How "Constitutionally Vague" Can It Be If The President Doesn't Undertand "National Emergency?"

[mascale]

One thing about the Act that created the recourse to a "National Emergency" authority: Is That it left unclear just what one is. Suggesting that, "I don't need to do this," just wanting to speed up what most would call a Legislative process-culminating in a vote--leaves too much to ambiguity. The only matter imminent so far in the "National Emergency:" Are the lawsuits being filed already, and today.

To be Constitutional, then the Authorizing Act itself has to offer clarity, usually through a definition of terms. It is apparent that the White House, most federal agencies, most state legislatures, two Federal Legislatures--and every citizen affected or not: Doesn't know anything about any "Emergency" basis. There is no widespread feeling of threat from applicant asylum-seekers: So-called, "Caravan after Caravan."

In 1939, for example, Both Cuba and the USA turned away 900 Jewish refugees Fleeing Nazi Germany. The outcome of that was repatriation to four other nations, not to Germany--about to attack all of Europe at any rate.

"Atrocity Prevention" is not widely regarded a "National Emergency:" Simply on the basis of refugees getting lawfully processed.

So in Law there is a concept, "Vagueness:" which offers the standard remedy--void the Act Itself.

www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/V/Vagueness.aspx

"Vagueness is a doctrine of constitutional law; and grounds upon which a statute can be found to be inoperative. Every law must be sufficiently clear for the citizens to grasp its import."

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many White Eyes clearly misunderstand, "This Land Is My Land. . . . ."

 

[Norman]

When a nation is being invaded... that's a national emergency.

 

[Oddball]

One thing about the Act that created the recourse to a "National Emergency" authority: Is That it left unclear just what one is. Suggesting that, "I don't need to do this," just wanting to speed up what most would call a Legislative process-culminating in a vote--leaves too much to ambiguity. The only matter imminent so far in the "National Emergency:" Are the lawsuits being filed already, and today.

To be Constitutional, then the Authorizing Act itself has to offer clarity, usually through a definition of terms. It is apparent that the White House, most federal agencies, most state legislatures, two Federal Legislatures--and every citizen affected or not: Doesn't know anything about any "Emergency" basis. There is no widespread feeling of threat from applicant asylum-seekers: So-called, "Caravan after Caravan."

In 1939, for example, Both Cuba and the USA turned away 900 Jewish refugees Fleeing Nazi Germany. The outcome of that was repatriation to four other nations, not to Germany--about to attack all of Europe at any rate.

"Atrocity Prevention" is not widely regarded a "National Emergency:" Simply on the basis of refugees getting lawfully processed.

So in Law there is a concept, "Vagueness:" which offers the standard remedy--void the Act Itself.

www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/V/Vagueness.aspx

"Vagueness is a doctrine of constitutional law; and grounds upon which a statute can be found to be inoperative. Every law must be sufficiently clear for the citizens to grasp its import."

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many White Eyes clearly misunderstand, "This Land Is My Land. . . . ."

You liberoidal schmucks love you some vagaries, when you invoke "general welfare", "interstate commerce", and "necessary and proper"....But now you want specificity?

roflmfao

 

[DJT for Life]

Well, as long as a National Emergency hasn't been defined, there really
isn't anything the Dems can sue over.

Nobody knows what it is or isn't. The President has a free hand...doesn't he?

Plus...Trump already is getting 3.1 billion of that money, and no lawsuit
can prevent that.

2.5 Billion allocated to the Army's drug interdiction program, gives the
Secretary of Defense the right to use that money to best stop the flow
of drugs into the country. He's gonna help build the wall. The drug
forfeiture money (600 mil) already belongs to the President.

Only the construction money for the Army (3.6 billion) can be halted by
the congress/lawsuit.

The Donald has already rebuilt 84 miles of old wall and is using the remaining 900 mil to build another 50 miles of wall. 1.375 to build
55 miles and 3.1 Bil to build another 150 miles of new wall.

He'll have 255 miles of wall built by September, while the Dems are
still crowing about holding up 3.5 bill.

 

[Votto]

One thing about the Act that created the recourse to a "National Emergency" authority: Is That it left unclear just what one is. Suggesting that, "I don't need to do this," just wanting to speed up what most would call a Legislative process-culminating in a vote--leaves too much to ambiguity. The only matter imminent so far in the "National Emergency:" Are the lawsuits being filed already, and today.

To be Constitutional, then the Authorizing Act itself has to offer clarity, usually through a definition of terms. It is apparent that the White House, most federal agencies, most state legislatures, two Federal Legislatures--and every citizen affected or not: Doesn't know anything about any "Emergency" basis. There is no widespread feeling of threat from applicant asylum-seekers: So-called, "Caravan after Caravan."

In 1939, for example, Both Cuba and the USA turned away 900 Jewish refugees Fleeing Nazi Germany. The outcome of that was repatriation to four other nations, not to Germany--about to attack all of Europe at any rate.

