Yes, The President Can Declare A 'National Emergency' To Build A Wall

[apdst]

Are you saying that dictionaries define words ?

That's the standard. Yes.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

No, it isn't. The Supreme Court can't change the meaning of The Constitution. No where in Article 3 does it say "interpret".

I didn’t say anything about changing the meaning of the Constitution. I said SCOTUS’ job is literally interpreting the Constitution.

Taken from Article 3 -

Section 1.

“The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, ...”


Section 2.

“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made ...”

Now ask yourself this; What is the foundation all of our laws?
Answer; The United States Constitution.

As all of our laws are derived from our Constitution, what do you think the 9 Justices use as their guide in applying laws? That’s right, the Constitution.

But if you’re not swayed by my simple explanation, maybe you’ll accept the truth directly from SCOTUS.

About the Court

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW" - These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/about.aspx

 

[lurchadams]

Contrary to continuing Left Myth here and elsewhere, the POTUS ABSOLUTELY CAN declare a national emergency at the border, declare a WALL AS THE SOLUTION, and divert funding from other Executive Branch areas to pay for it:


Yes, The President Can Declare A 'National Emergency' To Build A Wall



The president is correct

Some scholars of presidential emergency powers say there is next to nothing, at least procedurally, that Capitol Hill could do to stop Trump from exercising what lawmakers of all stripes agree is his right to declare a national emergency.

"Congress chose not to put any substantial — or really any — barriers on the president's ability to declare a national emergency," says Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty and National Security Program.

"So if he can really just sign his name to a piece of paper, whether it is a real emergency or not," she adds, "that creates a state of emergency that gives him access to these special powers that are contained in more than 100 different provisions of law that Congress has passed over the years."

Trump has already invoked national emergency powers on three occasions, adding to the 28 earlier national emergency measures that remain in effect.








https://www.npr.org/2019/01/09/683501440/congress-aims-to-control-presidents-emergency-powers



~From the National Emergencies Act of 1976 (amended in 1985):



The Act authorized the President to activate emergency provisions of law via an emergency declaration on the conditions that the President specifies the provisions so activated and notifies Congress. An activation would expire if the President expressly terminated the emergency, or did not renew the emergency annually, or if each house of Congress passed a resolution terminating the emergency. After presidents objected to this "Congressional termination" provision on separation of powers grounds, it was replaced in 1985 with termination by an enacted joint resolution. This means that for Congress to rescind a declared emergency, not only must they pass the joint resolution, but the President must sign the legislation. The Act also requires the President and executive agencies to maintain records of all orders and regulations that proceed from use of emergency authority, and to regularly report the cost incurred to Congress. ~


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act

There's currently an international emergency in the White House.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Indeed it is the DUTY of the USSC to interpret the Constitution.

I don’t mean to be pedantic, but USSC is the United States Sentencing Commission. SCOTUS is Supreme Court of the United States.

And good job trying to educate apdst. I was composing my response and you were quicker.

 

[Grokmaster]

Just raggin on ya. Lighten up.

You may consider me Officially Lightened. :2wave:

 

[Grokmaster]

There's currently an international emergency in the White House.

Thankfully, the concerns of the enemies of the United States are a source of elation for me.

 

[Grokmaster]

I don’t mean to be pedantic, but USSC is the United States Sentencing Commission. SCOTUS is Supreme Court of the United States.

And good job trying to educate apdst. I was composing my response and you were quicker.

That was pretty pedantic, for not meaning to be pedantic.

The abbreviation USSC (for United States Supreme Court) is also widely used as SCOTUS, in common practice.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

That was pretty pedantic, for not meaning to be pedantic.

The abbreviation USSC (for United States Supreme Court) is also widely used as SCOTUS, in common practice.

I considered it a helpful bit of info.

This forum is the only place I’ve seen the incorrect acronym for the Supreme Court used (and I do a lot of reading). Can you provide an example of USSC used in any political report, article, etc., from a well known media source?

 

[Nickyjo]

Alernative?

What built this country, free enterprize, non interference by government...with all its competition, innovation, people making free choices for what is best for them and their families. We Americans have, wisely in the past, not based our system on what everyone else does by the way, we do it the American way... and that has always proved to be the better way.

At least for Americans.

The drift towards socialist/crony capitalist solutions in the 60s forward has screwed the whole mess up. We need wean ourselves of that, get back to individuals and families making their own choices. Some will make good decisions, some bad, some will get lucky, some not so much... but all life is a gamble and one of choices made. Having the government take away those free choices, mandating what we can AND will have, not matter what... not the country I want to live in... its one of the reasons I got out early.

I love my country, but not what it was turning into. And I don't blame just the Democrats for that, my party as well caved to the big business interests far too much. We were supposed to be the party of the small entrepreneur, the flexible, innovative, hard-working folk who wanted to be in control their own lives. We at my level kept voting for those types, but they have too often been chameleons, changing colors depending on their audience. The behind closed door audiences of too much money and influence in far off DC are the main culprits.

Need to get away from so much DC taking our decisions away...and away from a one size fits all non solution. Let the states, and the people in those states, make their own decisions. Just like that one RINO that you speak of did in his, a blue state. He didn't give us obamadontcare, slenderfella did that with the democrat party. Hell, I got outta country and never put a nickel into that system... my own government cannot and will not force me to make a purchase I simply don't want

I wish the best for you, your wife and family... but your decisions on how you handle that are yours...mine are for mine.

