? for those Supporting the Emergency Declaration

[Kal'Stang]

You are desperately trying to reinterpret (read; bull****) your way out of this U.S. Code. Reading it fully, and most importantly, in context, the Code does not relate to border security in any way shape or form. National Defense and border security are not interchangeable terms.

They're not interchangeable...but border security is all about national security/defense. In fact the federal governments primary responsibility is to secure our national borders.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Like masses of people all committing a crime. Millions of people. Not just a few thousand... millions.

Nonviolent civil misdemeanors (illegal border crossing 1st offense) aren’t on the same level as felonious assault, rape, and murder. Surely you don’t disagree with that(?).

They're not interchangeable...but border security is all about national security/defense. In fact the federal governments primary responsibility is to secure our national borders.

You’re conflating similar sounding, but different concepts, and protecting our borders is not the federal government’s primary responsibility.

 

[Sabre]

Quote Originally Posted by Sabre
The wall was never slated to run the length of the entire border.

Not what I heard.

PARIS (Reuters) - President Donald Trump said the wall he wants to build on the 2,000-mile (3,200-km) U.S.-Mexico frontier may not need to cover the entire border because of existing natural barriers, according to remarks released by the White House on Thursday.

On a flight to Paris from Washington, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One: "You have mountains. You have some rivers that are violent and vicious. You have some areas that are so far away that you don't really have people crossing.

"But you'll need anywhere from 700 to 900 miles."

Trump also told reporters on the plane it was important that border agents and others should be able to see through the wall so they could be aware of oncoming dangers.

[video]https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=video%3a++trump+says+the+wall+would+cover +the+entire+border&qpvt=video%3a++trump+says+the+wall+would+cover+the +entire+border&view=detail&mid=15EF41CBD47E02879CFA15EF41CBD47E02879CFA&&FORM=VRDGAR[/video]

 

[srexob715]

Do you know what your arguments smells like? It smells like that time that Haymarket once tried to claim that as long as a person has just ONE gun then their Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms is not infringed.

So, with that in mind, are you saying that as long as at least one person is paid enough to enforce the law 50% of the time then the law is enforced completely?

Well, if you have the right to own a gun and in fact you do own a gun..........how are you not exercising your rights? Or how have your rights to own that gun been infringed, since you own a gun?

 

[Rogue Valley]

In each instance that a previous President has invoked the National Emergencies Act, has there ever been a situation where a law was proposed to Congress by a President and his allies to deal with a situation, Congress rejected his proposal, and then the President used the Emergency Act to go around Congress to get what he advocated for in the first place?

I can find no such example. Can you present one?

58 national emergency declarations since 1978 have been issued, 30 of which are still in effect. But those emergency declarations have almost exclusively addressed crises and conflicts abroad. There is no precedent where congress debated funding for a specific purpose, passed the funding legislation, and the president duly signed this legislation. However, his followup emergency declaration is clearly intended to fund what Congress never intended to fund.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."

 

[haymarket]

58 national emergency declarations since 1978 have been issued, 30 of which are still in effect. But those emergency declarations have almost exclusively addressed crises and conflicts abroad. There is no precedent where congress debated funding for a specific purpose, passed the funding legislation, and the president duly signed this legislation. However, his followup emergency declaration is clearly intended to fund what Congress never intended to fund.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."

That constitutional language would appear to be game, set and match.

 

[Redress]

Do you know what your arguments smells like? It smells like that time that Haymarket once tried to claim that as long as a person has just ONE gun then their Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms is not infringed.

So, with that in mind, are you saying that as long as at least one person is paid enough to enforce the law 50% of the time then the law is enforced completely?

Actually, my argument is nothing like that. There is this large, unsubtle difference between not being enforced, and not building a wall. That you are unable to see that is your problem.

 

[Redress]

No? Really!?!?! I had NO IDEA!!

Of course what you didn't say is that in determining how much money is necessary they are not supposed to use that power to make sure that laws that they do not like are not able to be fully enforced. The key word there is "necessary". With that word it means that Congress is supposed to determine what is "necessary" to fully enforce the law. Not half ass enforce the law. But FULLY enforce the law. That is part of their responsibility.

Where does it says that congress is "not supposed to use that power to make sure that laws that they do not like are not able to be fully enforced". What makes your argument especially retarded is that not building a wall is not the same thing as not enforcing the law.

 

[Redress]

Show me where I have proposed or advocated for one person to have unlimited authority.

Well, that is exactly what Trump is trying to do. Actions have consequences.

 

[NotreDame]

In each instance that a previous President has invoked the National Emergencies Act, has there ever been a situation where a law was proposed to Congress by a President and his allies to deal with a situation, Congress rejected his proposal, and then the President used the Emergency Act to go around Congress to get what he advocated for in the first place?

