So how exactly is a LW radical district judge in San Francisco remotely qualified to decide whether Trump’s declaration is a real emergency?
The key should be whether or not Trump is breaking the law. He obviously isn’t breaking the law, he is following it as it is written. There is nothing preventing congress from taking action.
So the court can ensure the law is being followed. It has no business taking over congress’s role.
Oh. So playing politics is what’s most important to you.
How does that change anything about Congress and their responsibility?
Are you really saying that with a straight face? Do you doubt for one second DEMs aren’t playing politics here? Really?
We are in campaign mode for 2020. Everything is about politics in order to posture and to sway the voters.
you do not understand the role of judicial review of all laws for constitutionality.
which is sad. all citizens should understand about having your day in court redressing grievances against you and what you believe.
Allan
That LW radical judge won’t be deciding whether Trump has the power to simply declare something a national emergency… they will be contesting his ability to reappropriate funds to build the wall.
You keep confusing the issue…
2/18/2019 Civil (SF/OK-99-Other) State of California et al v. Trump et al 3:19-cv-00872 EDL In Oakland on 2/18/2019
Here is the filing information for the case.
This case has not yet been assigned to an Article III Judge.
One might as well ask how a cartoon president in Washington DC is remotely qualified to evaluate conditions on the southern US border.
http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/COMPLAINT+FOR+DECLARATORY+AND+INJUNCTIVE+RELIEF.pdf
Here is the link to California’s complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief.
How has that worked for declaring war? The constitution gives the power to declare war solely to Congress.
Congress has been delegating that responsibility to the president through Authorizations for Use of Military Force.
In effect this means that the president may go to war with Nation X if he wants to.
The Vietnam War was challenged on that grounds. SCOTUS refused to intervene because it considers that a “political question” between congress and the president.
Are you a constitutionalist?
The National Emergency Act says the president determines whether an Emergency exists. Not Congress but the president.
This is not a constitutional question. The constitution does not say ‘only congress can determine an emergency’.
It may be an unwise law or even a stupid law, but that does not make it unconstitutional.
Which portion of the constitution does it violate?
I know for a fact that you are not- far, far from it.
Are you?
a) Do you understand why the 9th Circuit Court gets this first? Because the first lawsuit came from California, which is in the 9th Circuit.
b) The questions the 9th Circuit will be addressing are is Trump within his rights to reallocate the funds he’s decided to reallocate to the wall? Again…the NEA goves the President the power to enable certain laws and statutes. It DOES NOT give him the right to change what the statute directs.
So if a statute says in an emergency Trump may reallocate military construction funds but it ALSO says those funds can only be re-allocated to other projects that support the military, Trump is going to have to justify re-allocating them to the wall by explaining how the wall supports the military. And I’m pretty aure he’s going to have to come up with something less nebulous than “Well, if Mexico ever decides to invade the US militarily”.
People use the courts to get redress when laws are followed improperly or are unconstitutional and it impacts them negatively. That’s what is happening here.
You REALLY need to take a civics refresher. Seriously.
Maybe Chris Wallace and the few real journalists at Fox will eventually resign over it. That would be huge…
It violates Article I, as being so broadly written as to delegate to the President the power to make laws. There is clearly grounds for the courts to narrow the law by striking down sections of it or to overturn the entire law.
I don’t agree. Congress made the law. It designates the president as the one who decides when an emergency exists. It is not vague at all. Congress may undo an emergency declaration by either a joint resolution or a veto proof majority.
The problem is the liberals do not like this emergency for ideological reasons. Popularity is not a constitutional issue.
The ability of Congress to delegate it’s own constitutional authority to other branches is itself constitutionally suspect.
I’m taking a class called “Separation of Powers”.
My professor is having a blast this semester. The timing couldn’t be better.
So how many have resigned, left or been fired from the Trump admin. in two years? Sounds like a clueless maroon to me and anyone who looks at it with any impartiality.