Repeat what I have posted in other contexts: people turned to the feds when state government failed. Hundreds of blacks were lynched in Mississippi. The capital at Jackson did nothing, so people went to Washington. Local troops shot down strikers. Ditto. The NLRB. States couldn’t be trusted to guarantee the vote or abide by the 14th amendment. Federal laws followed. The government has interfered from the beginning, killing Indians, setting up the Homestead Act, etc. We all are on welfare one way or another, whether we drive on the interstate or collect Social Security or benefit from Medicare. Your country makes you buy auto insurance or otherwise prove you don’t need it. Even Ayn Rand collected Social Security. Like it or not, we are all in this together.

 

[Grokmaster]

I considered it a helpful bit of info.

This forum is the only place I’ve seen the incorrect acronym for the Supreme Court used (and I do a lot of reading). Can you provide an example of USSC used in any political report, article, etc., from a well known media source?

How about by the USSC, itself?


For instance, the per curium of Bush v Gore final decision is obtained, in full, under "USSC 00-949 from the Supreme Court website. (You can print it , too, in its original form. Great historical doc to have, IMHO. )


Google USSC 00-949, and see if that does not take you exactly there.

How's dem apples ?

 

[Grokmaster]

Repeat what I have posted in other contexts: people turned to the feds when state government failed. Hundreds of blacks were lynched in Mississippi. The capital at Jackson did nothing, so people went to Washington. Local troops shot down strikers. Ditto. The NLRB. States couldn’t be trusted to guarantee the vote or abide by the 14th amendment. Federal laws followed. The government has interfered from the beginning, killing Indians, setting up the Homestead Act, etc. We all are on welfare one way or another, whether we drive on the interstate or collect Social Security or benefit from Medicare. Your country makes you buy auto insurance or otherwise prove you don’t need it. Even Ayn Rand collected Social Security. Like it or not, we are all in this together.

Agreed. And the POTUS has the authority to declare a national emergency to build a wall on the border...PER the Constitution, and several laws STRENGTHENING that authority, as posted in the OP.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

How about by the USSC, itself?
For instance, the per curium of Bush v Gore final decision is obtained, in full, under "USSC 00-949 from the Supreme Court website. (You can print it , too, in its original form. Great historical doc to have, IMHO. )
Google USSC 00-949, and see if that does not take you exactly there.
How's dem apples ?

Your apple has a worm in it. I googled both USSC 00-949 and 00-949, and guess what happened? Both took me to the same site. The search engine recognized the case document number with or without USSC pre ending it. In other words, your evidence was completely bogus. SCOTUS does not use USSC in referencing documents or cases.

Try again.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Agreed. And the POTUS has the authority to declare a national emergency to build a wall on the border...PER the Constitution, and several laws STRENGTHENING that authority, as posted in the OP.

He has the right to declare a national emergency and landowners potentially facing losing their land under imminent domain can sue, as well as any other party who would have standing in the matter. And while those lawsuits are making their way through the courts, construction on the wall would be put on hold.

 

[iguanaman]

The military hates Trump? Citation needed, bub.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

He's driven away all his Generals and and then the DOD flatly refused his order to cut and run in Syria. To mention 2 very telling events.

 

[iguanaman]

He has the right to declare a national emergency and landowners potentially facing losing their land under imminent domain can sue, as well as any other party who would have standing in the matter. And while those lawsuits are making their way through the courts, construction on the wall would be put on hold.

Not mention the lawsuits that will result from this abuse of power. Some seem to think the power of the Presidency is unlimited but the valid charge of abuse of power means all of his actions must remain within the norms or result in abuse of power lawsuits. Can he pardon himself? Supposedly but that would be a clear cut abuse of power as would the pardons of his associates or family. The powers of the President must never be used to facilitate or protect against violations of the rule of law and any such use is null and void.

 

[Nickyjo]

Agreed. And the POTUS has the authority to declare a national emergency to build a wall on the border...PER the Constitution, and several laws STRENGTHENING that authority, as posted in the OP.

Let him try. Problem is there is no emergency that current law can’t deal with. Trump went into a box canyon and he’s stuck. Would probably not be much of a problem if he hadn’t insisted on appealing to bigotry and fear. Reap what you sow and all that.

 

[Grokmaster]

Let him try. Problem is there is no emergency that current law can’t deal with. Trump went into a box canyon and he’s stuck. Would probably not be much of a problem if he hadn’t insisted on appealing to bigotry and fear. Reap what you sow and all that.

Not your call. If he decides to, there is NOTHING the Dems can do about it...any rescinding of a national emergency declaration MUST BE SIGNED BY THE POTUS.

 

[Nickyjo]

Not your call. If he decides to, there is NOTHING the Dems can do about it...any rescinding of a national emergency declaration MUST BE SIGNED BY THE POTUS.

Fine. Let him make a bigger fool of himself. Strange that there is no emergency, but there might be one in three weeks. Clairvoyant.

 

[lurchadams]

Thankfully, the concerns of the enemies of the United States are a source of elation for me.

Too bad that instead of being concerned about our enemies that you and your president think it ok to embrace their brutal dictators and alienate our actual allies.

Right-wing nuts priorities are totally bassackwards.

 

[phattonez]

He's driven away all his Generals and and then the DOD flatly refused his order to cut and run in Syria. To mention 2 very telling events.

That's high-end military leadership. I'm talking about the military. The soldiers.

 

[Deuce]

Not your call. If he decides to, there is NOTHING the Dems can do about it...any rescinding of a national emergency declaration MUST BE SIGNED BY THE POTUS.

Awesome, that means the next Democrat can sign an emergency declaration implementing universal healthcare and your guys can’t do **** about it.