I’m shocked. This is another example of judicial activisim that will be overturned in SCOTUS exposing these judges for their decisions being based on feelings, instead of facts.
As in, if it’s not built by 2020, he’ll lose? I dunno about that. The mantra will be “just give him a second term wink wink.”
1 Like
In the mean time, the “national emergency” will be halted… I would guess the earliest SCOTUS might rule would be in 2021…
IOW…you agree that it’s nothing more than judges over stepping their bounds? This activism will be clearly displayed to all across the nation that the Democratic party has become fully responsible for the illegal aliens entering our country and each individual voter must now decide where they stand. It could be the new lib rallying cry?
No, I don’t agree that it’s judges over stepping their bounds… To claim not getting funding for a wall as a “national emergency” IS over stepping bounds… The DOD is requesting the money appropriated for this “emergency” to be replaced in next years budget… Good luck…
You can attempt to hide behind that lie and totally ignore the truth of 10s of thousands of illlegal aliens pouring across our border and I surely hope that is the lib intent. It will cost them the WH, the Senate and Congress. Keep it up…
“Libs” seemed to do pretty well last November, I’m comfortable the voters see this administration and the GOP for what they are…
1 Like
You can change the subject to libs all you want (and should) but it doesn’t change the fact that Donald Trump Trump has conned people his entire career. Banks. Customers. Tenants. Small businesses. Lawyers. Wives. And now voters.
Womp, womp, womp. whaaaaaaaaaaaa…
18 more months…
Hell, not even all Republican lawmakers want to spend the money so that Trump can build yet another monument to himself. Trump’s Taj MaWall.
Becuase the courts think it is. That’s how.
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016a-ec73-d72a-af6e-ff7b11c00000
Read it and weep @peek-a-boo
Score congress 1 Trump 0
Allan
The courts have said no such thing. You are pointing to the ruling of a radical LW district judge appointed by Obama. That’s the essence of this thread so I’m kind of confused why you would present this as some radical new information.
When all of the appeals have been exhausted, then you can state that the courts have decided.
This court did. Now of course the president can appeal til the cows come home.
But in the end you will be weeping bitter tears on this.
Roberts et al. Will see to it.
Allan
Why would I personally even care? 
So this building of a southern border wall via a national emergency declaration is a big thing.
It’s not big, it’s huge.
Can a president divert funds not appropriated by Congress? Article 1 section 9 subsection 7
It’s a huge question. One of the biggest we have had this century.
And you personally don’t care.
lol.
It will open the floodgates on national emergencies should the president prevail.
Allan
You are rehashing a prior discussion that has been beat to death. I would like to see the border secured, but my world won’t end one way or the other.
But now we news that adds to the discussion.
The court brought up Trumps own words in while delivering the TI.
Allan
You seem to believe the battle to be over, when it really has just begun.
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.