I can find no such example. Can you present one?

I cannot find one. However, given the lack of a governing principle of what constitutes as an emergency under the relevant and applicable federal statutes, I’m not sure a lack of the kind of precedent you seek matters.

To be sure, I expect the federal district court in California, and the 9th Circuit, to rule against the Trump Admin. Maybe they will have a rational argument and a cogent legal argument. However, given my knowledge of the case law in this area, admittedly this area is not my subject area of expertise but I’m familiar with the law, the issue of whether an emergency exists may likely fall in the Political Question Doctrine.

But while the issue of whether an emergency exists may be non-justiciable, the issue of whether he may use DOD funds to build the wall, and troops, strikes me as less susceptible to the Political Question Doctrine. The statute provides clear guidance as to when DOD funds and troops may be utilized.

Federal appellate courts may, as a safe compromise, assume, without deciding, an emergency under the statute exists, but rule against Trump’s use of DOD funds and troops, since the conditions of the statute to use DOD funds and troops hasn’t been satisfied.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NotreDame]

A specious argument. The Legislative branch’s duties include creating laws and determining the need for and appropriation of funds to support the law. What Trump wants to do by declaring a national emergency is to circumvent the Constitution. It will fail.

Maybe. It’s tricky. The relevant and applicable statute doesn’t have the kind of
prohibitive condition to declaring an emergency. Seems to me, given the breadth of the plain text of the statute, Trump can have ulterior motives for declaring an emergency.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Casper]

Where does it says that congress is "not supposed to use that power to make sure that laws that they do not like are not able to be fully enforced". What makes your argument especially retarded is that not building a wall is not the same thing as not enforcing the law.

You seem to be missing the fact that border security dies not require a border length wall, the fact is most crossings by crimals I'd done at the crossing points. There are lots of ways to secure our border, and walls in specific areas is warranted, but what trump wants is not required or affordable. To claim that not supporting the Trump Wall equates to wanting no security is simply dishonest.

 

[marke]

In each instance that a previous President has invoked the National Emergencies Act, has there ever been a situation where a law was proposed to Congress by a President and his allies to deal with a situation, Congress rejected his proposal, and then the President used the Emergency Act to go around Congress to get what he advocated for in the first place?

I can find no such example. Can you present one?

Congress has never come together in agreement to fund the border barriers so many politicians have promised to build if elected. Congress is not about securing the border because democrats have found illegal aliens a vast field ripe for voter fraud support in elections. Loretta Sanchez was the first notable case and democrat exploitation of illegal voter fraud has only grown worse in every new election cycle since.

 

[haymarket]

Congress has never come together in agreement to fund the border barriers so many politicians have promised to build if elected. Congress is not about securing the border because democrats have found illegal aliens a vast field ripe for voter fraud support in elections. Loretta Sanchez was the first notable case and democrat exploitation of illegal voter fraud has only grown worse in every new election cycle since.

What election voter fraud are you referring to?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Maybe. It’s tricky. The relevant and applicable statute doesn’t have the kind of
prohibitive condition to declaring an emergency. Seems to me, given the breadth of the plain text of the statute, Trump can have ulterior motives for declaring an emergency.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A few things to consider -
1. The NEA was enacted to give the president authority to enact several provisions within existing laws when there isn’t sufficient time to go through Congress first.
2. Trump asked for money to build his border wall, and was turned down because Congress did not see the need for a wall. That conclusion was based on facts that dispute Trump’s many false claims.
3. Trump, himself, acknowledged that there is no emergency.
The debate can certainly be dragged out and stats can be tossed back and forth, but the above pretty much covers why Trump’s National Emergency is going to fail.

 

[NotreDame]

A few things to consider -
1. The NEA was enacted to give the president authority to enact several provisions within existing laws when there isn’t sufficient time to go through Congress first.
2. Trump asked for money to build his border wall, and was turned down because Congress did not see the need for a wall. That conclusion was based on facts that dispute Trump’s many false claims.
3. Trump, himself, acknowledged that there is no emergency.
The debate can certainly be dragged out and stats can be tossed back and forth, but the above pretty much covers why Trump’s National Emergency is going to fail.

but the above pretty much covers why Trump’s National Emergency is going to fail

Not really. The statute simply does not indicate when an emergency is mere subterfuge. The relevant and applicable statute gives the president, unfortunately, practically unlimited discretion to determine when an emergency exists and under what circumstances. Rather difficult to argue factually there is no emergency under the statute when, again unfortunately, the statute vests to the president what circumstances qualify as an emergency.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Not really. The statute simply does not indicate when an emergency is mere subterfuge. The relevant and applicable statute gives the president, unfortunately, practically unlimited discretion to determine when an emergency exists and under what circumstances. Rather difficult to argue factually there is no emergency under the statute when, again unfortunately, the statute vests to the president what circumstances qualify as an emergency.

