President Trump Vetos Congress' Rebuke of Border Order

[HereWeGoAgain]

Pretty sure ya dropped a period where it wasnt called for.

Tmi

So you dont like being called out on the proper use of periods?

Seems like a messy girly thing. Wallow on

You seem to be highly uneducated.

I am running circles around you. Lol.

I guess the only advice I can give you? Kotex.....

 

[MAGAman]

Assuming the Senate does not act to protect congressional power from an executive power grab what will Trump try to do next with his brand-new imperial power? There will be a next you can bet your ass.

Drama Queen,

Congress passed a law giving POTUS emergency authority. It's been used dozens of times in the past by POTUSs of both parties.

You can stop clutching your pearls and relax.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

It will still end up at SCOTUS.

I wouldn't bet on that. This is hardly new territory. The Supreme Court (and lower federal courts of appeal) is notorious for booting separation of powers cases for a variety of reasons. The reason people think this conflict is a groundbreaking separation of powers conflict is because the numerous prior instances either happened long enough ago that most people don't remember or care (like any news cycle) and/or didn't get nearly the same media coverage.

How many of those overrode the will of Congress?

Was there any objection to any of those declarations from a majority of any chamber of Congress? No president has ever resorted to declaring a National Emergency to be able to fund a completely partisan policy.

Here's a perfect example of such a case: Sanchez-Espinoza v Reagan, 248 U.S. App. D.C. 146, 210 (D.C. Cir. 1985), which was brought by members of Congress against the Reagan Administration, arguing executive overreach in violation of the Appropriations Clause based on Reagan's use of treasury funds to support the Contras in Nicuragua in violation of the Boland Amendment (specifically forbidding use of fiscal appropriations to support the Contras), and further contending that Reagan's use of the funds violated the War Powers Clause, which delegates Congress with the power to declare war. The case was dismissed on the grounds that it presents a "nonjusticiable political question."

That last phrase may ring a bell to some of you that were paying attention in high school history class. The "political question doctrine" was laid out by the Supreme Court back in 1803, in the famous case Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 170 (1803), wherein the Supreme Court wrote: “[q]uestions, in their nature political, or which are, by the Constitution and laws, submitted to the executive can never be made in this court.” The Supreme Court has since established various factors for determining whether a dispute implicates political question doctrine (generally outlined in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962), I won't restate them here unless someone wants to read them), the presence of any of which will cause the court to declare the controversy a nonjusticiable political question.

To that end, federal courts routinely decide that separation of powers controversies invoke the political question doctrine, and thereby constitute nonjusticiable political questions. They also repeatedly emphasize that the judicial branch is not suited to analyze and enforce issues of budgeting and accounting. I cited one example above involving a challenge to actions taken by a Republican President (Reagan) "against the will of Congress," and here's one involving a similar challenge to action taken by a Democrat President (Clinton) "against the will of Congress." See Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (upholding dismissal of suit brought by members of Congress challenging President Clinton's act of war in Yugoslavia after Congress voted down declaration of war, emphasizing that Congress has the means necessary to remedy their grievances, i.e., by passing new legislation prohibiting use of appropriated funds for specified purposes, etc). The Supreme Court declined to consider it on further appeal (certiorari). Campbell v. Clinton, 531 U.S. 815 (2000). See also Chenoweth v. Clinton, 181 F.3d 112, 115 (D.C.Cir.1999) (emphasizing the separation-of-powers problems inherent in legislative standing, and holding congressmen had no standing to challenge the President's introduction of a program through executive order rather than statute).

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It is not within the scope of the executive power to spend money in any way he damn well pleases. He is the president, not a king, not a dictator.

You are all happy about this power now, but when it is used by a different president for reasons you do not agree with, then you will be not so happy.

You know better Lefty....The Commander can spend whatever the **** he wants to fundamentally secure this nation...that is his most paramount duty. You, if you're a good, legitimate, real American should support his effort, tenacity and commitment to protect you. ******* weird that you don't.

No, he cannot not. once again, the president is not a king, he is not a dictator.

that you want to make him one so you can sleep better at night says all we need to know about you.

You're slipping Lefty...do your homework...he can spend straight from the defense fund on border security. Congress does not appropriate spending for defense by line item. Look it up.

Border security is not a military matter, according to the laws of this nation.

The military does not defend nor secure the border.

Think DEFENSE and not military. Simple shit.

You are determined to be even more stupid than usual today, aren't you? Only a few of the 58 times a President has declared a nation emergency under this Act have been emergencies is the usual sense of the word, so every time the President declares an emergency he is ignoring the will of Congress since he could have taken the time to ask Congress to authorize his proposed action.

