Please think.
And that’s not considering that access roads will be required to build the wall, and access the wall. If you believe that they’ll only lose tiny little strips of land, and nothing more, then you’re not honestly thinking through this whole situation with much clarity or foresight.
Please think.
Please think.
If you owned a ranch on the border do you want it overrun with illegals and cartel drug runners?
Please think.
What does that have to do with your suggestion that only tiny strips of land, and nothing more, would be taken by the government?
I mean, I get it. But I’d love to see you go ahead and admit it was just a deflection because your point got demolished.
Ranches are pretty big in that area, generally. Building the wall might save more land for ranchers than take it.
“Conservatives” are only interested in ‘conserving’ state power, so long as they are the ones who wield it. Those ranchers and their property rights will be blown off by the right as obstructionists.
What a silly argument.
Can I use that line every time I get bested?
No one is making the assertion that the ranches are thin.
So it is a silly argument.
But I do support 100% the Administration seizing private land along the Rio Grande in Texas during an election year.
It is going to be great.
More deflections.
More flopping
More not considering more factors than just “tiny slot of land.”
More blind devotion to Trump.
How is this so hard?
It’s been explained throughout this thread.
I already cited a post earlier explaining the importance of the Rio Grande to ranchers along the border. That really shouldn’t need explaining. There’s a lot more to this than “the government is going to ED some land along the US/Mexico border.”
I know. You really seem adamant. That has been explained throughout this thread.
As to access to the Rio Grande, we don’t know what is planned in detail along the Rio Grande. I will wait for the facts.
We do know what access to the border means to cartels, though.
The Founding Fathers intended that the Legislation branch of Government to be the most powerful out of the three branches. There are two Supreme Court decisions that point to what President Trump is doing is clearly unconstitutional. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer from 1952 and Clinton v. City of New York from 1998.
In the midst of the Korean War, the United Steel Workers of America threatened a strike, for higher wages, against the major steel producers in the United States. As President Harry S. Truman believed that a strike of any length would cause severe dislocations for defense contractors, Truman seized control of steel production facilities, keeping the current operating management of the companies in place to run the plants under federal direction. Though the steelworkers supported the move, the steel companies launched a legal challenge to the seizure on the grounds that the president lacked the power to seize private property without express authorization from Congress.
Your point being?
The President doesn’t have the power of the purse and doesn’t have the right to seize private land without the authorization of Congress. The Supreme Court decisions Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer and Clinton v. City of New York clearly point that out.
Only libs can take over private property.
Then why are they cutting holes into it. Libs ensure us drugs come through ports of entry.
When it comes to the government taking MY land, then YES.
I don’t have to “deal” with nothing. Would YOU like it if the government stole your land?
Negotiations to compensate someone for land that’s been taken from them already always go swimmingly for the one being so compensated, don’t they?
Taking over private property without the authorization of Congress is something a lib President would do.
True, but he has the power to move funds within an agency appropriation to fund construction of the wall … which is what he did. And the SCOTUS said so too.
The acquisition of right of way is part of that project, therefore, he has the power to apply Eminent Domain to acquire it if necessary.
