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

[Gaugingcatenate]

How many millions more have insurance that didn't before Obama, who copied his plan from republicans? True, the keep your doctor thing might have been wishful thinking -- Obama's WMD fantasy, with fewer fatalities -- tho I presume it has worked out fairly well, as the ACA is more popular.

Just wait a few years: republicans will be resisting some other health issue, all the while insisting that they will protect Obamacare. Only they wisely won't call it Obamacare any more. Two things are fairly certain: 1- any programs like this will have starting and growing pains; this certainly did... 2- conservatives will claim the sky is falling if we institute them. Look up St. Reagan's attack on Medicare in the 1960s, how future enslaved generations would tell their children what it was like when America was free. If you want to go back further, check how increasing opposition by the GOP to SS (50-50), Medicare (leaning against) and the ACA (not one vote) has made them more out of touch with public thinking. But the GOP has learned something at least. Their mantra of opposition was repeal and *replace*, not just repeal. People will keep voting for republicans -- very useful as "brakes" to some of us liberals' battier ideas -- so long as they don't destroy what democrats have set up.

Anyway, for better or worse, the rest of the developed world, including a relatively poor country like Mexico, has govt insurance in one form or another.

Any day now, Trump as promised will reveal his far better plan. Otherwise he and GOP have nothing to offer, other than making it more difficult for the program to operate. Nice. Meanwhile, my wife who had cancer will be able to get insurance if/when she leaves work and my son can stay on her policy.

Btw, what would have been your alternative?

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.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

And if you demanded a return to segregation he’d do that too?

The point of a Constitutional Republic is to constraint the people. Because the people want it is piss poor reason.

Good ****ing lord, what kind of ***wipe fool question is that?

Do you know ANY history buddy? Its MY party that fought and died, so many maimed for life even more so that we didn't have slavery, MY party that fought against lynchings in the south, MY party that was the first in modern times to put forth Civil Rights Bills... so screw your dumb*** question.

My good god how stupid was that?

No, wrong. A republic in whatever form is organized to represent the people and their wishes. We have majority and minority rights, a Constitution and three coequal branches of government to work out the details. Constrain the people? Are you ****ing nuts? Constrain = to force by imposed stricture, restriction, or limitation. That is tantamount to slavery right there, bro. The united states of America is ultimately OUR nation, not our government's... and it is the will of our people that is sovereign. We are the masters and the governments, national, state and local are our servants, our civil servants.

WE WILL HAVE A WALL. Wait and see.

 

[Grokmaster]

:lamo

You think court would be overreaching, but not the president?

Trump's wall would require the purchasing of miles of private land, which would tie this up in court regardless if he wins, so it would be pointless for him to declare a national emergency, and that's why he ultimately won't.

The President has BROAD POWERS to defend the nation as he sees fit , per the CONSTITUTION, INCLUDING our borders .


Constitution > "the courts".

 

[Grokmaster]

The president has the authority to re-allocate money that's already been given to the Executive Branch.

If Congress disagrees, it can put up a 2/3 vote in both houses and stop it. Short of that, there isn't much they can do.

And his authority insofar as the border (and all other threats) HE DEEMS, AT HIS DISCRETION, and national security issues is well established Constitutionally, as well as in adjudicated law, such as the statute cited in the OP.

 

[azgreg]

:lamo

You think court would be overreaching, but not the president?

Trump's wall would require the purchasing of miles of private land, which would tie this up in court regardless if he wins, so it would be pointless for him to declare a national emergency, and that's why he ultimately won't.

Only in Texas though. There is a 60' easement (The Roosevelt Reservation) all along the Mexican border with New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

 

[Deuce]

:lamo

You think court would be overreaching, but not the president?

Trump's wall would require the purchasing of miles of private land, which would tie this up in court regardless if he wins, so it would be pointless for him to declare a national emergency, and that's why he ultimately won't.

Seizing. He’d be siezing miles of land.

 

[Deuce]

And his authority insofar as the border (and all other threats) HE DEEMS, AT HIS DISCRETION, and national security issues is well established Constitutionally, as well as in adjudicated law, such as the statute cited in the OP.

It still has to be an actual emergency. He can’t declare the cancellation of Telletubbies to be a national security emergency requiring deployment of troops to build a wall. The courts would laugh him out of the building.

The first question a judge is going to ask is “if this is an emergency, why did you wait two years to do it?”

Do you have an answer for that, grok?

 

[PLizzy]

Only in Texas though. There is a 60' easement (The Roosevelt Reservation) all along the Mexican border with New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

Correct.

I loved reading about this one dumbass rancher here in Texas that is willing to just hand over his land, all so he can own the libs with a wall. :lol:

 

[RabidAlpaca]

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:

I'll be glad if you guys open this loophole. Next time we lefties get someone in the White House we can use this trick to completely circumvent congress and push our leftist agenda through unilaterally.

