Trump to declare national emergency

[Daryl Hunt]

When an four year old does not get his way...he throws himself on the floor and kicks and screams....that is what the National Emergency is doing.

But the courts will tell him to pick his fat orange ass up off the floor and finally read the Constitution.

It will take about a year for it to wind through the various courts to reach the Supreme Court unless DC sues which would be almost a straight shot to the supreme court. Many States are filing. Even Elpaso County Tx file yesterday. I would estimate that there is a 75-25 chance that the Supreme court will rule against him. If they deal strictly with the rule of law then he will lose 100% but there is always that 25% chance they may wake up with the same mass idiocy and go the other way. Anyone that says the Supreme Court is a sure thing is just kidding themselves.

Yes, Trump is trying to get reelected. He knows if the Dems run a viable candidate he's post toasties. So he does this shot in the dark. He has a chance to come out smelling like a rose just before November 2020. It's never been about the wall. It's been about Trump keeping power.

If it really was about the wall, the last two Presidents have built an average of 73 miles of new Barriers and Walls each year in 8 years. In the 2 years that Trump has been in office, he has added exactly Zero inches of additional Barriers along the border. In fact, he's decreased the number of Border Patrols along the Texas Border. The way I see it, the part about 55 miles is like probation. Either build it, which is 55 miles more than he has built in the last 2 years or be in violation of the 2006 Border Security Law which he already is. Congress already has grounds to at least censor him.

And then there are the Illegal Immigrant Workers. Illegal Immigrant Workers have built most of his stateside golf courses and other projects. And many still work there. The last batch was fired to make it look good. He uses Illegals because he doesn't want to pay for US Born Heavy Equipment Operators and such. So it's not about Illegals taking jobs. On a Trump Sponsored Job, they already have.

I paid in more taxes last year than the year before by quite a margin. I am lower middle class. I notice that that class got a tax increase. The money to do the tax break that some enjoyed (mostly the over 150K class) had to come from somewhere. The Books had to even out or it would have never been accepted. So the largest class gets the tax increase while the smallest class gets the tax breaks. Trump Industries got one hell of a tax break. So it was not good for America unless Trump Industries IS America and the rest of us are just along for the ride.

The sooner we get a handle on him the better. I used to think that we were better off with Trump than Pence. I was wrong. Now I want to protect Pence because the other Option is Pelosi and none of us want to go there. But we need to get Trump out of office. Not to worry, I am quite sure that either Maryland or New York State has a nice home waiting from him and possibly his 2 sons and son-in-law.

 

[GreenBean]

Yet that Constitution gives him the power to declare such an emergency and to control border security. Something the Dems refuse to do.

trump has proven he is incapable of working within our Constitutional system. His attempt at an unpresedented power grab will lose a large percentage of independent voters.

More importantly for the GOP....McConnell's cave on supporting a National Emergency will haunt the Repubs for years to come. This is an unparalleled effort by the Executive Branch that.....left unchallenged...will set a precedent for future Presidents....

The Courts will rule against trump and he probably knows it. He is counting on a short term win that will assure him of a long term loss....

The courts will slap his obese, orange, ass down....

According to the Federal Register, 58 national emergencies have been declared since the National Emergency Act of 1976 was signed into law by President Gerald Ford.
And 31 have been annually renewed and are currently still in effect, as listed in the Federal Register.

Nov 14, 1979: The National Emergency With Respect to Iran, in response to the Iran hostage crisis.

Nov 14, 1994: The National Emergency With Respect to the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, that combined two previous national emergencies focused on weapons of mass destruction.

Jan. 2, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process placed economic sanctions in response to the Jerusalem bombing.

March 15, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources was an effort to prevent potential deals between oil companies.

October 21, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers Centered in Colombia was declared after increased reports of drug cartels laundering money through American companies.

March 1, 1996: The National Emergency With Respect to Regulations of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba was after civilian planes were shot down near Cuba

November 3, 1997: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan implemented economic and trade sanctions.

June 26, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans imposed sanctions on those aiding Albanian insurgents in Macedonia

Aug 17, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Export Control Regulations renewed presidential power to control exports in a national emergency since the Export Administration Act of 1979 lapsed.

Sept 14, 2001: The National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks was in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

Sept 23, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism was in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

March 6, 2003: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe was an effort to punish associates of Robert Mugabe.

May 22, 2003: The National Emergency With Respect to Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest was issued following the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

May 11, 2004: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria was in response to Syria supporting terrorist activity in Iraq.

June 16, 2006: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus was in response to charges of fraud in the Belarus presidential election.

Oct 27, 2006: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was in response to violence around the Congolese presidential election runoff.

Aug 1, 2007: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon was in response to a breakdown of the rule of law in Lebanon.

June 26, 2008: The National Emergency With Respect to Continuing Certain Restrictions with Respect to North Korea cited the risk of proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material. President Trump renewed this June 22, 2018 citing the “existence and risk of proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material on the Korean Peninsula and the actions and policies of the Government of North Korea continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat.”


April 12, 2010: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia was in respect to threats posed by Somali pirates.

February 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya froze the assets of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

July 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Transnational Criminals was in response to the rise in crime by specific organizations: Los Zetas (Mexico), The Brothers’ Circle (former Soviet Union countries), the Yakuza (Japan), and the Camorra (Italy).

May 16, 2012: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen addressed political unrest within the Yemen government.

March 16, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine was in response to the Russian invasion of Crimea.

April 3, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan was in response to the ongoing civil war.

May 12, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic was in response to violence towards humanitarian aid workers.

March 8, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela was in response to human rights violations.

April 1, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities was in response to Chinese cyber attacks on the U.S.

Nov 23, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi was declared after a failed coup.

Dec 20, 2017: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption imposed sanctions on the Myanmar general for his role persecuting Rohingya Muslims.

Sept 12, 2018: The National Emergency With Respect to Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election attempted to prevent any meddling with the 2018 midterm elections amid the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Nov 27, 2018: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua was declared by President Trump in response to violence and the Ortega regime’s “systematic dismantling and undermining of democratic institutions and the rule of law” that constitutes an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

Go Fish

Real emergencies....none to fulfill a campaign promise.....none stealing money from other agencies....nice try....

/----/ Oh because you say so????

Exactly ... we elected a POTUS to make those decisions not some dumbass libtards on the internet

 

[Flopper]

Libs are going to be beside themselves !


Trump will sign border bill and declare national emergency: McConnell

Trump will sign border bill and declare national emergency: McConnell
Published: Feb 14, 2019 3:10 p.m. ET

If Gramm Rudman was unconst (and the Scotus said it was) I don't see how the national emergency law survives .... unless the scotus wants to play theoretical diddlylwinks by saying "congress can change it"

And McConnell will be all for amending the law to prevent misuse to just try and force spending congress won't allocate ... as soon as a dem is potus.

You know this law was meant to limit the powers of the president. The law allows the president to declare and emergency but also give congress the power to resend it.

I disagree that the law was ever about limiting the executive. Under the law the "emergency" exists when the president says so. Then to end the "emergency" congress must bipartisanly act to end the "emergency." The law is to allow congress not to act. It's lazy but the natural instinct is to have someone else to it for you, which is the path to totalitarianism ... or a monarchy. If the law was about anything else, it would provide an emergency automatically ends after some period of time unless Congress acts.

I think the laws really about the opposite. The revealing quote from Nixon - Frost is Nixon saying: if the president does it, it's not illegal.
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Nixon-say-When-the-President-does-it-that-means-that-it-is-not-illegal

I said the purpose of the law was to limit the president because previously there were a number of acts and court rulings under which the president might declare an emergency. The actual number was 470 which were mostly replaced by the new law. Some of these required Congressional oversight and others didn't. Some were perpetual and some had expiration periods. About the only thing in common to various statues and court rulings was the requirement to notify congress. This statue, unlike most of the previous statues, required the president to specify in detail the reason for the declaration, the actions planned, records of all orders and movement of funds, and periodic report to congress.

I agree the law stinks. The court actually removed veto power of the president making only a simple majority needed to resend the declaration. Unfortunately, congress passed and amendment restoring it. The act also gives the president far too much power without congressional approval.

The purpose of the law was to allow the president to act in a matter of hours in the case of a serious emergency where going to congress could take days or longer. It was also understood that the president would use this power for declarations that would have had unanimous support such as national disasters and attacks against the US such 911 and other matters in which passage by congress would have been a certainty. Until Trump, this was how the act was used. No president had used the act to subvert the will of congress.

Obviously, we need to change the law or future presidents will follow in Trump's footsteps which would be a transfer of power from congress to the president destroying valuable checks and balances. The problem is how do you get that legislation passed. Both sides are certainly drooling over the possibility of their man in the White House doing things that could never get passed by congress. Trump may well have opened Pandora's Box that has the potential of turning the government into an autocracy.

National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia

Mr. Flopper, thank you for background on what was and should be. It definitely sounds reasonable. However, it was also issue specific, and only one phrase nags at me, probably for the wrong reason, but here goes: "the will of congress." That would be fine except for several harsh things about this particular congress. This congress has a number of individuals who do not speak for the majority of the American people and who take swipes at the Constitution like a goat butts a dead tree. They brought in several fresh faces this term, but one of them until stringently spoken to was mouthing off about jews as though Old World hatreds were acceptable to mainstream America. One of them recently threatened to take away peoples' rewards for a job well done or an invention made useful by raising ONLY THEIR taxes to 70%, to copy the European theatre that taxes people to an early grave in its best light. Our forefathers set in place a system of economics that reward people who come up with good ideas and placed patents and copyrights to safeguard and protect their inventions, ideas, methods. and even words in the hands of the Library of Congress. Some of these innovative persons were not born with a silver spoon in their mouths and when wealth comes their way, they often do not know how to manage finances, become overly generous to relatives, hangers on, and even the best of good causes. In other words, we try not to bury the Mozarts of America in unmarked mass graves. That's a huge mistake to raise taxes on such people. And who are they? People who turned a muddy creek bed into a precious stone that sparkles in the hearts and lives of other people.

I do not have confidence in this particular congress any more than people had Richard Nixon after Watergate. I also am skeptical of a press that takes up the banner of one party just to smite the other, 98% of the time with malice aforethought, taking their clues from whoever is their favorite redistributor of wealth, which is what many framers intimated in their private letters, that they were worried if taxes were passed on the people, future generations would see this as a means of their own personal wealth and plunder the nation's treasury. What if the press changed its mind about the Democrat Party and went with the Republican Party? Neither option to me is good. The press needs to regain the public's trust, which it no longer has with the antics of putting words into the mouths of every conservative speaker who has something to tell the American public, and it always harks back to a "gotcha!" It was great for Woodward and others to make a name for themselves by taking out a President, but it wasn't great when they let go every last error go, covered up, reworded, redefined, and ignored justice obstruction for another President who could do no wrong, considering the personal benefits accorded them from their getting on the money train bandwagon. The Republican Party cleaned house promptly in 1973 and has never tried to do that again. Yet an ambitious-to-a-fault first lady was caught interfering with the lives of 900 of her husband's rival, and the press gave her a pass when she mumbled something like "I forget" to a Congress who sicks the present dogs of the press on a new President for 2 years based on a false charge by a Special Counsel who was reprimanded by the courts for doing the same darn thing a number of years ago. Many people do not know the Special Counsel appointed by Democrats destroyed the lives of innocent people back then, but the courts know it, and the popular press ignores it. The only trouble is, the popular press is now walking on thin ice as angry people cancel their subscriptions in answer for inanities leveled at innocent men who instead of violating laws as the press insists had clean hands. Kavanaugh is one of them. Donald Trump is another.

This congress has tried a new President in the press a month before he took office, in fact, the threat was made to impeach the very next morning after his bid for president was made public that he won. Many of us view that as essential prejudice: judging a man guilty or bad or the n-word or whatever the latest personal hatred may be, and in this case, prior to his placing his hand on the Bible and pledging that he would provide for the common defense with God as his witness. They've tortured the first lady for her modeling career choices, acceptable in the land of her birth for centuries, but suddenly taboo here in America by a party who celebrates a young woman's coming of age not with a Debutante party, but with her first abortion, which is paid for by taxes from people whose religious leanings teach families to love the sinner while hating the poor judgment exercised in a moment of youthful passion.

In short, this congress is not the same one as in years before. Democrats give their members a warning, never a censure. They do not behave in an equal manner for their counterparts on the other side of the aisle. I've heard the word "impeach!!!" screeched out by both sides, but when a congressman comes up with the jew-hating language used by one of them last week, the only censure you hear about is a little wrist slap and a well-rehearsed apology that came obviously from a list of things you have to say, and not from that person's black heart that will carry punishment for Jewish people for life in this country and in this congress.

This congress needs to be confronted on a number of ill-advised "wins" it claims for itself while damning the President's staff to the hell of being constantly verbally assaulted in public by an untouchable Congressman--untouchable because she's a woman, and furthermore untouchable because she is black and demands a free pass or she will start a riot somewhere in her district if anybody in charge says one single word of reprimand in public about her. Some of us think of that in terms of something a lot more sinister than mental illness. It is precocious hatred demanding unreasonable concession and it is racially biased with roots in wrongdoing against people who are no longer alive, and taken out on innocent people of the wrongs of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. Here we are in the twenty-first century. The debt is paid in full by efforts to furnish free housing, free medical, free food, free job training, jobs for everyone, equal pay, equal justice, and no matter what good is offered, it is getting to the point of nothing given is ever good enough. Uh, well, yes it is. And if we are going to have people from every background in congress, we deserve just as much wisdom from them as we had when cooler heads prevailed in congress. Where is discipline? Is that something you can only demand from white males, discipline? No, it's something the American people want from whoever is making decisions in Washington, but it's not happening in the Democrat Party, and the Democrat Party is playing brain dead right now, and for some reason, the press that used to keep politicians on an even keel are losing respect because they are unfairly targeting Democrat hate targets which is always aimed at their conservative adversaries.