"Atrocity Prevention" is not widely regarded a "National Emergency:" Simply on the basis of refugees getting lawfully processed.

So in Law there is a concept, "Vagueness:" which offers the standard remedy--void the Act Itself.

www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/V/Vagueness.aspx

"Vagueness is a doctrine of constitutional law; and grounds upon which a statute can be found to be inoperative. Every law must be sufficiently clear for the citizens to grasp its import."

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many White Eyes clearly misunderstand, "This Land Is My Land. . . . ."

The Constitution is a living breathing document that seeks to please my every whim.

 

[mascale]

Since no one denies that nobody knows whether or not an Emergency exists---other than refugees seeking asylum, being processed lawfully: The Actual legal basis for the "National Emergency" is void--That Act Is Un-Lawful--and the spending is illegal, to be returned to original appropriations.

If the money is spent there will be lawful basis for impeachment: On both sides, On both sides.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many can come to Lands of Many Nations: And set about herding sheep. Many will say that they will be doing what Indigenous tribes do not want to do for themselves(?)! Agribusiness knows about this, already(?)!)

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

One thing about the Act that created the recourse to a "National Emergency" authority: Is That it left unclear just what one is. Suggesting that, "I don't need to do this," just wanting to speed up what most would call a Legislative process-culminating in a vote--leaves too much to ambiguity. The only matter imminent so far in the "National Emergency:" Are the lawsuits being filed already, and today.

To be Constitutional, then the Authorizing Act itself has to offer clarity, usually through a definition of terms. It is apparent that the White House, most federal agencies, most state legislatures, two Federal Legislatures--and every citizen affected or not: Doesn't know anything about any "Emergency" basis. There is no widespread feeling of threat from applicant asylum-seekers: So-called, "Caravan after Caravan."

In 1939, for example, Both Cuba and the USA turned away 900 Jewish refugees Fleeing Nazi Germany. The outcome of that was repatriation to four other nations, not to Germany--about to attack all of Europe at any rate.

"Atrocity Prevention" is not widely regarded a "National Emergency:" Simply on the basis of refugees getting lawfully processed.

So in Law there is a concept, "Vagueness:" which offers the standard remedy--void the Act Itself.

www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/V/Vagueness.aspx

"Vagueness is a doctrine of constitutional law; and grounds upon which a statute can be found to be inoperative. Every law must be sufficiently clear for the citizens to grasp its import."

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many White Eyes clearly misunderstand, "This Land Is My Land. . . . ."

You are almost always wrong which is why your threads bomb and you usually remain in the cesspool that is the flame zone.

Time to return to the only domain you really belong in. Bye

 

[dblack]

When a nation is being invaded... that's a national emergency.

If we're being invaded, we should be dropping bombs, not dicking around building walls.

 

[bripat9643]

One thing about the Act that created the recourse to a "National Emergency" authority: Is That it left unclear just what one is. Suggesting that, "I don't need to do this," just wanting to speed up what most would call a Legislative process-culminating in a vote--leaves too much to ambiguity. The only matter imminent so far in the "National Emergency:" Are the lawsuits being filed already, and today.

To be Constitutional, then the Authorizing Act itself has to offer clarity, usually through a definition of terms. It is apparent that the White House, most federal agencies, most state legislatures, two Federal Legislatures--and every citizen affected or not: Doesn't know anything about any "Emergency" basis. There is no widespread feeling of threat from applicant asylum-seekers: So-called, "Caravan after Caravan."

In 1939, for example, Both Cuba and the USA turned away 900 Jewish refugees Fleeing Nazi Germany. The outcome of that was repatriation to four other nations, not to Germany--about to attack all of Europe at any rate.

"Atrocity Prevention" is not widely regarded a "National Emergency:" Simply on the basis of refugees getting lawfully processed.

So in Law there is a concept, "Vagueness:" which offers the standard remedy--void the Act Itself.

www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/V/Vagueness.aspx

"Vagueness is a doctrine of constitutional law; and grounds upon which a statute can be found to be inoperative. Every law must be sufficiently clear for the citizens to grasp its import."

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many White Eyes clearly misunderstand, "This Land Is My Land. . . . ."

59 national emergencies have been declared. 32 are still in effect. Obama declared 10 of them himself. And you believe the SC is going to declare the law unconstitutional now?

 

[bripat9643]

Since no one denies that nobody knows whether or not an Emergency exists---other than refugees seeking asylum, being processed lawfully: The Actual legal basis for the "National Emergency" is void--That Act Is Un-Lawful--and the spending is illegal, to be returned to original appropriations.

If the money is spent there will be lawful basis for impeachment: On both sides, On both sides.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many can come to Lands of Many Nations: And set about herding sheep. Many will say that they will be doing what Indigenous tribes do not want to do for themselves(?)! Agribusiness knows about this, already(?)!)

