending.
Well, we’ll see soon enough. I’ll bookmark your post for posterity.
I think it’s interesting that you can’t actually make an argument as to why you’re right, other than bluster. But I’m happy to wait.
2 Likes
BUILD THE WALL
1 Like
Building more “wall” along the border will basically do nothing in reducing the number individuals coming from Central America. The asylum laws need to be changed in order to reduce the number of individuals coming from Central America.
1 Like
Nope. Two different things.
I know something. Others have forgotten it, or don’t think it applies. So you get them so say something on this topic, then throw at them what they forgot or don’t think applies.
I’m not trolling anyone. I’m setting and baiting a trap (there are no forum rules against not telling everything you know up front).
On the old forum I was setting an elaborate trap . . . but someone who had fallen into one before blew my cover. So now I say from the outset I’m setting a trap.
Of course it will. When word gets back home that it’s getting ever more difficult to get in and that they will end up stuck in Mexico instead of being able to rush across the border it’s a huge deterrent.
The asylum laws need to be changed as well making anyone who enters the country illegally automatically ineligible.
Combine the two and we could cut the flow to a trickle quickly.
1 Like
Excellent point.
It is a better use of the funding to help secure the actual border. We will be thanking President Trump for this 5, 10, 20 years from now.
1 Like
There will be another vote in August. Maybe the votes will change, maybe no but got to get the senators on record again and again…
Allan