Health care? National emergency! You've been privatized!
Climate change? National emergency! Let's shower green companies with taxpayer funding.
Social conservatism? National emergency! Let's redirect money from border security to educate kids to be tolerant of LGBTQ+ lifestyles.

Who needs congress when you've got a leader with real power?

It still has to be an actual emergency. He can’t declare the cancellation of Telletubbies to be a national security emergency requiring deployment of troops to build a wall. The courts would laugh him out of the building.
The first question a judge is going to ask is “if this is an emergency, why did you wait two years to do it?”
Do you have an answer for that, grok?

Teletubbies was cancelled!!!??? NATIONAL EMERGENCY!!! Redirect all of the salary of ICE officers to start training new midgets in costumes.

Man, if this pandora's box gets opened we're going to get to do so much super fun leftist stuff.

The president has the authority to re-allocate money that's already been given to the Executive Branch.

If Congress disagrees, it can put up a 2/3 vote in both houses and stop it. Short of that, there isn't much they can do.

So you're saying the next time we get a leftist in the White House he can just decide one day to redirect all funding from border security to make abortions free? Who knew the president could just arbitrarily "shift funding around" whenever he wants!

 

[Gaius46]

It does comply with The Constitution:



If Congress refuses to comply with The Constitution, they're violating The Constitution.

As far as President Trump building the wall, he has the authority to declare emergency power and allocate the money. If there are people who don't like it that he has that authority, they should contact their congress critters and petition them for a redress of greviences. I don't think there are a majority of United States citizens who represent a majority who want open borders.

Except that invasion refers to the actions of a hostile army not a ragtag bunch of people fleeing their own country

 

[Gaius46]

You know what's interesting about that list? Not one item on their collides with Congress' funding powers. Never once has a President used the emergency powers act to take money that Congress allocated for one purpose to use for another. There is a strong separation of powers case to made there. As well there's the issue that this clearly isn't a emergency if the President can wait all this time before declaring it.

 

[apdst]

Except that invasion refers to the actions of a hostile army not a ragtag bunch of people fleeing their own country

The Constitution doesn't make that specification.

An invasion can be anything: a military incursion, a pandemic, an influx of people.

 

[Gaius46]

Good ****ing lord, what kind of ***wipe fool question is that?

Do you know ANY history buddy? Its MY party that fought and died, so many maimed for life even more so that we didn't have slavery, MY party that fought against lynchings in the south, MY party that was the first in modern times to put forth Civil Rights Bills... so screw your dumb*** question.

My good god how stupid was that?

No, wrong. A republic in whatever form is organized to represent the people and their wishes. We have majority and minority rights, a Constitution and three coequal branches of government to work out the details. Constrain the people? Are you ****ing nuts? Constrain = to force by imposed stricture, restriction, or limitation. That is tantamount to slavery right there, bro. The united states of America is ultimately OUR nation, not our government's... and it is the will of our people that is sovereign. We are the masters and the governments, national, state and local are our servants, our civil servants.

WE WILL HAVE A WALL. Wait and see.

Jesus you're gonna burst a friggin blood vessel.


So you pick on the example and ignore the reality behind it. That in a unconstrained democracy the majority can trample the minority - you know "tyranny of the majority" and all that. So drop slavery and let's talk guns instead. If the majority wanted to outlaw private ownership of guns you'd be okay with that because they are the majority?

Constitutions constrain government. And since government represents the people they by extension constrain the people and the people's will. That's the bloody point of the things. Yes the people are sovereign - I've said that here at least a hundred times myself but sovereignty simply means the ultimate holder of power. Sovereignty doesn't imply that that power is absolute.

As far as you rant about party - save it for someone who actually cares. I think Democrats and Republicans of today are both largely sheep incapable of coherent independent thought. I would however point out that "your party" of today bears no resemblance, aside from sharing the name, of the party that ended slavery.


You won't get a wall. And you won't because it's a dumbass idea. You won't because the minute your hero tries to invoke his emergency powers he'll be in court. You won't because even if he were to win the eminent domain lawsuits will take decades to complete - there are still, as I mentioned earlier, dozens of lawsuits from the last time the government tried to confiscate private property for a border wall back in 2007. On that note why do you private property rights so much?

 

[Gaius46]

The Constitution doesn't make that specification.

An invasion can be anything: a military incursion, a pandemic, an influx of people.

No but the Webster's 1828 dictionary defines the word as such and in interpreting the law if you are a textualist in the vein of Scalia you use the meaning of the work as it would have been defined at the time the law was written. So if the the Constitution doesn't explicitly define a word you look at the definition in use at the time.