Understood and disagree. During the 2 years Trump has been in office, and for a number of years before, illegal border crossings have been going down. His argument that vast quantities of illegal drugs are flowing across the border “like gravy” (yes, he really did say that) is factually wrong. The vast majority of drugs entering the U.S. through our southern border comes through legal entry points. And his fear mongering claims of rampant crimes being committed by illegal immigrants are vastly exaggerated. Facts are that immigrants, illegal and legal, commit crimes at a much lower rate than native born Americans.

His claims are all based on lies and extreme exaggerations that reasonably cannot be determined an emergency. Everyone knows he’s just attempting to circumvent the system to keep an idiotic campaign promise.

It will fail.

 

[NotreDame]

Understood and disagree. During the 2 years Trump has been in office, and for a number of years before, illegal border crossings have been going down. His argument that vast quantities of illegal drugs are flowing across the border “like gravy” (yes, he really did say that) is factually wrong. The vast majority of drugs entering the U.S. through our southern border comes through legal entry points. And his fear mongering claims of rampant crimes being committed by illegal immigrants are vastly exaggerated. Facts are that immigrants, illegal and legal, commit crimes at a much lower rate than native born Americans.

His claims are all based on lies and extreme exaggerations that reasonably cannot be determined an emergency. Everyone knows he’s just attempting to circumvent the system to keep an idiotic campaign promise.

It will fail.

His claims are all based on lies and extreme exaggerations that reasonably cannot be determined an emergency.

How does a court rule Trump acted contrary to the statute in declaring an emergency when the statute vests discretionary power to the president to determine when an emergency exists? There is nothing in the statute the court can cite to in deciding that under the statute an emergency does not exist.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

How does a court rule Trump acted contrary to the statute in declaring an emergency when the statute vests discretionary power to the president to determine when an emergency exists? There is nothing in the statute the court can cite to in deciding that under the statute an emergency does not exist.

Because it is the court’s responsibility and authority to determine the law’s intent.

When no national emergency is enacted during the first two years of Trump’s presidency, during which time conditions at the border are actually/factually improving, there isn’t any logic or justification to enact a national emergency now, after being shot down by Congress. His motives are crystal clear. I’ve no doubt the courts will recognize that.

* And not to be overlooked is Trump’s own admission that there is no emergency.

 

[NotreDame]

Because it is the court’s responsibility and authority to determine the law’s intent.

When no national emergency is enacted during the first two years of Trump’s presidency, during which time conditions at the border are actually/factually improving, there isn’t any logic or justification to enact a national emergency now, after being shot down by Congress. His motives are crystal clear. I’ve no doubt the courts will recognize that.

* And not to be overlooked is Trump’s own admission that there is no emergency.

Because it is the court’s responsibility and authority to determine the law’s intent.

Well, the intent was to give the president the broad discretion under the statute to declare an emergency. Courts are not authorized to simply ignore what a statute says, does, and allows, on the basis the judges simply disagree. The point of written law is not only to guide and direct people but also to guide and direct the courts. All of what you said can be assumed as a fact but when looking at the statute, none of those facts indicate an emergency does not exist under the statute.

This is statutory interpretation, an examination of what the statute says, and none of the facts you rely upon demonstrate that under the statute an emergency does not exist. The statue does not state the motives of the president determine when an emergency exists, or the motives for declaring an emergency may be considered in assessing whether an emergency exists. You are invoking points of consideration which simply are absent from the statute when determining whether an emergency exists. Courts are not permitted to impose what otherwise does not exist in the written law, onto and into the written law.

The president, under the statute, has discretion to determine when an emergency exists, what facts constitutes as an emergency. Your approach takes away from the president the very thing the statute grants to the president, discretion to determine when an emergency exists and what constitutes as an emergency.

A reviewing court will hopefully avoid the perilous argument you have espoused but instead focus upon another part of the statute which, by its very language, is more concrete in limiting discretion of the president.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

This is statutory interpretation, an examination of what the statute says, and none of the facts you rely upon demonstrate that under the statute an emergency does not exist. The statue does not state the motives of the president determine when an emergency exists, or the motives for declaring an emergency may be considered in assessing whether an emergency exists. You are invoking points of consideration which simply are absent from the statute when determining whether an emergency exists. Courts are not permitted to impose what otherwise does not exist in the written law, onto and into the written law.

The court’s job is to interpret the law to ensure that it is properly applied. Fact.

