Never mind the fact that they need to pull funds without congress approval. Where would they pull the funds for gun confiscation or their little princess dreams of green earth?
Nearly every president going back to Eisenhower has used “swept” funds for various projects. There is no violation of the separation of powers here.
Hey, you’re starting to get the gist of this thing.
It’s nothing but a temper tantrum and we all know it.
1 Like
The rest of the industrialized world can go to hell. We’re Americans and we will guard and defend our right to keep and bear as necessary.
I believe you are completely inaccurate here in addition to being inconsistent. The Executive cannot appropriate funds unilaterally without running afoul of the Constitutional separation of powers. But please feel free to provide examples of where this has been done previously to support your assertion. I’d be interested to know what informs your position here.
Marital law was not declared when FDR sent American citizens to internment camps.
Martial law was not declared when GW authorized warrantless wiretapping. Order 13224 was even worse.
Constitution protections can and have been suspended even when martial law has not been declared.
2 Likes
Why is everyone arguing here? Ted Cruz said El Chapo’s loot could foot the bill. What are we waiting for?
I think he’s really gonna do it. This is amazing. Force the House and Senate to vote on it. Political genius.
2 Likes
99% of that money is in Mexico.
Official in El Paso disagree with your assessment about chimer there, but what do they know, they just live there.
And while Congressman King may be happy with his fantasies about how drugs cross the border, that’s not how the narcotics traffic works.
1 Like
Does any American feel proud of the internment of the Japanese in WW II or of the intelligence excesses of the Bush Administration. You are using terrible precedents.
Trudeau is very happy for Trump right now because half of Canadian don’t even know about the very corrupt lobbying scandal he is in the middle of because of him.
So as long as we’re “proud,” it’s OK for the president to remove the rights of citizens? I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
The precedent of declaring an emergency is used by the President to deal with short term addressing of immediate problems. The situation not the border is entirely different in that it is a long term problem that has been declining over time. Can you cite any precedent of a National Emergency being declared to address a long term, ongoing problem.
Can you cite any precedent of a President declaring a national emergency to fund an initiative which Congress has just explicitly refused to fund?
Trump’s actions are without precedent and so do not tuck neatly in the duties of the President.
1 Like
I was getting at the fact that the precedents that were being cited as justification for Trump’s broadening of executive power were incidents which in retrospect were not high points of our republic. Pride is no reason to act, but when an act seems shameful in retrospect there are lessons to be learned.
Idiot Boy does have the authority to declare a National Emergency, but he has NO authority to move money.
Once again, Nancy will neuter him.
The Dems have a decent chance of winning the Presidency, keeping the House and flipping the Senate in 2020. THEN will be their chance to declare a national emergency on gun violence.
Lord Trump’s bigly emergency.
And then what?