Really....here is the list...which of these were in reaction to something that has been going on for 30 plus years...List of national emergencies in the United States - Wikipedia

You're awfully hung up on this timeline bullshit...Do you think Americans lost the right to change their mind because they were gracious for 30 years?

Changing one’s mind does not make something an emergency. There is an old saying “piss poor prior planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part”.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[bripat9643]

Assuming the Senate does not act to protect congressional power from an executive power grab what will Trump try to do next with his brand-new imperial power? There will be a next you can bet your ass.

Is sure is funny watching you morons clucking about an "executive power grab." When Obama did it, you didn't give a crap. He singlehandedly rewrote immigration law, and you just yawned. He gave $150 billion to Iran, and you didn't give a crap.

 

[GreenAndBlue]

AG Bill Barr: Mr. President your declaration of an emergency on the southern border was clearly authorized under the law and consistent with past precedent… The humanitarian and security crisis that we currently have right now on the border is exactly the type of emergency that presidents are permitted to address.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Assuming the Senate does not act to protect congressional power from an executive power grab what will Trump try to do next with his brand-new imperial power? There will be a next you can bet your ass.

Drama Queen,

Congress passed a law giving POTUS emergency authority. It's been used dozens of times in the past by POTUSs of both parties.

You can stop clutching your pearls and relax.

It has never been used to openly ignore a bill passed by Congress and signed by the POTUS.

It has never been used to pay for something that congress has specifically refused to pay for.

But you can bet that it will now be used for both of those things on a regular basis

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Assuming the Senate does not act to protect congressional power from an executive power grab what will Trump try to do next with his brand-new imperial power? There will be a next you can bet your ass.

Lets hope he stays willing to do whatever it is he has to do to stop wetbacks from entering without an invitation from the American people.

Every time an American gives one a job, we are inviting more to come.

 

[kyzr]

It will still end up at SCOTUS.

I wouldn't bet on that. This is hardly new territory. The Supreme Court (and lower federal courts of appeal) is notorious for booting separation of powers cases for a variety of reasons. The reason people think this conflict is a groundbreaking separation of powers conflict is because the numerous prior instances either happened long enough ago that most people don't remember or care (like any news cycle) and/or didn't get nearly the same media coverage.

How many of those overrode the will of Congress?

Was there any objection to any of those declarations from a majority of any chamber of Congress? No president has ever resorted to declaring a National Emergency to be able to fund a completely partisan policy.

Here's a perfect example of such a case: Sanchez-Espinoza v Reagan, 248 U.S. App. D.C. 146, 210 (D.C. Cir. 1985), which was brought by members of Congress against the Reagan Administration, arguing executive overreach in violation of the Appropriations Clause based on Reagan's use of treasury funds to support the Contras in Nicuragua in violation of the Boland Amendment (specifically forbidding use of fiscal appropriations to support the Contras), and further contending that Reagan's use of the funds violated the War Powers Clause, which delegates Congress with the power to declare war. The case was dismissed on the grounds that it presents a "nonjusticiable political question."

That last phrase may ring a bell to some of you that were paying attention in high school history class. The "political question doctrine" was laid out by the Supreme Court back in 1803, in the famous case Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 170 (1803), wherein the Supreme Court wrote: “[q]uestions, in their nature political, or which are, by the Constitution and laws, submitted to the executive can never be made in this court.” The Supreme Court has since established various factors for determining whether a dispute implicates political question doctrine (generally outlined in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962), I won't restate them here unless someone wants to read them), the presence of any of which will cause the court to declare the controversy a nonjusticiable political question.

To that end, federal courts routinely decide that separation of powers controversies invoke the political question doctrine, and thereby constitute nonjusticiable political questions. They also repeatedly emphasize that the judicial branch is not suited to analyze and enforce issues of budgeting and accounting. I cited one example above involving a challenge to actions taken by a Republican President (Reagan) "against the will of Congress," and here's one involving a similar challenge to action taken by a Democrat President (Clinton) "against the will of Congress." See Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (upholding dismissal of suit brought by members of Congress challenging President Clinton's act of war in Yugoslavia after Congress voted down declaration of war, emphasizing that Congress has the means necessary to remedy their grievances, i.e., by passing new legislation prohibiting use of appropriated funds for specified purposes, etc). The Supreme Court declined to consider it on further appeal (certiorari). Campbell v. Clinton, 531 U.S. 815 (2000). See also Chenoweth v. Clinton, 181 F.3d 112, 115 (D.C.Cir.1999) (emphasizing the separation-of-powers problems inherent in legislative standing, and holding congressmen had no standing to challenge the President's introduction of a program through executive order rather than statute).

Welcome aboard! Lots of debate on this forum.

I read your post 3x and still am not sure what you're predicting. I think you say that Trump's emergency declaration will stand the court test(s). So Trump wins and Nancy loses. But, your post also seems to say that future irrational emergencies by the democrats have just as good a chance of not being reversed. I recall that Obama had a terrible record in the USSC with the DACA case coming up this summer. I'm hoping that the USSC can referee between the EXEC & Legislative branches, keeping the wall but stopping the "Green New Deal".
Obama Has Lost in the Supreme Court More Than Any Modern President

 

[Cellblock2429]

Why did the Senate even vote on a bill they knew Trump would veto when they knew they didn't have to votes to override the veto? Were they bored and looking for something to waste taxpayer money on?

They have their reasons, Blues. One of them is conscience, and the other is that it's difficult even for a very, very bright person trained in communications, to discern truth from myth. And a real human genius like King Solomon does not grace every generation, although in this one I put what little money I have on President Trump without the hundreds of wives King Solomon allegedly had in his harem.

/——/ Say what?

 

[beautress]

Why did the Senate even vote on a bill they knew Trump would veto when they knew they didn't have to votes to override the veto? Were they bored and looking for something to waste taxpayer money on?

They have their reasons, Blues. One of them is conscience, and the other is that it's difficult even for a very, very bright person trained in communications, to discern truth from myth. And a real human genius like King Solomon does not grace every generation, although in this one I put what little money I have on President Trump without the hundreds of wives King Solomon allegedly had in his harem.

/——/ Say what?

No excuses.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Assuming the Senate does not act to protect congressional power from an executive power grab what will Trump try to do next with his brand-new imperial power? There will be a next you can bet your ass.

If they had the votes, they could override his veto. I guess it is not such a bad idea since he gets to do what he wants!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Assuming the Senate does not act to protect congressional power from an executive power grab what will Trump try to do next with his brand-new imperial power? There will be a next you can bet your ass.

That's what the courts are for, to be sure that no one oversteps their authority. Trump is well in his lane according to AG Barr. If the next dem president goes too far, I'm sure the USSC will get him back in his lane.

All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. There will be a reckoning for all this blind following.

All it takes for evil to fail is for good men to do something.

 

[BS Filter]

The Congress needs 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate to override the veto. They don't have it. Go pound sand and look for corrupt judges until it reaches the Supreme Court and Trump will win there.

 

[beautress]

Assuming the Senate does not act to protect congressional power from an executive power grab what will Trump try to do next with his brand-new imperial power? There will be a next you can bet your ass.

If they had the votes, they could override his veto. I guess it is not such a bad idea since he gets to do what he wants!

Not exactly. A lot of people in border states know where the rubber hits the road on this issue. Some states get it others don't, sir.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Why did the Senate even vote on a bill they knew Trump would veto when they knew they didn't have to votes to override the veto? Were they bored and looking for something to waste taxpayer money on?

They wanted the Dems and turncoat Republicans on the record so they can batter them with it come the next election.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Assuming the Senate does not act to protect congressional power from an executive power grab what will Trump try to do next with his brand-new imperial power? There will be a next you can bet your ass.

If they had the votes, they could override his veto. I guess it is not such a bad idea since he gets to do what he wants!

Not exactly. A lot of people in border states know where the rubber hits the road on this issue. Some states get it others don't, sir.

Try reading my post again. You repeated basically what I said but disagreed.

 

[beautress]

Assuming the Senate does not act to protect congressional power from an executive power grab what will Trump try to do next with his brand-new imperial power? There will be a next you can bet your ass.

If they had the votes, they could override his veto. I guess it is not such a bad idea since he gets to do what he wants!

Not exactly. A lot of people in border states know where the rubber hits the road on this issue. Some states get it others don't, sir.

Try reading my post again. You repeated basically what I said but disagreed.

quote: I guess it is not such a bad idea since he gets to do what he wants!
​

Sounds like a leftist annoyed with a rich guy to me, sir.

 

[beautress]

The Five and President Trump's Veto, illegal alien girls over age 10 getting pregnancy tests due to rapes in the Caravans, and Democrats abusing power the way President Obama did (He did?):

​

 

[BluesLegend]

Why did the Senate even vote on a bill they knew Trump would veto when they knew they didn't have to votes to override the veto? Were they bored and looking for something to waste taxpayer money on?

They wanted the Dems and turncoat Republicans on the record so they can batter them with it come the next election.

I honestly don't understand these politicians in Washington. Illegals are KILLING thousands of Americans each year. More than were killed in the Vietnam war. Not only are we not carpet bombing the offending countries, our elected politicians have sided with the illegals killing us. WTF?