The Democrat Party needs to take another approach, and that would be one of getting along with and avoidance of eating the liver of Republicans and creating the false scenario that conservatism is all bad. Um, no, it's not. It also needs to make sure it does not deliver any more frivolous lawsuits, or it will be faced with the will of the people who will override the "will of congress," if it continues with ear plugs and blinders to the majority of the people of this land, selling out to a village approach unlimited which has been tried elsewhere and winds up with deprivation of the masses and power in too few committee hands. The government needs to back off a bit, imho, and let people enjoy the earnings the sweat of their brow produces, not put everything in the pot for jew-haters you do not censure. And Maxine Waters' method of using her Congress seat to punish the Executive Branch under closer examination is pissing on the separation of powers, as are the frivolous lawsuits closed-door committees in the Democrat Party are inflicting on the President, not giving him the chance to do his job for the American people's common defense. If a dog doesn't back down, his owner buys a leash, pushes a spiral in the ground, and takes away supper for a couple of hours. Don't push that onto Republicans with frivolous lawsuits, keeping in mind that if the overbearing character assassinations continue, the bad karma this provokes is very bad for this nation, blessed by the Creator and forged by the fire of liberty and equality.

Just a couple of comments"
"The Will of Congress" is understood to be the laws and resolutions passed by congress, not the opinions of a few congressional leaders nor individual members. So when we say, ignoring the will of congress, we are talking about ignoring laws and resolutions passed by congress. When congress approves the budget or other spending appropriations, the president is expected to abide by congress's decision, not declare a phony emergency and just spend the money as he pleases.

The battle between Trump and the media started years before Trump decide to run for office. Trump played the media for publicity. He kept his name in the media with outrageous attacks on just about anyone in the public spotlight. Remarks such as "she's much to fat for that dress", "She has no talent, she should have stuck with hustling drinks" "Definitely, she's a 1 maybe a 2." "Sure, I would love to **** her, she's not good for anything else", etc, etc. There was a joke running around in the 2000's, if you haven't been attacked by Trump, you're a nobody.

So when he announced his run for president, there were literally thousands of people in the media, entertainment, and government that absolutely hated him. On the first day of his campaign he declared war on the media. Within days he was launching personnel attacks against those that pointed out his lack of qualifications. Trump learned that the best way to goad the media into a fight was to stretch the facts or just make them up. The media would go bonkers giving him so much publicity that he announced the media was paying for his campaign because he didn't need to advertise. His supporters loved it and the media look liked fools.

I had no problem with his behavior until he put his hand on the Bible and took the oath of office. Misstating facts, gross exaggerations, and lies should have stopped. However, this behavior had worked so well for him for so long. He just couldn't change. He loved that attention and the controversy and it had paid off in the past.

Just the other day, when he was announcing his national emergency to get money to build the wall, he said, "I didn't need to do this. I could have done it over a long period of time. But I'd rather do it faster". It was "pure Trump", admit that the emergency you were declaring was one big lie with a grin on your face, guaranteed to drive the media wild. Then Trump get's to say, "Lies, False News, We're going to build the wall" to a cheering crowd of supporters.

 

[BWK]

You know this law was meant to limit the powers of the president. The law allows the president to declare and emergency but also give congress the power to resend it.

I disagree that the law was ever about limiting the executive. Under the law the "emergency" exists when the president says so. Then to end the "emergency" congress must bipartisanly act to end the "emergency." The law is to allow congress not to act. It's lazy but the natural instinct is to have someone else to it for you, which is the path to totalitarianism ... or a monarchy. If the law was about anything else, it would provide an emergency automatically ends after some period of time unless Congress acts.

I think the laws really about the opposite. The revealing quote from Nixon - Frost is Nixon saying: if the president does it, it's not illegal.
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Nixon-say-When-the-President-does-it-that-means-that-it-is-not-illegal

I said the purpose of the law was to limit the president because previously there were a number of acts and court rulings under which the president might declare an emergency. The actual number was 470 which were mostly replaced by the new law. Some of these required Congressional oversight and others didn't. Some were perpetual and some had expiration periods. About the only thing in common to various statues and court rulings was the requirement to notify congress. This statue, unlike most of the previous statues, required the president to specify in detail the reason for the declaration, the actions planned, records of all orders and movement of funds, and periodic report to congress.

I agree the law stinks. The court actually removed veto power of the president making only a simple majority needed to resend the declaration. Unfortunately, congress passed and amendment restoring it. The act also gives the president far too much power without congressional approval.

The purpose of the law was to allow the president to act in a matter of hours in the case of a serious emergency where going to congress could take days or longer. It was also understood that the president would use this power for declarations that would have had unanimous support such as national disasters and attacks against the US such 911 and other matters in which passage by congress would have been a certainty. Until Trump, this was how the act was used. No president had used the act to subvert the will of congress.

Obviously, we need to change the law or future presidents will follow in Trump's footsteps which would be a transfer of power from congress to the president destroying valuable checks and balances. The problem is how do you get that legislation passed. Both sides are certainly drooling over the possibility of their man in the White House doing things that could never get passed by congress. Trump may well have opened Pandora's Box that has the potential of turning the government into an autocracy.

National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia

Mr. Flopper, thank you for background on what was and should be. It definitely sounds reasonable. However, it was also issue specific, and only one phrase nags at me, probably for the wrong reason, but here goes: "the will of congress." That would be fine except for several harsh things about this particular congress. This congress has a number of individuals who do not speak for the majority of the American people and who take swipes at the Constitution like a goat butts a dead tree. They brought in several fresh faces this term, but one of them until stringently spoken to was mouthing off about jews as though Old World hatreds were acceptable to mainstream America. One of them recently threatened to take away peoples' rewards for a job well done or an invention made useful by raising ONLY THEIR taxes to 70%, to copy the European theatre that taxes people to an early grave in its best light. Our forefathers set in place a system of economics that reward people who come up with good ideas and placed patents and copyrights to safeguard and protect their inventions, ideas, methods. and even words in the hands of the Library of Congress. Some of these innovative persons were not born with a silver spoon in their mouths and when wealth comes their way, they often do not know how to manage finances, become overly generous to relatives, hangers on, and even the best of good causes. In other words, we try not to bury the Mozarts of America in unmarked mass graves. That's a huge mistake to raise taxes on such people. And who are they? People who turned a muddy creek bed into a precious stone that sparkles in the hearts and lives of other people.

I do not have confidence in this particular congress any more than people had Richard Nixon after Watergate. I also am skeptical of a press that takes up the banner of one party just to smite the other, 98% of the time with malice aforethought, taking their clues from whoever is their favorite redistributor of wealth, which is what many framers intimated in their private letters, that they were worried if taxes were passed on the people, future generations would see this as a means of their own personal wealth and plunder the nation's treasury. What if the press changed its mind about the Democrat Party and went with the Republican Party? Neither option to me is good. The press needs to regain the public's trust, which it no longer has with the antics of putting words into the mouths of every conservative speaker who has something to tell the American public, and it always harks back to a "gotcha!" It was great for Woodward and others to make a name for themselves by taking out a President, but it wasn't great when they let go every last error go, covered up, reworded, redefined, and ignored justice obstruction for another President who could do no wrong, considering the personal benefits accorded them from their getting on the money train bandwagon. The Republican Party cleaned house promptly in 1973 and has never tried to do that again. Yet an ambitious-to-a-fault first lady was caught interfering with the lives of 900 of her husband's rival, and the press gave her a pass when she mumbled something like "I forget" to a Congress who sicks the present dogs of the press on a new President for 2 years based on a false charge by a Special Counsel who was reprimanded by the courts for doing the same darn thing a number of years ago. Many people do not know the Special Counsel appointed by Democrats destroyed the lives of innocent people back then, but the courts know it, and the popular press ignores it. The only trouble is, the popular press is now walking on thin ice as angry people cancel their subscriptions in answer for inanities leveled at innocent men who instead of violating laws as the press insists had clean hands. Kavanaugh is one of them. Donald Trump is another.

This congress has tried a new President in the press a month before he took office, in fact, the threat was made to impeach the very next morning after his bid for president was made public that he won. Many of us view that as essential prejudice: judging a man guilty or bad or the n-word or whatever the latest personal hatred may be, and in this case, prior to his placing his hand on the Bible and pledging that he would provide for the common defense with God as his witness. They've tortured the first lady for her modeling career choices, acceptable in the land of her birth for centuries, but suddenly taboo here in America by a party who celebrates a young woman's coming of age not with a Debutante party, but with her first abortion, which is paid for by taxes from people whose religious leanings teach families to love the sinner while hating the poor judgment exercised in a moment of youthful passion.

In short, this congress is not the same one as in years before. Democrats give their members a warning, never a censure. They do not behave in an equal manner for their counterparts on the other side of the aisle. I've heard the word "impeach!!!" screeched out by both sides, but when a congressman comes up with the jew-hating language used by one of them last week, the only censure you hear about is a little wrist slap and a well-rehearsed apology that came obviously from a list of things you have to say, and not from that person's black heart that will carry punishment for Jewish people for life in this country and in this congress.

This congress needs to be confronted on a number of ill-advised "wins" it claims for itself while damning the President's staff to the hell of being constantly verbally assaulted in public by an untouchable Congressman--untouchable because she's a woman, and furthermore untouchable because she is black and demands a free pass or she will start a riot somewhere in her district if anybody in charge says one single word of reprimand in public about her. Some of us think of that in terms of something a lot more sinister than mental illness. It is precocious hatred demanding unreasonable concession and it is racially biased with roots in wrongdoing against people who are no longer alive, and taken out on innocent people of the wrongs of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. Here we are in the twenty-first century. The debt is paid in full by efforts to furnish free housing, free medical, free food, free job training, jobs for everyone, equal pay, equal justice, and no matter what good is offered, it is getting to the point of nothing given is ever good enough. Uh, well, yes it is. And if we are going to have people from every background in congress, we deserve just as much wisdom from them as we had when cooler heads prevailed in congress. Where is discipline? Is that something you can only demand from white males, discipline? No, it's something the American people want from whoever is making decisions in Washington, but it's not happening in the Democrat Party, and the Democrat Party is playing brain dead right now, and for some reason, the press that used to keep politicians on an even keel are losing respect because they are unfairly targeting Democrat hate targets which is always aimed at their conservative adversaries.

The Democrat Party needs to take another approach, and that would be one of getting along with and avoidance of eating the liver of Republicans and creating the false scenario that conservatism is all bad. Um, no, it's not. It also needs to make sure it does not deliver any more frivolous lawsuits, or it will be faced with the will of the people who will override the "will of congress," if it continues with ear plugs and blinders to the majority of the people of this land, selling out to a village approach unlimited which has been tried elsewhere and winds up with deprivation of the masses and power in too few committee hands. The government needs to back off a bit, imho, and let people enjoy the earnings the sweat of their brow produces, not put everything in the pot for jew-haters you do not censure. And Maxine Waters' method of using her Congress seat to punish the Executive Branch under closer examination is pissing on the separation of powers, as are the frivolous lawsuits closed-door committees in the Democrat Party are inflicting on the President, not giving him the chance to do his job for the American people's common defense. If a dog doesn't back down, his owner buys a leash, pushes a spiral in the ground, and takes away supper for a couple of hours. Don't push that onto Republicans with frivolous lawsuits, keeping in mind that if the overbearing character assassinations continue, the bad karma this provokes is very bad for this nation, blessed by the Creator and forged by the fire of liberty and equality.

You could have saved that long winded speech by just telling us all to follow and adhere to the Constitution. That's how everyone does their job.

You think everyone does their job following the Constitution? By following the Nazi credo of criticizing and ostracizing people of Jewish extraction? Sure, they damn do.

We elect folks to do their job. Their primary job is to follow the Constitution. "PERIOD!" Trump and his butt boys are doing everything antithetical to their oaths.

 

[beautress]

If Gramm Rudman was unconst (and the Scotus said it was) I don't see how the national emergency law survives .... unless the scotus wants to play theoretical diddlylwinks by saying "congress can change it"

And McConnell will be all for amending the law to prevent misuse to just try and force spending congress won't allocate ... as soon as a dem is potus.

You know this law was meant to limit the powers of the president. The law allows the president to declare and emergency but also give congress the power to resend it.

I disagree that the law was ever about limiting the executive. Under the law the "emergency" exists when the president says so. Then to end the "emergency" congress must bipartisanly act to end the "emergency." The law is to allow congress not to act. It's lazy but the natural instinct is to have someone else to it for you, which is the path to totalitarianism ... or a monarchy. If the law was about anything else, it would provide an emergency automatically ends after some period of time unless Congress acts.

I think the laws really about the opposite. The revealing quote from Nixon - Frost is Nixon saying: if the president does it, it's not illegal.
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Nixon-say-When-the-President-does-it-that-means-that-it-is-not-illegal

I said the purpose of the law was to limit the president because previously there were a number of acts and court rulings under which the president might declare an emergency. The actual number was 470 which were mostly replaced by the new law. Some of these required Congressional oversight and others didn't. Some were perpetual and some had expiration periods. About the only thing in common to various statues and court rulings was the requirement to notify congress. This statue, unlike most of the previous statues, required the president to specify in detail the reason for the declaration, the actions planned, records of all orders and movement of funds, and periodic report to congress.

I agree the law stinks. The court actually removed veto power of the president making only a simple majority needed to resend the declaration. Unfortunately, congress passed and amendment restoring it. The act also gives the president far too much power without congressional approval.

The purpose of the law was to allow the president to act in a matter of hours in the case of a serious emergency where going to congress could take days or longer. It was also understood that the president would use this power for declarations that would have had unanimous support such as national disasters and attacks against the US such 911 and other matters in which passage by congress would have been a certainty. Until Trump, this was how the act was used. No president had used the act to subvert the will of congress.

Obviously, we need to change the law or future presidents will follow in Trump's footsteps which would be a transfer of power from congress to the president destroying valuable checks and balances. The problem is how do you get that legislation passed. Both sides are certainly drooling over the possibility of their man in the White House doing things that could never get passed by congress. Trump may well have opened Pandora's Box that has the potential of turning the government into an autocracy.

National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia

Mr. Flopper, thank you for background on what was and should be. It definitely sounds reasonable. However, it was also issue specific, and only one phrase nags at me, probably for the wrong reason, but here goes: "the will of congress." That would be fine except for several harsh things about this particular congress. This congress has a number of individuals who do not speak for the majority of the American people and who take swipes at the Constitution like a goat butts a dead tree. They brought in several fresh faces this term, but one of them until stringently spoken to was mouthing off about jews as though Old World hatreds were acceptable to mainstream America. One of them recently threatened to take away peoples' rewards for a job well done or an invention made useful by raising ONLY THEIR taxes to 70%, to copy the European theatre that taxes people to an early grave in its best light. Our forefathers set in place a system of economics that reward people who come up with good ideas and placed patents and copyrights to safeguard and protect their inventions, ideas, methods. and even words in the hands of the Library of Congress. Some of these innovative persons were not born with a silver spoon in their mouths and when wealth comes their way, they often do not know how to manage finances, become overly generous to relatives, hangers on, and even the best of good causes. In other words, we try not to bury the Mozarts of America in unmarked mass graves. That's a huge mistake to raise taxes on such people. And who are they? People who turned a muddy creek bed into a precious stone that sparkles in the hearts and lives of other people.

I do not have confidence in this particular congress any more than people had Richard Nixon after Watergate. I also am skeptical of a press that takes up the banner of one party just to smite the other, 98% of the time with malice aforethought, taking their clues from whoever is their favorite redistributor of wealth, which is what many framers intimated in their private letters, that they were worried if taxes were passed on the people, future generations would see this as a means of their own personal wealth and plunder the nation's treasury. What if the press changed its mind about the Democrat Party and went with the Republican Party? Neither option to me is good. The press needs to regain the public's trust, which it no longer has with the antics of putting words into the mouths of every conservative speaker who has something to tell the American public, and it always harks back to a "gotcha!" It was great for Woodward and others to make a name for themselves by taking out a President, but it wasn't great when they let go every last error go, covered up, reworded, redefined, and ignored justice obstruction for another President who could do no wrong, considering the personal benefits accorded them from their getting on the money train bandwagon. The Republican Party cleaned house promptly in 1973 and has never tried to do that again. Yet an ambitious-to-a-fault first lady was caught interfering with the lives of 900 of her husband's rival, and the press gave her a pass when she mumbled something like "I forget" to a Congress who sicks the present dogs of the press on a new President for 2 years based on a false charge by a Special Counsel who was reprimanded by the courts for doing the same darn thing a number of years ago. Many people do not know the Special Counsel appointed by Democrats destroyed the lives of innocent people back then, but the courts know it, and the popular press ignores it. The only trouble is, the popular press is now walking on thin ice as angry people cancel their subscriptions in answer for inanities leveled at innocent men who instead of violating laws as the press insists had clean hands. Kavanaugh is one of them. Donald Trump is another.

This congress has tried a new President in the press a month before he took office, in fact, the threat was made to impeach the very next morning after his bid for president was made public that he won. Many of us view that as essential prejudice: judging a man guilty or bad or the n-word or whatever the latest personal hatred may be, and in this case, prior to his placing his hand on the Bible and pledging that he would provide for the common defense with God as his witness. They've tortured the first lady for her modeling career choices, acceptable in the land of her birth for centuries, but suddenly taboo here in America by a party who celebrates a young woman's coming of age not with a Debutante party, but with her first abortion, which is paid for by taxes from people whose religious leanings teach families to love the sinner while hating the poor judgment exercised in a moment of youthful passion.

In short, this congress is not the same one as in years before. Democrats give their members a warning, never a censure. They do not behave in an equal manner for their counterparts on the other side of the aisle. I've heard the word "impeach!!!" screeched out by both sides, but when a congressman comes up with the jew-hating language used by one of them last week, the only censure you hear about is a little wrist slap and a well-rehearsed apology that came obviously from a list of things you have to say, and not from that person's black heart that will carry punishment for Jewish people for life in this country and in this congress.

This congress needs to be confronted on a number of ill-advised "wins" it claims for itself while damning the President's staff to the hell of being constantly verbally assaulted in public by an untouchable Congressman--untouchable because she's a woman, and furthermore untouchable because she is black and demands a free pass or she will start a riot somewhere in her district if anybody in charge says one single word of reprimand in public about her. Some of us think of that in terms of something a lot more sinister than mental illness. It is precocious hatred demanding unreasonable concession and it is racially biased with roots in wrongdoing against people who are no longer alive, and taken out on innocent people of the wrongs of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. Here we are in the twenty-first century. The debt is paid in full by efforts to furnish free housing, free medical, free food, free job training, jobs for everyone, equal pay, equal justice, and no matter what good is offered, it is getting to the point of nothing given is ever good enough. Uh, well, yes it is. And if we are going to have people from every background in congress, we deserve just as much wisdom from them as we had when cooler heads prevailed in congress. Where is discipline? Is that something you can only demand from white males, discipline? No, it's something the American people want from whoever is making decisions in Washington, but it's not happening in the Democrat Party, and the Democrat Party is playing brain dead right now, and for some reason, the press that used to keep politicians on an even keel are losing respect because they are unfairly targeting Democrat hate targets which is always aimed at their conservative adversaries.

The Democrat Party needs to take another approach, and that would be one of getting along with and avoidance of eating the liver of Republicans and creating the false scenario that conservatism is all bad. Um, no, it's not. It also needs to make sure it does not deliver any more frivolous lawsuits, or it will be faced with the will of the people who will override the "will of congress," if it continues with ear plugs and blinders to the majority of the people of this land, selling out to a village approach unlimited which has been tried elsewhere and winds up with deprivation of the masses and power in too few committee hands. The government needs to back off a bit, imho, and let people enjoy the earnings the sweat of their brow produces, not put everything in the pot for jew-haters you do not censure. And Maxine Waters' method of using her Congress seat to punish the Executive Branch under closer examination is pissing on the separation of powers, as are the frivolous lawsuits closed-door committees in the Democrat Party are inflicting on the President, not giving him the chance to do his job for the American people's common defense. If a dog doesn't back down, his owner buys a leash, pushes a spiral in the ground, and takes away supper for a couple of hours. Don't push that onto Republicans with frivolous lawsuits, keeping in mind that if the overbearing character assassinations continue, the bad karma this provokes is very bad for this nation, blessed by the Creator and forged by the fire of liberty and equality.

Just a couple of comments"
"The Will of Congress" is understood to be the laws and resolutions passed by congress, not the opinions of a few congressional leaders nor individual members. So when we say, ignoring the will of congress, we are talking about ignoring laws and resolutions passed by congress. When congress approves the budget or other spending appropriations, the president is expected to abide by congress's decision, not declare a phony emergency and just spend the money as he pleases.

The battle between Trump and the media started years before Trump decide to run for office. Trump played the media for publicity. He kept his name in the media with outrageous attacks on just about anyone in the public spotlight. Remarks such as "she's much to fat for that dress", "She has no talent, she should have stuck with hustling drinks" "Definitely, she's a 1 maybe a 2." "Sure, I would love to **** her, she's not good for anything else", etc, etc. There was a joke running around in the 2000's, if you haven't been attacked by Trump, you're a nobody.

So when he announced his run for president, there were literally thousands of people in the media, entertainment, and government that absolutely hated him. On the first day of his campaign he declared war on the media. Within days he was launching personnel attacks against those that pointed out his lack of qualifications. Trump learned that the best way to goad the media into a fight was to stretch the facts or just make them up. The media would go bonkers giving him so much publicity that he announced the media was paying for his campaign because he didn't need to advertise. His supporters loved it and the media look liked fools.

I had no problem with his behavior until he put his hand on the Bible and took the oath of office. Misstating facts, gross exaggerations, and lies should have stopped. However, this behavior had worked so well for him for so long. He just couldn't change. He loved that attention and the controversy and it had paid off in the past.

Just the other day, when he was announcing his national emergency to get money to build the wall, he said, "I didn't need to do this. I could have done it over a long period of time. But I'd rather do it faster". It was "pure Trump", admit that the emergency you were declaring was one big lie with a grin on your face, guaranteed to drive the media wild. Then Trump get's to say, "Lies, False News, We're going to build the wall" to a cheering crowd of supporters.

Thank you for explaining why some people hate Trump. I don't read tabloids and didn't know that the repita, repita, repita, repita by DNC loyalists would keep in in the ever-present mind of easy-to-fool campus voters and the View watchers.

I'm glad you mentioned the will of Congress. Even so, there's a thin line of responsibility between what a President does, and what the Congress does. Some of the discord going on there is not only furnished by partisan reporters and committees, but is rebutted by partisan advisers on the opposite aisle.

President Trump's message about making the nation a leader again, seems he forgot to beg the Democrats to go along with it, and is going forward with it anyway. For that he will likely receive the maximum press ninnyhammering, constant and regurgitated alleged high crimes charges that cannot be proved to be against the law levied by Pelosi and Co. This will frustrate the already-beleaguered border states who suffer the brunt of the murders, drug bartering, human trafficking, and starving masses looking for work.

And I thank President Trump for trying to show mercy on these states in the absence of congressional caring, and glad that Trump cares about the conundrum the teachers are having, trying hard to get some of their border children through six years of elementary work in only 2 years. I heard him acknowledging these teachers and other collateral victims in his speech. At least one person in this nation is willing to face the sour will of the Congress that does not appear to give a damn how hard it's been for them to furnish educations to the children of this unfortunate situation they're in.

The will of the Congress seems merciless to the taxpayers, but this congress was voted in because people really believed the false charges against President Trump about Russian "collusion." It was all political baloney, and those perpetrating it knew that it was indeed hubris, but wanted to use the hatred against Republicans running for Congress so they could further burden the border states who didn't vote Democrat either.

 

[bodecea]

Yet that Constitution gives him the power to declare such an emergency and to control border security. Something the Dems refuse to do.

The courts will slap his obese, orange, ass down....

According to the Federal Register, 58 national emergencies have been declared since the National Emergency Act of 1976 was signed into law by President Gerald Ford.
And 31 have been annually renewed and are currently still in effect, as listed in the Federal Register.

Nov 14, 1979: The National Emergency With Respect to Iran, in response to the Iran hostage crisis.

Nov 14, 1994: The National Emergency With Respect to the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, that combined two previous national emergencies focused on weapons of mass destruction.

Jan. 2, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process placed economic sanctions in response to the Jerusalem bombing.

March 15, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources was an effort to prevent potential deals between oil companies.

October 21, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers Centered in Colombia was declared after increased reports of drug cartels laundering money through American companies.

March 1, 1996: The National Emergency With Respect to Regulations of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba was after civilian planes were shot down near Cuba

November 3, 1997: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan implemented economic and trade sanctions.

June 26, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans imposed sanctions on those aiding Albanian insurgents in Macedonia

Aug 17, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Export Control Regulations renewed presidential power to control exports in a national emergency since the Export Administration Act of 1979 lapsed.

Sept 14, 2001: The National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks was in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

Sept 23, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism was in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

March 6, 2003: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe was an effort to punish associates of Robert Mugabe.

May 22, 2003: The National Emergency With Respect to Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest was issued following the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

May 11, 2004: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria was in response to Syria supporting terrorist activity in Iraq.

June 16, 2006: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus was in response to charges of fraud in the Belarus presidential election.

Oct 27, 2006: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was in response to violence around the Congolese presidential election runoff.

Aug 1, 2007: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon was in response to a breakdown of the rule of law in Lebanon.

June 26, 2008: The National Emergency With Respect to Continuing Certain Restrictions with Respect to North Korea cited the risk of proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material. President Trump renewed this June 22, 2018 citing the “existence and risk of proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material on the Korean Peninsula and the actions and policies of the Government of North Korea continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat.”


April 12, 2010: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia was in respect to threats posed by Somali pirates.

February 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya froze the assets of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

July 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Transnational Criminals was in response to the rise in crime by specific organizations: Los Zetas (Mexico), The Brothers’ Circle (former Soviet Union countries), the Yakuza (Japan), and the Camorra (Italy).

May 16, 2012: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen addressed political unrest within the Yemen government.

March 16, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine was in response to the Russian invasion of Crimea.

April 3, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan was in response to the ongoing civil war.

May 12, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic was in response to violence towards humanitarian aid workers.

March 8, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela was in response to human rights violations.

April 1, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities was in response to Chinese cyber attacks on the U.S.

Nov 23, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi was declared after a failed coup.

Dec 20, 2017: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption imposed sanctions on the Myanmar general for his role persecuting Rohingya Muslims.

Sept 12, 2018: The National Emergency With Respect to Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election attempted to prevent any meddling with the 2018 midterm elections amid the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Nov 27, 2018: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua was declared by President Trump in response to violence and the Ortega regime’s “systematic dismantling and undermining of democratic institutions and the rule of law” that constitutes an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

Go Fish

Real emergencies....none to fulfill a campaign promise.....none stealing money from other agencies....nice try....

/----/ Oh because you say so????

Exactly ... we elected a POTUS to make those decisions not some dumbass libtards on the internet

We elect a POTUS to take Legislative powers away from the Legislature, Comrade? You might want to brush up on your Russian translation of our Constitution. Focus on Article I.

 

[Flopper]

When an four year old does not get his way...he throws himself on the floor and kicks and screams....that is what the National Emergency is doing.

But the courts will tell him to pick his fat orange ass up off the floor and finally read the Constitution.

It will take about a year for it to wind through the various courts to reach the Supreme Court unless DC sues which would be almost a straight shot to the supreme court. Many States are filing. Even Elpaso County Tx file yesterday. I would estimate that there is a 75-25 chance that the Supreme court will rule against him. If they deal strictly with the rule of law then he will lose 100% but there is always that 25% chance they may wake up with the same mass idiocy and go the other way. Anyone that says the Supreme Court is a sure thing is just kidding themselves.

Yes, Trump is trying to get reelected. He knows if the Dems run a viable candidate he's post toasties. So he does this shot in the dark. He has a chance to come out smelling like a rose just before November 2020. It's never been about the wall. It's been about Trump keeping power.

If it really was about the wall, the last two Presidents have built an average of 73 miles of new Barriers and Walls each year in 8 years. In the 2 years that Trump has been in office, he has added exactly Zero inches of additional Barriers along the border. In fact, he's decreased the number of Border Patrols along the Texas Border. The way I see it, the part about 55 miles is like probation. Either build it, which is 55 miles more than he has built in the last 2 years or be in violation of the 2006 Border Security Law which he already is. Congress already has grounds to at least censor him.

And then there are the Illegal Immigrant Workers. Illegal Immigrant Workers have built most of his stateside golf courses and other projects. And many still work there. The last batch was fired to make it look good. He uses Illegals because he doesn't want to pay for US Born Heavy Equipment Operators and such. So it's not about Illegals taking jobs. On a Trump Sponsored Job, they already have.

I paid in more taxes last year than the year before by quite a margin. I am lower middle class. I notice that that class got a tax increase. The money to do the tax break that some enjoyed (mostly the over 150K class) had to come from somewhere. The Books had to even out or it would have never been accepted. So the largest class gets the tax increase while the smallest class gets the tax breaks. Trump Industries got one hell of a tax break. So it was not good for America unless Trump Industries IS America and the rest of us are just along for the ride.

The sooner we get a handle on him the better. I used to think that we were better off with Trump than Pence. I was wrong. Now I want to protect Pence because the other Option is Pelosi and none of us want to go there. But we need to get Trump out of office. Not to worry, I am quite sure that either Maryland or New York State has a nice home waiting from him and possibly his 2 sons and son-in-law.

By any stretch of the imagination, his declaration of an emergency on border is complete nonsense. In announcing his declaration, he all but said it was, "I didn't need to do this. I could have done the wall over a longer period of time. But I wanted to get it done faster". If the courts decide the lack of any definition of a national emergency in the law, allows the president to declare anything an emergency from an attack on the US to a dog peeing on his favorite rose bush then it may be upheld. However, if the courts consider the principle of reasonableness then Trump might be in trouble.

Aside from the issue of being an emergency, there is always issues as to the legality of taking money allocated by congress to fulfill the requirements of other laws. Then theirs a lawsuit filed by landowners and the ACLU has said they are filing suite. There's going to be at least half dozens suits filled on different grounds.

Sounds like it's going to be a long fight.

 

[Flopper]

You know this law was meant to limit the powers of the president. The law allows the president to declare and emergency but also give congress the power to resend it.

I disagree that the law was ever about limiting the executive. Under the law the "emergency" exists when the president says so. Then to end the "emergency" congress must bipartisanly act to end the "emergency." The law is to allow congress not to act. It's lazy but the natural instinct is to have someone else to it for you, which is the path to totalitarianism ... or a monarchy. If the law was about anything else, it would provide an emergency automatically ends after some period of time unless Congress acts.

I think the laws really about the opposite. The revealing quote from Nixon - Frost is Nixon saying: if the president does it, it's not illegal.
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Nixon-say-When-the-President-does-it-that-means-that-it-is-not-illegal

I said the purpose of the law was to limit the president because previously there were a number of acts and court rulings under which the president might declare an emergency. The actual number was 470 which were mostly replaced by the new law. Some of these required Congressional oversight and others didn't. Some were perpetual and some had expiration periods. About the only thing in common to various statues and court rulings was the requirement to notify congress. This statue, unlike most of the previous statues, required the president to specify in detail the reason for the declaration, the actions planned, records of all orders and movement of funds, and periodic report to congress.

I agree the law stinks. The court actually removed veto power of the president making only a simple majority needed to resend the declaration. Unfortunately, congress passed and amendment restoring it. The act also gives the president far too much power without congressional approval.

The purpose of the law was to allow the president to act in a matter of hours in the case of a serious emergency where going to congress could take days or longer. It was also understood that the president would use this power for declarations that would have had unanimous support such as national disasters and attacks against the US such 911 and other matters in which passage by congress would have been a certainty. Until Trump, this was how the act was used. No president had used the act to subvert the will of congress.

Obviously, we need to change the law or future presidents will follow in Trump's footsteps which would be a transfer of power from congress to the president destroying valuable checks and balances. The problem is how do you get that legislation passed. Both sides are certainly drooling over the possibility of their man in the White House doing things that could never get passed by congress. Trump may well have opened Pandora's Box that has the potential of turning the government into an autocracy.

National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia

Mr. Flopper, thank you for background on what was and should be. It definitely sounds reasonable. However, it was also issue specific, and only one phrase nags at me, probably for the wrong reason, but here goes: "the will of congress." That would be fine except for several harsh things about this particular congress. This congress has a number of individuals who do not speak for the majority of the American people and who take swipes at the Constitution like a goat butts a dead tree. They brought in several fresh faces this term, but one of them until stringently spoken to was mouthing off about jews as though Old World hatreds were acceptable to mainstream America. One of them recently threatened to take away peoples' rewards for a job well done or an invention made useful by raising ONLY THEIR taxes to 70%, to copy the European theatre that taxes people to an early grave in its best light. Our forefathers set in place a system of economics that reward people who come up with good ideas and placed patents and copyrights to safeguard and protect their inventions, ideas, methods. and even words in the hands of the Library of Congress. Some of these innovative persons were not born with a silver spoon in their mouths and when wealth comes their way, they often do not know how to manage finances, become overly generous to relatives, hangers on, and even the best of good causes. In other words, we try not to bury the Mozarts of America in unmarked mass graves. That's a huge mistake to raise taxes on such people. And who are they? People who turned a muddy creek bed into a precious stone that sparkles in the hearts and lives of other people.

I do not have confidence in this particular congress any more than people had Richard Nixon after Watergate. I also am skeptical of a press that takes up the banner of one party just to smite the other, 98% of the time with malice aforethought, taking their clues from whoever is their favorite redistributor of wealth, which is what many framers intimated in their private letters, that they were worried if taxes were passed on the people, future generations would see this as a means of their own personal wealth and plunder the nation's treasury. What if the press changed its mind about the Democrat Party and went with the Republican Party? Neither option to me is good. The press needs to regain the public's trust, which it no longer has with the antics of putting words into the mouths of every conservative speaker who has something to tell the American public, and it always harks back to a "gotcha!" It was great for Woodward and others to make a name for themselves by taking out a President, but it wasn't great when they let go every last error go, covered up, reworded, redefined, and ignored justice obstruction for another President who could do no wrong, considering the personal benefits accorded them from their getting on the money train bandwagon. The Republican Party cleaned house promptly in 1973 and has never tried to do that again. Yet an ambitious-to-a-fault first lady was caught interfering with the lives of 900 of her husband's rival, and the press gave her a pass when she mumbled something like "I forget" to a Congress who sicks the present dogs of the press on a new President for 2 years based on a false charge by a Special Counsel who was reprimanded by the courts for doing the same darn thing a number of years ago. Many people do not know the Special Counsel appointed by Democrats destroyed the lives of innocent people back then, but the courts know it, and the popular press ignores it. The only trouble is, the popular press is now walking on thin ice as angry people cancel their subscriptions in answer for inanities leveled at innocent men who instead of violating laws as the press insists had clean hands. Kavanaugh is one of them. Donald Trump is another.

This congress has tried a new President in the press a month before he took office, in fact, the threat was made to impeach the very next morning after his bid for president was made public that he won. Many of us view that as essential prejudice: judging a man guilty or bad or the n-word or whatever the latest personal hatred may be, and in this case, prior to his placing his hand on the Bible and pledging that he would provide for the common defense with God as his witness. They've tortured the first lady for her modeling career choices, acceptable in the land of her birth for centuries, but suddenly taboo here in America by a party who celebrates a young woman's coming of age not with a Debutante party, but with her first abortion, which is paid for by taxes from people whose religious leanings teach families to love the sinner while hating the poor judgment exercised in a moment of youthful passion.

In short, this congress is not the same one as in years before. Democrats give their members a warning, never a censure. They do not behave in an equal manner for their counterparts on the other side of the aisle. I've heard the word "impeach!!!" screeched out by both sides, but when a congressman comes up with the jew-hating language used by one of them last week, the only censure you hear about is a little wrist slap and a well-rehearsed apology that came obviously from a list of things you have to say, and not from that person's black heart that will carry punishment for Jewish people for life in this country and in this congress.

This congress needs to be confronted on a number of ill-advised "wins" it claims for itself while damning the President's staff to the hell of being constantly verbally assaulted in public by an untouchable Congressman--untouchable because she's a woman, and furthermore untouchable because she is black and demands a free pass or she will start a riot somewhere in her district if anybody in charge says one single word of reprimand in public about her. Some of us think of that in terms of something a lot more sinister than mental illness. It is precocious hatred demanding unreasonable concession and it is racially biased with roots in wrongdoing against people who are no longer alive, and taken out on innocent people of the wrongs of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. Here we are in the twenty-first century. The debt is paid in full by efforts to furnish free housing, free medical, free food, free job training, jobs for everyone, equal pay, equal justice, and no matter what good is offered, it is getting to the point of nothing given is ever good enough. Uh, well, yes it is. And if we are going to have people from every background in congress, we deserve just as much wisdom from them as we had when cooler heads prevailed in congress. Where is discipline? Is that something you can only demand from white males, discipline? No, it's something the American people want from whoever is making decisions in Washington, but it's not happening in the Democrat Party, and the Democrat Party is playing brain dead right now, and for some reason, the press that used to keep politicians on an even keel are losing respect because they are unfairly targeting Democrat hate targets which is always aimed at their conservative adversaries.

The Democrat Party needs to take another approach, and that would be one of getting along with and avoidance of eating the liver of Republicans and creating the false scenario that conservatism is all bad. Um, no, it's not. It also needs to make sure it does not deliver any more frivolous lawsuits, or it will be faced with the will of the people who will override the "will of congress," if it continues with ear plugs and blinders to the majority of the people of this land, selling out to a village approach unlimited which has been tried elsewhere and winds up with deprivation of the masses and power in too few committee hands. The government needs to back off a bit, imho, and let people enjoy the earnings the sweat of their brow produces, not put everything in the pot for jew-haters you do not censure. And Maxine Waters' method of using her Congress seat to punish the Executive Branch under closer examination is pissing on the separation of powers, as are the frivolous lawsuits closed-door committees in the Democrat Party are inflicting on the President, not giving him the chance to do his job for the American people's common defense. If a dog doesn't back down, his owner buys a leash, pushes a spiral in the ground, and takes away supper for a couple of hours. Don't push that onto Republicans with frivolous lawsuits, keeping in mind that if the overbearing character assassinations continue, the bad karma this provokes is very bad for this nation, blessed by the Creator and forged by the fire of liberty and equality.

Just a couple of comments"
"The Will of Congress" is understood to be the laws and resolutions passed by congress, not the opinions of a few congressional leaders nor individual members. So when we say, ignoring the will of congress, we are talking about ignoring laws and resolutions passed by congress. When congress approves the budget or other spending appropriations, the president is expected to abide by congress's decision, not declare a phony emergency and just spend the money as he pleases.

The battle between Trump and the media started years before Trump decide to run for office. Trump played the media for publicity. He kept his name in the media with outrageous attacks on just about anyone in the public spotlight. Remarks such as "she's much to fat for that dress", "She has no talent, she should have stuck with hustling drinks" "Definitely, she's a 1 maybe a 2." "Sure, I would love to **** her, she's not good for anything else", etc, etc. There was a joke running around in the 2000's, if you haven't been attacked by Trump, you're a nobody.

So when he announced his run for president, there were literally thousands of people in the media, entertainment, and government that absolutely hated him. On the first day of his campaign he declared war on the media. Within days he was launching personnel attacks against those that pointed out his lack of qualifications. Trump learned that the best way to goad the media into a fight was to stretch the facts or just make them up. The media would go bonkers giving him so much publicity that he announced the media was paying for his campaign because he didn't need to advertise. His supporters loved it and the media look liked fools.

I had no problem with his behavior until he put his hand on the Bible and took the oath of office. Misstating facts, gross exaggerations, and lies should have stopped. However, this behavior had worked so well for him for so long. He just couldn't change. He loved that attention and the controversy and it had paid off in the past.

Just the other day, when he was announcing his national emergency to get money to build the wall, he said, "I didn't need to do this. I could have done it over a long period of time. But I'd rather do it faster". It was "pure Trump", admit that the emergency you were declaring was one big lie with a grin on your face, guaranteed to drive the media wild. Then Trump get's to say, "Lies, False News, We're going to build the wall" to a cheering crowd of supporters.

Thank you for explaining why some people hate Trump. I don't read tabloids and didn't know that the repita, repita, repita, repita by DNC loyalists would keep in in the ever-present mind of easy-to-fool campus voters and the View watchers.

I'm glad you mentioned the will of Congress. Even so, there's a thin line of responsibility between what a President does, and what the Congress does. Some of the discord going on there is not only furnished by partisan reporters and committees, but is rebutted by partisan advisers on the opposite aisle.

President Trump's message about making the nation a leader again, seems he forgot to beg the Democrats to go along with it, and is going forward with it anyway. For that he will likely receive the maximum press ninnyhammering, constant and regurgitated alleged high crimes charges that cannot be proved to be against the law levied by Pelosi and Co. This will frustrate the already-beleaguered border states who suffer the brunt of the murders, drug bartering, human trafficking, and starving masses looking for work.

And I thank President Trump for trying to show mercy on these states in the absence of congressional caring, and glad that Trump cares about the conundrum the teachers are having, trying hard to get some of their border children through six years of elementary work in only 2 years. I heard him acknowledging these teachers and other collateral victims in his speech. At least one person in this nation is willing to face the sour will of the Congress that does not appear to give a damn how hard it's been for them to furnish educations to the children of this unfortunate situation they're in.

The will of the Congress seems merciless to the taxpayers, but this congress was voted in because people really believed the false charges against President Trump about Russian "collusion." It was all political baloney, and those perpetrating it knew that it was indeed hubris, but wanted to use the hatred against Republicans running for Congress so they could further burden the border states who didn't vote Democrat either.

I doubt the impact of the Russia investigations was the primary factor in democrats capturing the House. In 2016 about 4.4 million Obama voters stayed home, some because they weren't enthusiastic about Hillary and others because they believed Trump had no chance of winning. By 2018, the shock of Trump winning had sunk in and the realization of what would happen it republicans controlled congress for two more years. Also, many people believed that once he was president, Trump would act like a president and stop all the crazy tweets, hate speech, lies, and exaggerations. However, within days of Trump taking office he dispelled any hope that he would change. In fact, he got a lot worse.

Crime along the border continues to be a major theme for Trump. Shocking images and anecdotes of crime along the border fuel his narrative, but rarely are facts deployed to make his case. And there is good reason. The fact is crime along the Mexican border is lower than in the rest of the country. If the entire United States in 2017 had crime rates identical to those in counties along the U.S.-Mexico border, there would have been 5,720 fewer homicides, 159,036 fewer property crimes, and 99,205 fewer violent crimes across the entire country. Before you scream false news, you should know that this data is from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2017.

Crime Along the Mexican Border Is Lower Than in the Rest of the Country

 

[beautress]

I disagree that the law was ever about limiting the executive. Under the law the "emergency" exists when the president says so. Then to end the "emergency" congress must bipartisanly act to end the "emergency." The law is to allow congress not to act. It's lazy but the natural instinct is to have someone else to it for you, which is the path to totalitarianism ... or a monarchy. If the law was about anything else, it would provide an emergency automatically ends after some period of time unless Congress acts.

I think the laws really about the opposite. The revealing quote from Nixon - Frost is Nixon saying: if the president does it, it's not illegal.
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Nixon-say-When-the-President-does-it-that-means-that-it-is-not-illegal

I said the purpose of the law was to limit the president because previously there were a number of acts and court rulings under which the president might declare an emergency. The actual number was 470 which were mostly replaced by the new law. Some of these required Congressional oversight and others didn't. Some were perpetual and some had expiration periods. About the only thing in common to various statues and court rulings was the requirement to notify congress. This statue, unlike most of the previous statues, required the president to specify in detail the reason for the declaration, the actions planned, records of all orders and movement of funds, and periodic report to congress.

I agree the law stinks. The court actually removed veto power of the president making only a simple majority needed to resend the declaration. Unfortunately, congress passed and amendment restoring it. The act also gives the president far too much power without congressional approval.

The purpose of the law was to allow the president to act in a matter of hours in the case of a serious emergency where going to congress could take days or longer. It was also understood that the president would use this power for declarations that would have had unanimous support such as national disasters and attacks against the US such 911 and other matters in which passage by congress would have been a certainty. Until Trump, this was how the act was used. No president had used the act to subvert the will of congress.

Obviously, we need to change the law or future presidents will follow in Trump's footsteps which would be a transfer of power from congress to the president destroying valuable checks and balances. The problem is how do you get that legislation passed. Both sides are certainly drooling over the possibility of their man in the White House doing things that could never get passed by congress. Trump may well have opened Pandora's Box that has the potential of turning the government into an autocracy.

National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia

Mr. Flopper, thank you for background on what was and should be. It definitely sounds reasonable. However, it was also issue specific, and only one phrase nags at me, probably for the wrong reason, but here goes: "the will of congress." That would be fine except for several harsh things about this particular congress. This congress has a number of individuals who do not speak for the majority of the American people and who take swipes at the Constitution like a goat butts a dead tree. They brought in several fresh faces this term, but one of them until stringently spoken to was mouthing off about jews as though Old World hatreds were acceptable to mainstream America. One of them recently threatened to take away peoples' rewards for a job well done or an invention made useful by raising ONLY THEIR taxes to 70%, to copy the European theatre that taxes people to an early grave in its best light. Our forefathers set in place a system of economics that reward people who come up with good ideas and placed patents and copyrights to safeguard and protect their inventions, ideas, methods. and even words in the hands of the Library of Congress. Some of these innovative persons were not born with a silver spoon in their mouths and when wealth comes their way, they often do not know how to manage finances, become overly generous to relatives, hangers on, and even the best of good causes. In other words, we try not to bury the Mozarts of America in unmarked mass graves. That's a huge mistake to raise taxes on such people. And who are they? People who turned a muddy creek bed into a precious stone that sparkles in the hearts and lives of other people.

I do not have confidence in this particular congress any more than people had Richard Nixon after Watergate. I also am skeptical of a press that takes up the banner of one party just to smite the other, 98% of the time with malice aforethought, taking their clues from whoever is their favorite redistributor of wealth, which is what many framers intimated in their private letters, that they were worried if taxes were passed on the people, future generations would see this as a means of their own personal wealth and plunder the nation's treasury. What if the press changed its mind about the Democrat Party and went with the Republican Party? Neither option to me is good. The press needs to regain the public's trust, which it no longer has with the antics of putting words into the mouths of every conservative speaker who has something to tell the American public, and it always harks back to a "gotcha!" It was great for Woodward and others to make a name for themselves by taking out a President, but it wasn't great when they let go every last error go, covered up, reworded, redefined, and ignored justice obstruction for another President who could do no wrong, considering the personal benefits accorded them from their getting on the money train bandwagon. The Republican Party cleaned house promptly in 1973 and has never tried to do that again. Yet an ambitious-to-a-fault first lady was caught interfering with the lives of 900 of her husband's rival, and the press gave her a pass when she mumbled something like "I forget" to a Congress who sicks the present dogs of the press on a new President for 2 years based on a false charge by a Special Counsel who was reprimanded by the courts for doing the same darn thing a number of years ago. Many people do not know the Special Counsel appointed by Democrats destroyed the lives of innocent people back then, but the courts know it, and the popular press ignores it. The only trouble is, the popular press is now walking on thin ice as angry people cancel their subscriptions in answer for inanities leveled at innocent men who instead of violating laws as the press insists had clean hands. Kavanaugh is one of them. Donald Trump is another.

This congress has tried a new President in the press a month before he took office, in fact, the threat was made to impeach the very next morning after his bid for president was made public that he won. Many of us view that as essential prejudice: judging a man guilty or bad or the n-word or whatever the latest personal hatred may be, and in this case, prior to his placing his hand on the Bible and pledging that he would provide for the common defense with God as his witness. They've tortured the first lady for her modeling career choices, acceptable in the land of her birth for centuries, but suddenly taboo here in America by a party who celebrates a young woman's coming of age not with a Debutante party, but with her first abortion, which is paid for by taxes from people whose religious leanings teach families to love the sinner while hating the poor judgment exercised in a moment of youthful passion.

In short, this congress is not the same one as in years before. Democrats give their members a warning, never a censure. They do not behave in an equal manner for their counterparts on the other side of the aisle. I've heard the word "impeach!!!" screeched out by both sides, but when a congressman comes up with the jew-hating language used by one of them last week, the only censure you hear about is a little wrist slap and a well-rehearsed apology that came obviously from a list of things you have to say, and not from that person's black heart that will carry punishment for Jewish people for life in this country and in this congress.

This congress needs to be confronted on a number of ill-advised "wins" it claims for itself while damning the President's staff to the hell of being constantly verbally assaulted in public by an untouchable Congressman--untouchable because she's a woman, and furthermore untouchable because she is black and demands a free pass or she will start a riot somewhere in her district if anybody in charge says one single word of reprimand in public about her. Some of us think of that in terms of something a lot more sinister than mental illness. It is precocious hatred demanding unreasonable concession and it is racially biased with roots in wrongdoing against people who are no longer alive, and taken out on innocent people of the wrongs of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. Here we are in the twenty-first century. The debt is paid in full by efforts to furnish free housing, free medical, free food, free job training, jobs for everyone, equal pay, equal justice, and no matter what good is offered, it is getting to the point of nothing given is ever good enough. Uh, well, yes it is. And if we are going to have people from every background in congress, we deserve just as much wisdom from them as we had when cooler heads prevailed in congress. Where is discipline? Is that something you can only demand from white males, discipline? No, it's something the American people want from whoever is making decisions in Washington, but it's not happening in the Democrat Party, and the Democrat Party is playing brain dead right now, and for some reason, the press that used to keep politicians on an even keel are losing respect because they are unfairly targeting Democrat hate targets which is always aimed at their conservative adversaries.

The Democrat Party needs to take another approach, and that would be one of getting along with and avoidance of eating the liver of Republicans and creating the false scenario that conservatism is all bad. Um, no, it's not. It also needs to make sure it does not deliver any more frivolous lawsuits, or it will be faced with the will of the people who will override the "will of congress," if it continues with ear plugs and blinders to the majority of the people of this land, selling out to a village approach unlimited which has been tried elsewhere and winds up with deprivation of the masses and power in too few committee hands. The government needs to back off a bit, imho, and let people enjoy the earnings the sweat of their brow produces, not put everything in the pot for jew-haters you do not censure. And Maxine Waters' method of using her Congress seat to punish the Executive Branch under closer examination is pissing on the separation of powers, as are the frivolous lawsuits closed-door committees in the Democrat Party are inflicting on the President, not giving him the chance to do his job for the American people's common defense. If a dog doesn't back down, his owner buys a leash, pushes a spiral in the ground, and takes away supper for a couple of hours. Don't push that onto Republicans with frivolous lawsuits, keeping in mind that if the overbearing character assassinations continue, the bad karma this provokes is very bad for this nation, blessed by the Creator and forged by the fire of liberty and equality.

Just a couple of comments"
"The Will of Congress" is understood to be the laws and resolutions passed by congress, not the opinions of a few congressional leaders nor individual members. So when we say, ignoring the will of congress, we are talking about ignoring laws and resolutions passed by congress. When congress approves the budget or other spending appropriations, the president is expected to abide by congress's decision, not declare a phony emergency and just spend the money as he pleases.

The battle between Trump and the media started years before Trump decide to run for office. Trump played the media for publicity. He kept his name in the media with outrageous attacks on just about anyone in the public spotlight. Remarks such as "she's much to fat for that dress", "She has no talent, she should have stuck with hustling drinks" "Definitely, she's a 1 maybe a 2." "Sure, I would love to **** her, she's not good for anything else", etc, etc. There was a joke running around in the 2000's, if you haven't been attacked by Trump, you're a nobody.

So when he announced his run for president, there were literally thousands of people in the media, entertainment, and government that absolutely hated him. On the first day of his campaign he declared war on the media. Within days he was launching personnel attacks against those that pointed out his lack of qualifications. Trump learned that the best way to goad the media into a fight was to stretch the facts or just make them up. The media would go bonkers giving him so much publicity that he announced the media was paying for his campaign because he didn't need to advertise. His supporters loved it and the media look liked fools.

I had no problem with his behavior until he put his hand on the Bible and took the oath of office. Misstating facts, gross exaggerations, and lies should have stopped. However, this behavior had worked so well for him for so long. He just couldn't change. He loved that attention and the controversy and it had paid off in the past.

Just the other day, when he was announcing his national emergency to get money to build the wall, he said, "I didn't need to do this. I could have done it over a long period of time. But I'd rather do it faster". It was "pure Trump", admit that the emergency you were declaring was one big lie with a grin on your face, guaranteed to drive the media wild. Then Trump get's to say, "Lies, False News, We're going to build the wall" to a cheering crowd of supporters.

Thank you for explaining why some people hate Trump. I don't read tabloids and didn't know that the repita, repita, repita, repita by DNC loyalists would keep in in the ever-present mind of easy-to-fool campus voters and the View watchers.

I'm glad you mentioned the will of Congress. Even so, there's a thin line of responsibility between what a President does, and what the Congress does. Some of the discord going on there is not only furnished by partisan reporters and committees, but is rebutted by partisan advisers on the opposite aisle.

President Trump's message about making the nation a leader again, seems he forgot to beg the Democrats to go along with it, and is going forward with it anyway. For that he will likely receive the maximum press ninnyhammering, constant and regurgitated alleged high crimes charges that cannot be proved to be against the law levied by Pelosi and Co. This will frustrate the already-beleaguered border states who suffer the brunt of the murders, drug bartering, human trafficking, and starving masses looking for work.

And I thank President Trump for trying to show mercy on these states in the absence of congressional caring, and glad that Trump cares about the conundrum the teachers are having, trying hard to get some of their border children through six years of elementary work in only 2 years. I heard him acknowledging these teachers and other collateral victims in his speech. At least one person in this nation is willing to face the sour will of the Congress that does not appear to give a damn how hard it's been for them to furnish educations to the children of this unfortunate situation they're in.

The will of the Congress seems merciless to the taxpayers, but this congress was voted in because people really believed the false charges against President Trump about Russian "collusion." It was all political baloney, and those perpetrating it knew that it was indeed hubris, but wanted to use the hatred against Republicans running for Congress so they could further burden the border states who didn't vote Democrat either.

I doubt the impact of the Russia investigations was the primary factor in democrats capturing the House. In 2016 about 4.4 million Obama voters stayed home, some because they weren't enthusiastic about Hillary and others because they believed Trump had no chance of winning. By 2018, the shock of Trump winning had sunk in and the realization of what would happen it republicans controlled congress for two more years. Also, many people believed that once he was president, Trump would act like a president and stop all the crazy tweets, hate speech, lies, and exaggerations. However, within days of Trump taking office he dispelled any hope that he would change. In fact, he got a lot worse.

Crime along the border continues to be a major theme for Trump. Shocking images and anecdotes of crime along the border fuel his narrative, but rarely are facts deployed to make his case. And there is good reason. The fact is crime along the Mexican border is lower than in the rest of the country. If the entire United States in 2017 had crime rates identical to those in counties along the U.S.-Mexico border, there would have been 5,720 fewer homicides, 159,036 fewer property crimes, and 99,205 fewer violent crimes across the entire country. Before you scream false news, you should know that this data is from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2017.

Crime Along the Mexican Border Is Lower Than in the Rest of the Country

One point President Trump brought up to one of the reporters who kept ninnyhammering him over statistics was that his information came from a different source. Trumps stats came from Homeland Security that show the problem to be far worse than the reporters' insufficiently-based stats. No one can touch Homeland Security's means of information. No one.

My family lived near the border of Laredo/Nueva Laredo when I was young. My memories of the land in the surrounding general area included overlooking the Rio Grande that at the time was low. I'm sure it's a lot more grown up today than it was in 1958, but I was wondering how they could call someone a wetback who waded through that, because their back would likely be dry. But what does a kid know?

But recalling that day, the river could have been low for a lot of reasons including drought or just a seasonal oddity for one reason or another. Where we stood on the outskirts of that not too large of a town back then is probably a neighborhood or even a city block by now. We spent time in Nueva Laredo, too. It was fascinating for a kid knowing I was on foreign soil for the first time in my life, and it didn't feel much different, but the market we went to was so pretty and colorful. Even so, however far it would be to the nearest ranch or ranchette along the border today, it'd be a pretty austere scene, and I'm not sure where the fences are in place along the Texas border. Probably not too many miles of it considering that only 700 of the 4000 miles as I understand it (and not from Homeland Security, either) along the entire border have no fence, no berm, no wall. We will have to wait and see what goes down on Monday. I think I read about lawsuits, etc. being filed to delay or obstruct the building of the wall, which the Congress has the right to level. I'm sorry it had to come to this stuff I'm hearing is going to be engaged in. My side is pretty ticked. Your side is pretty ticked. I hope an early decision is made if the suit is brought forward, and that the wall gets built.

 

[beautress]

Yet that Constitution gives him the power to declare such an emergency and to control border security. Something the Dems refuse to do.

The courts will slap his obese, orange, ass down....

According to the Federal Register, 58 national emergencies have been declared since the National Emergency Act of 1976 was signed into law by President Gerald Ford.
And 31 have been annually renewed and are currently still in effect, as listed in the Federal Register.

Nov 14, 1979: The National Emergency With Respect to Iran, in response to the Iran hostage crisis.

Nov 14, 1994: The National Emergency With Respect to the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, that combined two previous national emergencies focused on weapons of mass destruction.

Jan. 2, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process placed economic sanctions in response to the Jerusalem bombing.

March 15, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources was an effort to prevent potential deals between oil companies.

October 21, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers Centered in Colombia was declared after increased reports of drug cartels laundering money through American companies.

March 1, 1996: The National Emergency With Respect to Regulations of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba was after civilian planes were shot down near Cuba

November 3, 1997: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan implemented economic and trade sanctions.

June 26, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans imposed sanctions on those aiding Albanian insurgents in Macedonia

Aug 17, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Export Control Regulations renewed presidential power to control exports in a national emergency since the Export Administration Act of 1979 lapsed.

Sept 14, 2001: The National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks was in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

Sept 23, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism was in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

March 6, 2003: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe was an effort to punish associates of Robert Mugabe.

May 22, 2003: The National Emergency With Respect to Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest was issued following the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

May 11, 2004: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria was in response to Syria supporting terrorist activity in Iraq.

June 16, 2006: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus was in response to charges of fraud in the Belarus presidential election.

Oct 27, 2006: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was in response to violence around the Congolese presidential election runoff.

Aug 1, 2007: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon was in response to a breakdown of the rule of law in Lebanon.

June 26, 2008: The National Emergency With Respect to Continuing Certain Restrictions with Respect to North Korea cited the risk of proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material. President Trump renewed this June 22, 2018 citing the “existence and risk of proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material on the Korean Peninsula and the actions and policies of the Government of North Korea continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat.”


April 12, 2010: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia was in respect to threats posed by Somali pirates.

February 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya froze the assets of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

July 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Transnational Criminals was in response to the rise in crime by specific organizations: Los Zetas (Mexico), The Brothers’ Circle (former Soviet Union countries), the Yakuza (Japan), and the Camorra (Italy).

May 16, 2012: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen addressed political unrest within the Yemen government.

March 16, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine was in response to the Russian invasion of Crimea.

April 3, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan was in response to the ongoing civil war.

May 12, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic was in response to violence towards humanitarian aid workers.

March 8, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela was in response to human rights violations.

April 1, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities was in response to Chinese cyber attacks on the U.S.

Nov 23, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi was declared after a failed coup.

Dec 20, 2017: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption imposed sanctions on the Myanmar general for his role persecuting Rohingya Muslims.

Sept 12, 2018: The National Emergency With Respect to Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election attempted to prevent any meddling with the 2018 midterm elections amid the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Nov 27, 2018: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua was declared by President Trump in response to violence and the Ortega regime’s “systematic dismantling and undermining of democratic institutions and the rule of law” that constitutes an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

Go Fish

Real emergencies....none to fulfill a campaign promise.....none stealing money from other agencies....nice try....

/----/ Oh because you say so????

Exactly ... we elected a POTUS to make those decisions not some dumbass libtards on the internet

Green Bean, Jeannine Pirro agrees with you. She cuts to the chase and says President Trump has the upper hand, and that the Democrat Party is ignoring the emergency at the border.

​

The statistics she has shows the heinous problem that hundreds of thousands of criminals now filling Texas jails and prisons is. This doesn't even mention the problems that schools are having ruling the tens of thousands of abandoned alien children are having. Yes, we are taking care of them. No, nobody is funding the children. Soros is funding the Dems, but they are not funding the needs of the aliens here who are coveting and taking away prison space and added classroom seats that are way over and beyond what states and counties can afford.

Instead of taking care of these people, Judge Pirro points out that not only is President Trump right, his use of his right to call this severe crisis an emerbgency. (20,000 Mexican Children were taken into custody instead of being used for child sex trafficking in the month of December alone.)

She also says that Democrats are lying when they criticize Trump because they are jealous that he is the one doing something about this national emergency.

The DNC can fool people who are unacquainted with the statistics, but all their operatives who pick up on their talking points can't fool Judge Jeanine Pirro!!!

You go, Judge Pirro!

 

[beautress]

Jeannine Pirro asks: Why should we give these illegal invaders a free college education while Americans have to pay for theirs? And guess who in the Congress is criticizing President trump:? Tucker Carlson chimes in a few seconds after Pirro's closing comments at 7:00 on the video above, which deserves a second look. Tucker starts right after her persuasive closing. That's because the truth that comes through is persuasive.

 

[beautress]

Oh, yes, and warning: Jeannine Pirro's view is so persuasive it is a threat to the Democrat lies that have been published for the redistribution of their operatives who speak for them on thousands of websites online. Who are we going to believe? Soft lies or the hard truth that Jeanine Pirro brings forward? Exactly one month ago, the Atlantic Monthly, mouthpiece for the Democrat Smarm, was criticized by Mark Steyn on the Tucker Carlson show:

​

When you take into context the hatred being stirred up by AOC and the Somalian rep, Ms. Omar, mentioned on the Pirro treatise above, the Democrats are selling out the American people over the border for a few hundred thousand votes from illegal aliens. That's Judge Pirro's words, not mine.

 

[GreenBean]

The courts will slap his obese, orange, ass down....

According to the Federal Register, 58 national emergencies have been declared since the National Emergency Act of 1976 was signed into law by President Gerald Ford.
And 31 have been annually renewed and are currently still in effect, as listed in the Federal Register.

Nov 14, 1979: The National Emergency With Respect to Iran, in response to the Iran hostage crisis.

Nov 14, 1994: The National Emergency With Respect to the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, that combined two previous national emergencies focused on weapons of mass destruction.

Jan. 2, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process placed economic sanctions in response to the Jerusalem bombing.

March 15, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources was an effort to prevent potential deals between oil companies.

October 21, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers Centered in Colombia was declared after increased reports of drug cartels laundering money through American companies.

March 1, 1996: The National Emergency With Respect to Regulations of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba was after civilian planes were shot down near Cuba

November 3, 1997: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan implemented economic and trade sanctions.

June 26, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans imposed sanctions on those aiding Albanian insurgents in Macedonia

Aug 17, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Export Control Regulations renewed presidential power to control exports in a national emergency since the Export Administration Act of 1979 lapsed.

Sept 14, 2001: The National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks was in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

Sept 23, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism was in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

March 6, 2003: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe was an effort to punish associates of Robert Mugabe.

May 22, 2003: The National Emergency With Respect to Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest was issued following the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

May 11, 2004: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria was in response to Syria supporting terrorist activity in Iraq.

June 16, 2006: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus was in response to charges of fraud in the Belarus presidential election.

Oct 27, 2006: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was in response to violence around the Congolese presidential election runoff.

Aug 1, 2007: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon was in response to a breakdown of the rule of law in Lebanon.

June 26, 2008: The National Emergency With Respect to Continuing Certain Restrictions with Respect to North Korea cited the risk of proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material. President Trump renewed this June 22, 2018 citing the “existence and risk of proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material on the Korean Peninsula and the actions and policies of the Government of North Korea continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat.”


April 12, 2010: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia was in respect to threats posed by Somali pirates.

February 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya froze the assets of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

July 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Transnational Criminals was in response to the rise in crime by specific organizations: Los Zetas (Mexico), The Brothers’ Circle (former Soviet Union countries), the Yakuza (Japan), and the Camorra (Italy).

May 16, 2012: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen addressed political unrest within the Yemen government.

March 16, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine was in response to the Russian invasion of Crimea.

April 3, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan was in response to the ongoing civil war.

May 12, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic was in response to violence towards humanitarian aid workers.

March 8, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela was in response to human rights violations.

April 1, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities was in response to Chinese cyber attacks on the U.S.

Nov 23, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi was declared after a failed coup.

Dec 20, 2017: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption imposed sanctions on the Myanmar general for his role persecuting Rohingya Muslims.

Sept 12, 2018: The National Emergency With Respect to Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election attempted to prevent any meddling with the 2018 midterm elections amid the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Nov 27, 2018: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua was declared by President Trump in response to violence and the Ortega regime’s “systematic dismantling and undermining of democratic institutions and the rule of law” that constitutes an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

Go Fish

Real emergencies....none to fulfill a campaign promise.....none stealing money from other agencies....nice try....

/----/ Oh because you say so????

Exactly ... we elected a POTUS to make those decisions not some dumbass libtards on the internet

We elect a POTUS to take Legislative powers away from the Legislature, Comrade? You might want to brush up on your Russian translation of our Constitution. Focus on Article I.

Do you even know the diff. between legislative and executive - I'd like to say you're the dumbest MFer on this board but sadly and almost ubelievabl;y there are actually people dumber than you are - hard to believe isn't it ?

 

[Flopper]

I said the purpose of the law was to limit the president because previously there were a number of acts and court rulings under which the president might declare an emergency. The actual number was 470 which were mostly replaced by the new law. Some of these required Congressional oversight and others didn't. Some were perpetual and some had expiration periods. About the only thing in common to various statues and court rulings was the requirement to notify congress. This statue, unlike most of the previous statues, required the president to specify in detail the reason for the declaration, the actions planned, records of all orders and movement of funds, and periodic report to congress.

I agree the law stinks. The court actually removed veto power of the president making only a simple majority needed to resend the declaration. Unfortunately, congress passed and amendment restoring it. The act also gives the president far too much power without congressional approval.

The purpose of the law was to allow the president to act in a matter of hours in the case of a serious emergency where going to congress could take days or longer. It was also understood that the president would use this power for declarations that would have had unanimous support such as national disasters and attacks against the US such 911 and other matters in which passage by congress would have been a certainty. Until Trump, this was how the act was used. No president had used the act to subvert the will of congress.

Obviously, we need to change the law or future presidents will follow in Trump's footsteps which would be a transfer of power from congress to the president destroying valuable checks and balances. The problem is how do you get that legislation passed. Both sides are certainly drooling over the possibility of their man in the White House doing things that could never get passed by congress. Trump may well have opened Pandora's Box that has the potential of turning the government into an autocracy.

National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia

Mr. Flopper, thank you for background on what was and should be. It definitely sounds reasonable. However, it was also issue specific, and only one phrase nags at me, probably for the wrong reason, but here goes: "the will of congress." That would be fine except for several harsh things about this particular congress. This congress has a number of individuals who do not speak for the majority of the American people and who take swipes at the Constitution like a goat butts a dead tree. They brought in several fresh faces this term, but one of them until stringently spoken to was mouthing off about jews as though Old World hatreds were acceptable to mainstream America. One of them recently threatened to take away peoples' rewards for a job well done or an invention made useful by raising ONLY THEIR taxes to 70%, to copy the European theatre that taxes people to an early grave in its best light. Our forefathers set in place a system of economics that reward people who come up with good ideas and placed patents and copyrights to safeguard and protect their inventions, ideas, methods. and even words in the hands of the Library of Congress. Some of these innovative persons were not born with a silver spoon in their mouths and when wealth comes their way, they often do not know how to manage finances, become overly generous to relatives, hangers on, and even the best of good causes. In other words, we try not to bury the Mozarts of America in unmarked mass graves. That's a huge mistake to raise taxes on such people. And who are they? People who turned a muddy creek bed into a precious stone that sparkles in the hearts and lives of other people.

I do not have confidence in this particular congress any more than people had Richard Nixon after Watergate. I also am skeptical of a press that takes up the banner of one party just to smite the other, 98% of the time with malice aforethought, taking their clues from whoever is their favorite redistributor of wealth, which is what many framers intimated in their private letters, that they were worried if taxes were passed on the people, future generations would see this as a means of their own personal wealth and plunder the nation's treasury. What if the press changed its mind about the Democrat Party and went with the Republican Party? Neither option to me is good. The press needs to regain the public's trust, which it no longer has with the antics of putting words into the mouths of every conservative speaker who has something to tell the American public, and it always harks back to a "gotcha!" It was great for Woodward and others to make a name for themselves by taking out a President, but it wasn't great when they let go every last error go, covered up, reworded, redefined, and ignored justice obstruction for another President who could do no wrong, considering the personal benefits accorded them from their getting on the money train bandwagon. The Republican Party cleaned house promptly in 1973 and has never tried to do that again. Yet an ambitious-to-a-fault first lady was caught interfering with the lives of 900 of her husband's rival, and the press gave her a pass when she mumbled something like "I forget" to a Congress who sicks the present dogs of the press on a new President for 2 years based on a false charge by a Special Counsel who was reprimanded by the courts for doing the same darn thing a number of years ago. Many people do not know the Special Counsel appointed by Democrats destroyed the lives of innocent people back then, but the courts know it, and the popular press ignores it. The only trouble is, the popular press is now walking on thin ice as angry people cancel their subscriptions in answer for inanities leveled at innocent men who instead of violating laws as the press insists had clean hands. Kavanaugh is one of them. Donald Trump is another.

This congress has tried a new President in the press a month before he took office, in fact, the threat was made to impeach the very next morning after his bid for president was made public that he won. Many of us view that as essential prejudice: judging a man guilty or bad or the n-word or whatever the latest personal hatred may be, and in this case, prior to his placing his hand on the Bible and pledging that he would provide for the common defense with God as his witness. They've tortured the first lady for her modeling career choices, acceptable in the land of her birth for centuries, but suddenly taboo here in America by a party who celebrates a young woman's coming of age not with a Debutante party, but with her first abortion, which is paid for by taxes from people whose religious leanings teach families to love the sinner while hating the poor judgment exercised in a moment of youthful passion.

In short, this congress is not the same one as in years before. Democrats give their members a warning, never a censure. They do not behave in an equal manner for their counterparts on the other side of the aisle. I've heard the word "impeach!!!" screeched out by both sides, but when a congressman comes up with the jew-hating language used by one of them last week, the only censure you hear about is a little wrist slap and a well-rehearsed apology that came obviously from a list of things you have to say, and not from that person's black heart that will carry punishment for Jewish people for life in this country and in this congress.

This congress needs to be confronted on a number of ill-advised "wins" it claims for itself while damning the President's staff to the hell of being constantly verbally assaulted in public by an untouchable Congressman--untouchable because she's a woman, and furthermore untouchable because she is black and demands a free pass or she will start a riot somewhere in her district if anybody in charge says one single word of reprimand in public about her. Some of us think of that in terms of something a lot more sinister than mental illness. It is precocious hatred demanding unreasonable concession and it is racially biased with roots in wrongdoing against people who are no longer alive, and taken out on innocent people of the wrongs of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. Here we are in the twenty-first century. The debt is paid in full by efforts to furnish free housing, free medical, free food, free job training, jobs for everyone, equal pay, equal justice, and no matter what good is offered, it is getting to the point of nothing given is ever good enough. Uh, well, yes it is. And if we are going to have people from every background in congress, we deserve just as much wisdom from them as we had when cooler heads prevailed in congress. Where is discipline? Is that something you can only demand from white males, discipline? No, it's something the American people want from whoever is making decisions in Washington, but it's not happening in the Democrat Party, and the Democrat Party is playing brain dead right now, and for some reason, the press that used to keep politicians on an even keel are losing respect because they are unfairly targeting Democrat hate targets which is always aimed at their conservative adversaries.

The Democrat Party needs to take another approach, and that would be one of getting along with and avoidance of eating the liver of Republicans and creating the false scenario that conservatism is all bad. Um, no, it's not. It also needs to make sure it does not deliver any more frivolous lawsuits, or it will be faced with the will of the people who will override the "will of congress," if it continues with ear plugs and blinders to the majority of the people of this land, selling out to a village approach unlimited which has been tried elsewhere and winds up with deprivation of the masses and power in too few committee hands. The government needs to back off a bit, imho, and let people enjoy the earnings the sweat of their brow produces, not put everything in the pot for jew-haters you do not censure. And Maxine Waters' method of using her Congress seat to punish the Executive Branch under closer examination is pissing on the separation of powers, as are the frivolous lawsuits closed-door committees in the Democrat Party are inflicting on the President, not giving him the chance to do his job for the American people's common defense. If a dog doesn't back down, his owner buys a leash, pushes a spiral in the ground, and takes away supper for a couple of hours. Don't push that onto Republicans with frivolous lawsuits, keeping in mind that if the overbearing character assassinations continue, the bad karma this provokes is very bad for this nation, blessed by the Creator and forged by the fire of liberty and equality.

Just a couple of comments"
"The Will of Congress" is understood to be the laws and resolutions passed by congress, not the opinions of a few congressional leaders nor individual members. So when we say, ignoring the will of congress, we are talking about ignoring laws and resolutions passed by congress. When congress approves the budget or other spending appropriations, the president is expected to abide by congress's decision, not declare a phony emergency and just spend the money as he pleases.

The battle between Trump and the media started years before Trump decide to run for office. Trump played the media for publicity. He kept his name in the media with outrageous attacks on just about anyone in the public spotlight. Remarks such as "she's much to fat for that dress", "She has no talent, she should have stuck with hustling drinks" "Definitely, she's a 1 maybe a 2." "Sure, I would love to **** her, she's not good for anything else", etc, etc. There was a joke running around in the 2000's, if you haven't been attacked by Trump, you're a nobody.

So when he announced his run for president, there were literally thousands of people in the media, entertainment, and government that absolutely hated him. On the first day of his campaign he declared war on the media. Within days he was launching personnel attacks against those that pointed out his lack of qualifications. Trump learned that the best way to goad the media into a fight was to stretch the facts or just make them up. The media would go bonkers giving him so much publicity that he announced the media was paying for his campaign because he didn't need to advertise. His supporters loved it and the media look liked fools.

I had no problem with his behavior until he put his hand on the Bible and took the oath of office. Misstating facts, gross exaggerations, and lies should have stopped. However, this behavior had worked so well for him for so long. He just couldn't change. He loved that attention and the controversy and it had paid off in the past.

Just the other day, when he was announcing his national emergency to get money to build the wall, he said, "I didn't need to do this. I could have done it over a long period of time. But I'd rather do it faster". It was "pure Trump", admit that the emergency you were declaring was one big lie with a grin on your face, guaranteed to drive the media wild. Then Trump get's to say, "Lies, False News, We're going to build the wall" to a cheering crowd of supporters.

Thank you for explaining why some people hate Trump. I don't read tabloids and didn't know that the repita, repita, repita, repita by DNC loyalists would keep in in the ever-present mind of easy-to-fool campus voters and the View watchers.

I'm glad you mentioned the will of Congress. Even so, there's a thin line of responsibility between what a President does, and what the Congress does. Some of the discord going on there is not only furnished by partisan reporters and committees, but is rebutted by partisan advisers on the opposite aisle.

President Trump's message about making the nation a leader again, seems he forgot to beg the Democrats to go along with it, and is going forward with it anyway. For that he will likely receive the maximum press ninnyhammering, constant and regurgitated alleged high crimes charges that cannot be proved to be against the law levied by Pelosi and Co. This will frustrate the already-beleaguered border states who suffer the brunt of the murders, drug bartering, human trafficking, and starving masses looking for work.

And I thank President Trump for trying to show mercy on these states in the absence of congressional caring, and glad that Trump cares about the conundrum the teachers are having, trying hard to get some of their border children through six years of elementary work in only 2 years. I heard him acknowledging these teachers and other collateral victims in his speech. At least one person in this nation is willing to face the sour will of the Congress that does not appear to give a damn how hard it's been for them to furnish educations to the children of this unfortunate situation they're in.

The will of the Congress seems merciless to the taxpayers, but this congress was voted in because people really believed the false charges against President Trump about Russian "collusion." It was all political baloney, and those perpetrating it knew that it was indeed hubris, but wanted to use the hatred against Republicans running for Congress so they could further burden the border states who didn't vote Democrat either.

I doubt the impact of the Russia investigations was the primary factor in democrats capturing the House. In 2016 about 4.4 million Obama voters stayed home, some because they weren't enthusiastic about Hillary and others because they believed Trump had no chance of winning. By 2018, the shock of Trump winning had sunk in and the realization of what would happen it republicans controlled congress for two more years. Also, many people believed that once he was president, Trump would act like a president and stop all the crazy tweets, hate speech, lies, and exaggerations. However, within days of Trump taking office he dispelled any hope that he would change. In fact, he got a lot worse.

Crime along the border continues to be a major theme for Trump. Shocking images and anecdotes of crime along the border fuel his narrative, but rarely are facts deployed to make his case. And there is good reason. The fact is crime along the Mexican border is lower than in the rest of the country. If the entire United States in 2017 had crime rates identical to those in counties along the U.S.-Mexico border, there would have been 5,720 fewer homicides, 159,036 fewer property crimes, and 99,205 fewer violent crimes across the entire country. Before you scream false news, you should know that this data is from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2017.

Crime Along the Mexican Border Is Lower Than in the Rest of the Country

One point President Trump brought up to one of the reporters who kept ninnyhammering him over statistics was that his information came from a different source. Trumps stats came from Homeland Security that show the problem to be far worse than the reporters' insufficiently-based stats. No one can touch Homeland Security's means of information. No one.

My family lived near the border of Laredo/Nueva Laredo when I was young. My memories of the land in the surrounding general area included overlooking the Rio Grande that at the time was low. I'm sure it's a lot more grown up today than it was in 1958, but I was wondering how they could call someone a wetback who waded through that, because their back would likely be dry. But what does a kid know?

But recalling that day, the river could have been low for a lot of reasons including drought or just a seasonal oddity for one reason or another. Where we stood on the outskirts of that not too large of a town back then is probably a neighborhood or even a city block by now. We spent time in Nueva Laredo, too. It was fascinating for a kid knowing I was on foreign soil for the first time in my life, and it didn't feel much different, but the market we went to was so pretty and colorful. Even so, however far it would be to the nearest ranch or ranchette along the border today, it'd be a pretty austere scene, and I'm not sure where the fences are in place along the Texas border. Probably not too many miles of it considering that only 700 of the 4000 miles as I understand it (and not from Homeland Security, either) along the entire border have no fence, no berm, no wall. We will have to wait and see what goes down on Monday. I think I read about lawsuits, etc. being filed to delay or obstruct the building of the wall, which the Congress has the right to level. I'm sorry it had to come to this stuff I'm hearing is going to be engaged in. My side is pretty ticked. Your side is pretty ticked. I hope an early decision is made if the suit is brought forward, and that the wall gets built.

There's actually about a half dozens suits, land owner's in the Rio Grande Valley, an environmental group, ACLU, and the California AG. I think the most important suits are yet to come, those challenging the president's power to move money from the selected categories. I suspect the lawsuits that will start off in various district courts and will take the rest of the year to resolve. There is certainly no rush. Trump acknowledged that in his announcement of the national emergency. All he needs is few miles of border wall to display on TV and his rallies and he can just create the rest.

Suits challenging the president authority to declare illegal immigration at the Southern border a national emergency will probably fail. The law does not limit the president as to what is an emergency. Unless the court uses the principal of reasonableness, I don't see how it can succeed.

What may be a bigger problem is convincing voters. 64% of American are not in favor of the president declaring a national emergency which is even higher than those that were against building of a wall, about 53%.

The Security Fence Act of 2005 began in 2006 and completed in 2015 built 670 miles of fencing. All the fencing at El Paso was completed out of these funds and according to the Border Patrol it reduced illegal crossing by 85%.

The very first secure fence built on the border was the San Diego steel fence. Back in the 1980's there were about 60 miles of border there, secured by a barb wire fence and a single cable used to mark the border; that is no security at all. Mexicans and Americans crossed the border in the thousands every day. It all came to a head in 1986, when the Border Patrol agents in the San Diego district apprehended 629,656 people, slightly more than the population of Las Vegas. It was estimated more 200,000 were not apprehended. Now, that would certainly qualify as a national emergency. However, attitudes were a lot different then. What resulted was the building of a steel fence and the assignment of about 25% of the total border patrol force to that area. As a result the barrier was almost 100% effective, which resulted in large numbers of illegal crossing to east and in Arizona.

I too lived near the border just outside of Tucson when I was a kid. We use to camp out in what is now Coranada National Memorial just south of Sierra Vista. Never knew whether we were in Mexico or the US but nobody really seem to care. We would run into Mexicans from time to time, some camping and some backpacking. I suppose some were illegal but as I said, nobody really cared. Of course drugs weren't the big deal then they are now.

BTW the Rio Grande is deep in places up to about 40 feet or so but yes you're correct, at some places, depending on rains and time of year, you can walk across.

 

[beautress]

Mr. Flopper, thank you for background on what was and should be. It definitely sounds reasonable. However, it was also issue specific, and only one phrase nags at me, probably for the wrong reason, but here goes: "the will of congress." That would be fine except for several harsh things about this particular congress. This congress has a number of individuals who do not speak for the majority of the American people and who take swipes at the Constitution like a goat butts a dead tree. They brought in several fresh faces this term, but one of them until stringently spoken to was mouthing off about jews as though Old World hatreds were acceptable to mainstream America. One of them recently threatened to take away peoples' rewards for a job well done or an invention made useful by raising ONLY THEIR taxes to 70%, to copy the European theatre that taxes people to an early grave in its best light. Our forefathers set in place a system of economics that reward people who come up with good ideas and placed patents and copyrights to safeguard and protect their inventions, ideas, methods. and even words in the hands of the Library of Congress. Some of these innovative persons were not born with a silver spoon in their mouths and when wealth comes their way, they often do not know how to manage finances, become overly generous to relatives, hangers on, and even the best of good causes. In other words, we try not to bury the Mozarts of America in unmarked mass graves. That's a huge mistake to raise taxes on such people. And who are they? People who turned a muddy creek bed into a precious stone that sparkles in the hearts and lives of other people.