 

[haymarket]

Of course he can. And the courts can shoot it down.

And so can the American people at the next election.

 

[apdst]

No but the Webster's 1828 dictionary defines the word as such and in interpreting the law if you are a textualist in the vein of Scalia you use the meaning of the work as it would have been defined at the time the law was written. So if the the Constitution doesn't explicitly define a word you look at the definition in use at the time.

I guess:

in·va·sion
/inˈvāZHən/Submit
noun
an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
"in 1546 England had to be defended from invasion"
synonyms: occupation, conquering, capture, seizure, annexation, annexing, takeover, appropriation, expropriation, arrogation; More
an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.
"stadium guards are preparing for another invasion of fans"
synonyms: influx, inundation, inrush, rush, flood, torrent, deluge, stream, avalanche
"every year the valley suffers an invasion of cars"
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.
"random drug testing of employees is an unwarranted invasion of privacy"
synonyms: violation, infringement, interruption, disturbance, disruption, breach, infraction

 

[apdst]

No but the Webster's 1828 dictionary defines the word as such and in interpreting the law if you are a textualist in the vein of Scalia you use the meaning of the work as it would have been defined at the time the law was written. So if the the Constitution doesn't explicitly define a word you look at the definition in use at the time.

You weren't 100% forthcoming about Webster's definition:

Invasion
INVA'SION, noun s as z. [Latin invasio, from invado. See Invade.]

1. A hostile entrance into the possessions of another; particularly, the entrance of a hostile army into a country for the purpose of conquest or plunder, or the attack of a military force. The north of England and south of Scotland were for centuries subject to invasion each from the other. The invasion of England by William the Norman, was in 1066.

2. An attack on the rights of another; infringement or violation.

3. Attack of a disease; as the invasion of the plague, in Egypt.

Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Invasion

 

[Deuce]

I guess:

in·va·sion
/inˈvāZHən/Submit
noun
an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
"in 1546 England had to be defended from invasion"
synonyms: occupation, conquering, capture, seizure, annexation, annexing, takeover, appropriation, expropriation, arrogation; More
an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.
"stadium guards are preparing for another invasion of fans"
synonyms: influx, inundation, inrush, rush, flood, torrent, deluge, stream, avalanche
"every year the valley suffers an invasion of cars"
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.
"random drug testing of employees is an unwarranted invasion of privacy"
synonyms: violation, infringement, interruption, disturbance, disruption, breach, infraction

So you think the context was not referring to the military kind of invasion. Say it. Say that’s what you believe :lamo

 

[Grokmaster]

I guess:

in·va·sion
/inˈvāZHən/Submit
noun
an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
"in 1546 England had to be defended from invasion"
synonyms: occupation, conquering, capture, seizure, annexation, annexing, takeover, appropriation, expropriation, arrogation; More
an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.
"stadium guards are preparing for another invasion of fans"
synonyms: influx, inundation, inrush, rush, flood, torrent, deluge, stream, avalanche
"every year the valley suffers an invasion of cars"
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.
"random drug testing of employees is an unwarranted invasion of privacy"
synonyms: violation, infringement, interruption, disturbance, disruption, breach, infraction

I already quoted the relevant law(s) in the OP.


It is the PRESIDENT'S DISGRESSION, not "Webster's dictionary" that matters.

 

[Deuce]

You weren't 100% forthcoming about Webster's definition:

Unless you’re going to argue that illegal immigrants are literally a virus I don’t see what your point is here

 

[Deuce]

I already quoted the relevant law(s) in the OP.


It is the PRESIDENT'S DISGRESSION, not "Webster's dictionary" that matters.

So, to clarify, you think the president literally can declare an emergency over Telletubbies getting canceled. Because it’s his DISGRESSION[sic]?

 

[apdst]

So you think the context was not referring to the military kind of invasion. Say it. Say that’s what you believe :lamo

I'm saying The Constitution wasn't "only" referring to an invasion by a military force. If the Founders had meant "invasion by military force, only" they would have written that in The Constitution. They were smarter than, so yeah, they would have been specific. Say they weren't. Say it. :lamo

 

[apdst]

Unless you’re going to argue that illegal immigrants are literally a virus I don’t see what your point is here

Read the definitions I posted.

 

[haymarket]

It still has to be an actual emergency. He can’t declare the cancellation of Telletubbies to be a national security emergency requiring deployment of troops to build a wall. The courts would laugh him out of the building.

The first question a judge is going to ask is “if this is an emergency, why did you wait two years to do it?”

Do you have an answer for that, grok?

Because "the Lord and Master of All Things said it is."

 

[Gaius46]

You weren't 100% forthcoming about Webster's definition:

I believe I was. Neither definition 2 nor 3 seem relevant.