That consideration of the president’s motives isn’t written into the the text of the law isn’t required. The court has the latitude, duty in fact, to consider the “why” of Trump’s act.

 

[Moderate Right]

In each instance that a previous President has invoked the National Emergencies Act, has there ever been a situation where a law was proposed to Congress by a President and his allies to deal with a situation, Congress rejected his proposal, and then the President used the Emergency Act to go around Congress to get what he advocated for in the first place?

I can find no such example. Can you present one?

What difference does that make?

 

[NotreDame]

The court’s job is to interpret the law to ensure that it is properly applied. Fact.

That consideration of the president’s motives isn’t written into the the text of the law isn’t required. The court has the latitude, duty in fact, to consider the “why” of Trump’s act.

To the contrary, what the written law says is paramount. After all, a reason for placing laws into writing is to not only guide the public and people as to their rights, duties, obligations, but also guide the court. It doesn’t make much sense for written law if the court can just ignore what the law says.

Here, the law gives the President discretion to determine whether an emergency exists. Your suggestion of a court scrutinizing “why” is contrary to the very discretionary authority given under the statute, indeed ignores the statute.

What is the source of the court’s “duty” to consider the “why”? It’s not the statute. The courts cannot ignore what the statute says, but your approach has the court ignoring what the statute says.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RaleBulgarian]

To the contrary, what the written law says is paramount. After all, a reason for placing laws into writing is to not only guide the public and people as to their rights, duties, obligations, but also guide the court. It doesn’t make much sense for written law if the court can just ignore what the law says.

Here, the law gives the President discretion to determine whether an emergency exists. Your suggestion of a court scrutinizing “why” is contrary to the very discretionary authority given under the statute, indeed ignores the statute.

What is the source of the court’s “duty” to consider the “why”? It’s not the statute. The courts cannot ignore what the statute says, but your approach has the court ignoring what the statute says.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m tired of debating someone who refuses to acknowledge what is clear to most. Below, are links to opinions by distinguished legal experts, many with decades of experience, including service at the Supreme Court.

No ‘Emergency’ Will Allow Trump to Build His Wall
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Trump declared a national emergency at the border. I asked 11 experts if it’s legal.
Trump’s national emergency declaration: is it legal? - Vox

Legal war looms over Trump move to declare border emergency
Legal war looms over Trump move to declare border emergency - POLITICO

Legal Scholars to Trump: No, You Cannot Declare Emergency to Build Wall That Public Doesn't Want and Isn't Needed
Legal Scholars to Trump: No, You Cannot Declare Emergency to Build Wall That Public Doesn't Want and Isn't Needed


Even Trump’s Fox News friends, Judge Napolitano and esteemed Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus, Alan Dershowitz say the emergency declaration is wrong.
Judge Napolitano: Trump Cannot Declare A National Emergency And Build The Wall
Judge Napolitano: Trump Cannot Declare A National Emergency And Build The Wall | Video | RealClearPolitics

Alan Dershowitz
https://youtu.be/NlsS8qwvoxY

 

[NotreDame]

I’m tired of debating someone who refuses to acknowledge what is clear to most. Below, are links to opinions by distinguished legal experts, many with decades of experience, including service at the Supreme Court.

No ‘Emergency’ Will Allow Trump to Build His Wall
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Trump declared a national emergency at the border. I asked 11 experts if it’s legal.
Trump’s national emergency declaration: is it legal? - Vox

Legal war looms over Trump move to declare border emergency
Legal war looms over Trump move to declare border emergency - POLITICO

Legal Scholars to Trump: No, You Cannot Declare Emergency to Build Wall That Public Doesn't Want and Isn't Needed
Legal Scholars to Trump: No, You Cannot Declare Emergency to Build Wall That Public Doesn't Want and Isn't Needed


Even Trump’s Fox News friends, Judge Napolitano and esteemed Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus, Alan Dershowitz say the emergency declaration is wrong.
Judge Napolitano: Trump Cannot Declare A National Emergency And Build The Wall
Judge Napolitano: Trump Cannot Declare A National Emergency And Build The Wall | Video | RealClearPolitics

Alan Dershowitz
https://youtu.be/NlsS8qwvoxY

Well, your “distinguished legal experts” at Vox and another link agree with my position, the statute provides the President with discretion to declare an emergency, no surprise with that sound position. Many of the "distinguished legal experts" quoted to by Vox have taken by view, that the statute vests to the president the discretion to declare a national emergency and that emergency is statutorily undefined. The lawyers and professors cited by Politico echoed my view, that the statute vests to the president the discretion to declare an emergency.

They do, however, rely upon another part of the statute, having nothing to do with declaring an emergency, to limit Trump’s ability to build the wall under the applicable statutes, something I alluded earlier.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk