Illegal immigration from Mexico: What we know | Pew Research Center seems to be around 5 million.
No worries, Most of us had family on both sides in that War, I’m very happy my family fought to end slavery in the south, black n white people worked on my families farms and they were free men to go as they wished, kind of like on that movie The Patriot with Mel Gibson, in fact, I like to think he’s portraying my grandpa George Washington Martin in that movie 
5 million is more then enough for me, especially with all the human trafficking, drugs Etc being brought into this country by them, millions have died from Mexico’s drugs, enough is enough, and I would think all realistic minded people would come to the same conclusion and the facts those conclusions bring, one life’s not worth overriding the President on this, the people who do will get lumped into the pit with the Democrats who have mainly been the ones keeping us unsafe n vulnerable on our borders
Under The National Emergencies Act, President Trump may declare an emergency and has access to certain funds. See: 10 U.S. Code Section 2808 and 33 U.S. Code Section 2293.
JWK
There is no surer way to weaken, subdue, demoralize and then conquer a prosperous and freedom loving people than by allowing and encouraging the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, criminal and diseased populations of other countries to invade that country, and make the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such invaders.
The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, Not the National emergencies act. And I believe that the National emergencies act is itself unconstitutional. From thehill.com article:
The effort by President Trump to unilaterally increase funding for the border wall is unconstitutional for a simple but little noticed reason. The statute from which he claims to derive authority, known as the National Emergencies Act, is itself unconstitutional.
…
To make constitutional sense of the emergency wall funding called for by Trump, the key case is not Youngstown, but Bill Clinton versus New York, which involved a challenge to the Line Item Veto Act. This law was passed in the 1990s in an effort to curb the federal deficit by giving the president a “line item veto” over specifically earmarked funds. President Clinton eventually used the law to veto a few provisions of a 1997 budgetary law, most importantly, a large transfer of funds to state governments intended to defray the costs of Medicaid administration. New York brought suit.
The Supreme Court declared the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional in 1998 because it gave the president the “unilateral power to change the text of duly enacted statutes.” When a bill passes through both chambers of Congress, the Supreme Court held, the president has just two options. He can sign it into law or he can veto it. What the president may not do is approve certain parts of a bill while rejecting others. He may not tinker or proceed piecemeal even if Congress prefers that option. On this point, the Clinton opinion could hardly be clearer. It does not matter whether Congress had “anticipated that the president might cancel” some of the enacted items. Short of amending the Constitution, Congress is disabled from “altering the procedures” already set out in the legislative process.
In other words, the authority to determine the content of bills lies with Congress, and Congress alone. Even if Congress does want to give the president the power to override bills part by part, the Constitution forbids it. Thus, Congress was constitutionally disabled from giving the president a line item veto. If the president wants to change a particular item in a statute, he must do it through new legislation. There are no shortcuts.
And as @Safiel correctly pointed out, the founders very much intended that Congress would be supreme among the three branches.
Hook, line, and sinker! ZZzzzzz! ZZzzzzz!
Interesting history. I assume it’s more accurate than your sharing of current events.
This isn’t “family” history is it? Like Elizabeth Warren ‘expanding’ her family’s oral history.
I’ve been looking for you, pilgrim.
lol, i’m not a warren want to be(wannabe)
And now I’m found, sorry it was 41 mins ago, lol I’ve been busy trying to keep up with all this typing, not use to it, and man, people are mean n rude here on Hannity, this reminds me of Gretawire,lol Full of trolls twisting and turning stuff like they do here
Since then millions of immigrants have settled here and made this country great no?
Yep…and they came in legally, no? Many were proud of their new home and required that English be spoken by the family with in their walls, no? Many went to school after work to learn their new language too, no? The effort made by the immigrants to embrace and assimilate with in their new culture is what made this country great, no?
RE: unlawful delegation of legislative power
Chris,
I agree with you fully that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and not the National Emergencies Act.
Now, in regard to the line item veto being exercise by Clinton, I was one of those who pointed out it was blatantly unconstitutional, and violated the very intentions under which our Constitution was adopted.
Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution contains a specific procedure for the president to follow regarding a bill having passed both houses of Congress:
‘‘if he approve, he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated’’
No allowance has been granted to the president by the Constitution to alter a bill to his own liking by striking some parts and leaving others, and attempting to have a bill so amended enacted into law.
Likewise, no provision can be pointed to in our Constitution granting power to Congress to overrule the specific procedure stated in Article 1, Section 7 and vest in the president a line item veto power.
Madison`s Notes on the Convention of 1787 informs us that only three of the original 13 states allowed their executive to exercise a veto power (Massachusetts, South Carolina and New York), And, in discussing veto power, Benjamin Franklin, on June 4th of the Constitutional Convention, reminds the delegates how the veto power had been exercised by royal governors and why the convention should not grant such power to the president:
‘‘The negative of the governor was constantly made use of to extort money. No good law whatever could be passed without a private bargain with him. An increase of salary or some donation, was always made a condition; till at last, it became the regular practice to have orders in his favor on the treasury presented along with the bills to be signed, so that he might actually receive the former before he should sign the latter. When the Indians were scalping the Western people, and notice of it arrived, the concurrence of the governor in the means of self-defense could not be got, until it was agreed that the people were to fight for the security of his property, whilst he was to have no share of the burdens of taxation.’’
The Convention finally did reach a compromise, and granted veto power to the president, but only in the limited fashion as detailed in Article 1, Section 7, which preempts the kind of presidential blackmail which line-item veto most assuredly would resurrect if line item veto power were ever granted to our President.
Now, having stated that, a legislature may not delegate to a subordinate body authority to do something that is beyond its own powers, and an improper delegation of legislative power, although acted on, is without force!___ See Am Jur vol. 16, Constitutional law, LEGISLATIVE POWER, RULE BARRING DELEGATION
But, ‘‘It will not be contended,’’ wrote Chief Justice Marshall in 1825, ‘‘that congress can delegate to the courts, or to any other tribunals, powers which are strictly and exclusively legislative. But congress may certainly delegate to others, powers which the legislature may rightfully exercise itself.’’ Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 1, 41 (1825).
The simple truth is, committees, boards, and other bodies created by Congress or appointed by the President do not have constitutionally authorized power to create law which the Congress, and only the Congress___ the people’s elected Senators and Representatives ___ are charged with creating. To allow an unelected body to create law would be in violation of our Constitution’s guarantee to a “Republican Form of Government”.
So, the question is, Does Congress have legislative authority over the subject matter contained in The National Emergencies Act? And, the answer to that question is a resounding YES. A second question is, as related to President Trump’s action is, is he creating law, or acting under law created by Congress?
If you are interesting in pursuing the matter further, as I have many years ago, google “unlawful delegation of legislative power”.
Regards,
JWK
”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
Don’t rule out the fact that it may have been brought up to him. He may not have cared or perhaps he wanted that connection.
My preference is to leave this sort of speculation to the conservatives. They are constantly inventing unsupported scenarios, such as Rush suggesting yesterday that the white nationalist terrorism in Australia was a false flag operation. In dealing with Trump and his coven, there are so many visible crimes, lies, and violations of decency that we don’t need to make anything up.
Fair enough. It almost disturbs me as much that he might be surrounded by advisors who don’t know to research slogans.
The president, if not overruled by the courts, is going to get to veto several more times before the election in Nov 2020… Every six months to be exact… The voters will get to see every vote right up until the election…
I just lost two days over a similar error.
You’re in the string of posts I replied to despite the fact I’m only responding to Bomberfox (in this case).
This software notifies everyone in the string and also brings up the string even if you’re only trying to reply to the last post in the string.
You’re not the pilgrim I was looking for.
They settled here legally, Illegal immigrants murder 1000+ Americans in California,100’s more if you add the rest of the Country, and that’s just from drunk driving Illegals from Mexico, now add drugs, gang violence, human trafficking etc etc, is what’s going on right now, and that’s what needs to be dealt with, yup, my Hispanic family members are doing real good in this country so are my Black ones. way better then they did under Barry O