The President decides if an emergency exists.

 

[dblack]

Since no one denies that nobody knows whether or not an Emergency exists---other than refugees seeking asylum, being processed lawfully: The Actual legal basis for the "National Emergency" is void--That Act Is Un-Lawful--and the spending is illegal, to be returned to original appropriations.

If the money is spent there will be lawful basis for impeachment: On both sides, On both sides.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many can come to Lands of Many Nations: And set about herding sheep. Many will say that they will be doing what Indigenous tribes do not want to do for themselves(?)! Agribusiness knows about this, already(?)!)

The President decides if an emergency exists.

Authoritarian much?

 

[mascale]

Grandpa Murked U poster proudly proclaims what even Ann Coulter has known all along: Supportive of the Trump Intention: "To Scam The Stupidest People In His Base'."

Anyone sees that Mexico refusing to pay up is not the basis of the National Emergency.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!{
(Maybe better sense is build a dam, or serious of dams, along the Rio Grande(?).)

 

[bripat9643]

Since no one denies that nobody knows whether or not an Emergency exists---other than refugees seeking asylum, being processed lawfully: The Actual legal basis for the "National Emergency" is void--That Act Is Un-Lawful--and the spending is illegal, to be returned to original appropriations.

If the money is spent there will be lawful basis for impeachment: On both sides, On both sides.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many can come to Lands of Many Nations: And set about herding sheep. Many will say that they will be doing what Indigenous tribes do not want to do for themselves(?)! Agribusiness knows about this, already(?)!)

The President decides if an emergency exists.

Authoritarian much?

That's the law, asshole.

 

[dblack]

Since no one denies that nobody knows whether or not an Emergency exists---other than refugees seeking asylum, being processed lawfully: The Actual legal basis for the "National Emergency" is void--That Act Is Un-Lawful--and the spending is illegal, to be returned to original appropriations.

If the money is spent there will be lawful basis for impeachment: On both sides, On both sides.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many can come to Lands of Many Nations: And set about herding sheep. Many will say that they will be doing what Indigenous tribes do not want to do for themselves(?)! Agribusiness knows about this, already(?)!)

The President decides if an emergency exists.

Authoritarian much?

That's the law, asshole.

Heil!

 

[The VOR]

When a nation is being invaded... that's a national emergency.

 

[bripat9643]

Since no one denies that nobody knows whether or not an Emergency exists---other than refugees seeking asylum, being processed lawfully: The Actual legal basis for the "National Emergency" is void--That Act Is Un-Lawful--and the spending is illegal, to be returned to original appropriations.

If the money is spent there will be lawful basis for impeachment: On both sides, On both sides.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many can come to Lands of Many Nations: And set about herding sheep. Many will say that they will be doing what Indigenous tribes do not want to do for themselves(?)! Agribusiness knows about this, already(?)!)

The President decides if an emergency exists.

Authoritarian much?

That's the law, asshole.

Heil!

If you don't like the law, then get it changed. Don't call me a Nazi simply because I report what the law says.

 

[dblack]

Since no one denies that nobody knows whether or not an Emergency exists---other than refugees seeking asylum, being processed lawfully: The Actual legal basis for the "National Emergency" is void--That Act Is Un-Lawful--and the spending is illegal, to be returned to original appropriations.

If the money is spent there will be lawful basis for impeachment: On both sides, On both sides.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many can come to Lands of Many Nations: And set about herding sheep. Many will say that they will be doing what Indigenous tribes do not want to do for themselves(?)! Agribusiness knows about this, already(?)!)

The President decides if an emergency exists.

Authoritarian much?

That's the law, asshole.

Heil!

If you don't like the law, then get it changed. Don't call me a Nazi simply because I report what the law says.

You sure as hell aren't a libertarian. You've crawled up Trump's ass and can't seem to find your way out.

 

[mascale]

The law does not classify the people seeking asylum as a US National Emergency. That was not even the case in the 1939 example.

There is no basis showing that anyone knows the extent of the National Emergency: Other than the matter that posters are too uncaring to get Mexico to pay for it, or that bripat9843 was too uncaring to get Mexico to pay for it, or that Grandpa Murked U was too uncaring to get Mexico to pay for it!

They get shot to death! It's a National Emergency! That's their own reading of the law. No one even got Mexico to Pay For it! They get shot: They can see it in the law!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(And so a Communist Plot starts to expose itself in public!)

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

From the last administration, there were several non-emergencies declared.

The power to declare an emergency needs to be removed. Too nuch discretion. Zero restraint.

 

[mascale]

The ability to explain a "National Emergency" needs to be clarified.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken Not Stirred!"
(Right now only Communist Sympathizers, friendly to Putin over USA, or friendly more to North Korea, have the authority to declare a National Emergency.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Noting how political climates, and accusations, can turn on a dime!)