I do not have confidence in this particular congress any more than people had Richard Nixon after Watergate. I also am skeptical of a press that takes up the banner of one party just to smite the other, 98% of the time with malice aforethought, taking their clues from whoever is their favorite redistributor of wealth, which is what many framers intimated in their private letters, that they were worried if taxes were passed on the people, future generations would see this as a means of their own personal wealth and plunder the nation's treasury. What if the press changed its mind about the Democrat Party and went with the Republican Party? Neither option to me is good. The press needs to regain the public's trust, which it no longer has with the antics of putting words into the mouths of every conservative speaker who has something to tell the American public, and it always harks back to a "gotcha!" It was great for Woodward and others to make a name for themselves by taking out a President, but it wasn't great when they let go every last error go, covered up, reworded, redefined, and ignored justice obstruction for another President who could do no wrong, considering the personal benefits accorded them from their getting on the money train bandwagon. The Republican Party cleaned house promptly in 1973 and has never tried to do that again. Yet an ambitious-to-a-fault first lady was caught interfering with the lives of 900 of her husband's rival, and the press gave her a pass when she mumbled something like "I forget" to a Congress who sicks the present dogs of the press on a new President for 2 years based on a false charge by a Special Counsel who was reprimanded by the courts for doing the same darn thing a number of years ago. Many people do not know the Special Counsel appointed by Democrats destroyed the lives of innocent people back then, but the courts know it, and the popular press ignores it. The only trouble is, the popular press is now walking on thin ice as angry people cancel their subscriptions in answer for inanities leveled at innocent men who instead of violating laws as the press insists had clean hands. Kavanaugh is one of them. Donald Trump is another.

This congress has tried a new President in the press a month before he took office, in fact, the threat was made to impeach the very next morning after his bid for president was made public that he won. Many of us view that as essential prejudice: judging a man guilty or bad or the n-word or whatever the latest personal hatred may be, and in this case, prior to his placing his hand on the Bible and pledging that he would provide for the common defense with God as his witness. They've tortured the first lady for her modeling career choices, acceptable in the land of her birth for centuries, but suddenly taboo here in America by a party who celebrates a young woman's coming of age not with a Debutante party, but with her first abortion, which is paid for by taxes from people whose religious leanings teach families to love the sinner while hating the poor judgment exercised in a moment of youthful passion.

In short, this congress is not the same one as in years before. Democrats give their members a warning, never a censure. They do not behave in an equal manner for their counterparts on the other side of the aisle. I've heard the word "impeach!!!" screeched out by both sides, but when a congressman comes up with the jew-hating language used by one of them last week, the only censure you hear about is a little wrist slap and a well-rehearsed apology that came obviously from a list of things you have to say, and not from that person's black heart that will carry punishment for Jewish people for life in this country and in this congress.

This congress needs to be confronted on a number of ill-advised "wins" it claims for itself while damning the President's staff to the hell of being constantly verbally assaulted in public by an untouchable Congressman--untouchable because she's a woman, and furthermore untouchable because she is black and demands a free pass or she will start a riot somewhere in her district if anybody in charge says one single word of reprimand in public about her. Some of us think of that in terms of something a lot more sinister than mental illness. It is precocious hatred demanding unreasonable concession and it is racially biased with roots in wrongdoing against people who are no longer alive, and taken out on innocent people of the wrongs of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. Here we are in the twenty-first century. The debt is paid in full by efforts to furnish free housing, free medical, free food, free job training, jobs for everyone, equal pay, equal justice, and no matter what good is offered, it is getting to the point of nothing given is ever good enough. Uh, well, yes it is. And if we are going to have people from every background in congress, we deserve just as much wisdom from them as we had when cooler heads prevailed in congress. Where is discipline? Is that something you can only demand from white males, discipline? No, it's something the American people want from whoever is making decisions in Washington, but it's not happening in the Democrat Party, and the Democrat Party is playing brain dead right now, and for some reason, the press that used to keep politicians on an even keel are losing respect because they are unfairly targeting Democrat hate targets which is always aimed at their conservative adversaries.

The Democrat Party needs to take another approach, and that would be one of getting along with and avoidance of eating the liver of Republicans and creating the false scenario that conservatism is all bad. Um, no, it's not. It also needs to make sure it does not deliver any more frivolous lawsuits, or it will be faced with the will of the people who will override the "will of congress," if it continues with ear plugs and blinders to the majority of the people of this land, selling out to a village approach unlimited which has been tried elsewhere and winds up with deprivation of the masses and power in too few committee hands. The government needs to back off a bit, imho, and let people enjoy the earnings the sweat of their brow produces, not put everything in the pot for jew-haters you do not censure. And Maxine Waters' method of using her Congress seat to punish the Executive Branch under closer examination is pissing on the separation of powers, as are the frivolous lawsuits closed-door committees in the Democrat Party are inflicting on the President, not giving him the chance to do his job for the American people's common defense. If a dog doesn't back down, his owner buys a leash, pushes a spiral in the ground, and takes away supper for a couple of hours. Don't push that onto Republicans with frivolous lawsuits, keeping in mind that if the overbearing character assassinations continue, the bad karma this provokes is very bad for this nation, blessed by the Creator and forged by the fire of liberty and equality.

Just a couple of comments"
"The Will of Congress" is understood to be the laws and resolutions passed by congress, not the opinions of a few congressional leaders nor individual members. So when we say, ignoring the will of congress, we are talking about ignoring laws and resolutions passed by congress. When congress approves the budget or other spending appropriations, the president is expected to abide by congress's decision, not declare a phony emergency and just spend the money as he pleases.

The battle between Trump and the media started years before Trump decide to run for office. Trump played the media for publicity. He kept his name in the media with outrageous attacks on just about anyone in the public spotlight. Remarks such as "she's much to fat for that dress", "She has no talent, she should have stuck with hustling drinks" "Definitely, she's a 1 maybe a 2." "Sure, I would love to **** her, she's not good for anything else", etc, etc. There was a joke running around in the 2000's, if you haven't been attacked by Trump, you're a nobody.

So when he announced his run for president, there were literally thousands of people in the media, entertainment, and government that absolutely hated him. On the first day of his campaign he declared war on the media. Within days he was launching personnel attacks against those that pointed out his lack of qualifications. Trump learned that the best way to goad the media into a fight was to stretch the facts or just make them up. The media would go bonkers giving him so much publicity that he announced the media was paying for his campaign because he didn't need to advertise. His supporters loved it and the media look liked fools.

I had no problem with his behavior until he put his hand on the Bible and took the oath of office. Misstating facts, gross exaggerations, and lies should have stopped. However, this behavior had worked so well for him for so long. He just couldn't change. He loved that attention and the controversy and it had paid off in the past.

Just the other day, when he was announcing his national emergency to get money to build the wall, he said, "I didn't need to do this. I could have done it over a long period of time. But I'd rather do it faster". It was "pure Trump", admit that the emergency you were declaring was one big lie with a grin on your face, guaranteed to drive the media wild. Then Trump get's to say, "Lies, False News, We're going to build the wall" to a cheering crowd of supporters.

Thank you for explaining why some people hate Trump. I don't read tabloids and didn't know that the repita, repita, repita, repita by DNC loyalists would keep in in the ever-present mind of easy-to-fool campus voters and the View watchers.

I'm glad you mentioned the will of Congress. Even so, there's a thin line of responsibility between what a President does, and what the Congress does. Some of the discord going on there is not only furnished by partisan reporters and committees, but is rebutted by partisan advisers on the opposite aisle.

President Trump's message about making the nation a leader again, seems he forgot to beg the Democrats to go along with it, and is going forward with it anyway. For that he will likely receive the maximum press ninnyhammering, constant and regurgitated alleged high crimes charges that cannot be proved to be against the law levied by Pelosi and Co. This will frustrate the already-beleaguered border states who suffer the brunt of the murders, drug bartering, human trafficking, and starving masses looking for work.

And I thank President Trump for trying to show mercy on these states in the absence of congressional caring, and glad that Trump cares about the conundrum the teachers are having, trying hard to get some of their border children through six years of elementary work in only 2 years. I heard him acknowledging these teachers and other collateral victims in his speech. At least one person in this nation is willing to face the sour will of the Congress that does not appear to give a damn how hard it's been for them to furnish educations to the children of this unfortunate situation they're in.

The will of the Congress seems merciless to the taxpayers, but this congress was voted in because people really believed the false charges against President Trump about Russian "collusion." It was all political baloney, and those perpetrating it knew that it was indeed hubris, but wanted to use the hatred against Republicans running for Congress so they could further burden the border states who didn't vote Democrat either.

I doubt the impact of the Russia investigations was the primary factor in democrats capturing the House. In 2016 about 4.4 million Obama voters stayed home, some because they weren't enthusiastic about Hillary and others because they believed Trump had no chance of winning. By 2018, the shock of Trump winning had sunk in and the realization of what would happen it republicans controlled congress for two more years. Also, many people believed that once he was president, Trump would act like a president and stop all the crazy tweets, hate speech, lies, and exaggerations. However, within days of Trump taking office he dispelled any hope that he would change. In fact, he got a lot worse.

Crime along the border continues to be a major theme for Trump. Shocking images and anecdotes of crime along the border fuel his narrative, but rarely are facts deployed to make his case. And there is good reason. The fact is crime along the Mexican border is lower than in the rest of the country. If the entire United States in 2017 had crime rates identical to those in counties along the U.S.-Mexico border, there would have been 5,720 fewer homicides, 159,036 fewer property crimes, and 99,205 fewer violent crimes across the entire country. Before you scream false news, you should know that this data is from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2017.

Crime Along the Mexican Border Is Lower Than in the Rest of the Country

One point President Trump brought up to one of the reporters who kept ninnyhammering him over statistics was that his information came from a different source. Trumps stats came from Homeland Security that show the problem to be far worse than the reporters' insufficiently-based stats. No one can touch Homeland Security's means of information. No one.

My family lived near the border of Laredo/Nueva Laredo when I was young. My memories of the land in the surrounding general area included overlooking the Rio Grande that at the time was low. I'm sure it's a lot more grown up today than it was in 1958, but I was wondering how they could call someone a wetback who waded through that, because their back would likely be dry. But what does a kid know?

But recalling that day, the river could have been low for a lot of reasons including drought or just a seasonal oddity for one reason or another. Where we stood on the outskirts of that not too large of a town back then is probably a neighborhood or even a city block by now. We spent time in Nueva Laredo, too. It was fascinating for a kid knowing I was on foreign soil for the first time in my life, and it didn't feel much different, but the market we went to was so pretty and colorful. Even so, however far it would be to the nearest ranch or ranchette along the border today, it'd be a pretty austere scene, and I'm not sure where the fences are in place along the Texas border. Probably not too many miles of it considering that only 700 of the 4000 miles as I understand it (and not from Homeland Security, either) along the entire border have no fence, no berm, no wall. We will have to wait and see what goes down on Monday. I think I read about lawsuits, etc. being filed to delay or obstruct the building of the wall, which the Congress has the right to level. I'm sorry it had to come to this stuff I'm hearing is going to be engaged in. My side is pretty ticked. Your side is pretty ticked. I hope an early decision is made if the suit is brought forward, and that the wall gets built.

There's actually about a half dozens suits, land owner's in the Rio Grande Valley, an environmental group, ACLU, and the California AG. I think the most important suits are yet to come, those challenging the president's power to move money from the selected categories. I suspect the lawsuits that will start off in various district courts and will take the rest of the year to resolve. There is certainly no rush. Trump acknowledged that in his announcement of the national emergency. All he needs is few miles of border wall to display on TV and his rallies and he can just create the rest.

Suits challenging the president authority to declare illegal immigration at the Southern border a national emergency will probably fail. The law does not limit the president as to what is an emergency. Unless the court uses the principal of reasonableness, I don't see how it can succeed.

What may be a bigger problem is convincing voters. 64% of American are not in favor of the president declaring a national emergency which is even higher than those that were against building of a wall, about 53%.

The Security Fence Act of 2005 began in 2006 and completed in 2015 built 670 miles of fencing. All the fencing at El Paso was completed out of these funds and according to the Border Patrol it reduced illegal crossing by 85%.

The very first secure fence built on the border was the San Diego steel fence. Back in the 1980's there were about 60 miles of border there, secured by a barb wire fence and a single cable used to mark the border; that is no security at all. Mexicans and Americans crossed the border in the thousands every day. It all came to a head in 1986, when the Border Patrol agents in the San Diego district apprehended 629,656 people, slightly more than the population of Las Vegas. It was estimated more 200,000 were not apprehended. Now, that would certainly qualify as a national emergency. However, attitudes were a lot different then. What resulted was the building of a steel fence and the assignment of about 25% of the total border patrol force to that area. As a result the barrier was almost 100% effective, which resulted in large numbers of illegal crossing to east and in Arizona.

I too lived near the border just outside of Tucson when I was a kid. We use to camp out in what is now Coranada National Memorial just south of Sierra Vista. Never knew whether we were in Mexico or the US but nobody really seem to care. We would run into Mexicans from time to time, some camping and some backpacking. I suppose some were illegal but as I said, nobody really cared. Of course drugs weren't the big deal then they are now.

BTW the Rio Grande is deep in places up to about 40 feet or so but yes you're correct, at some places, depending on rains and time of year, you can walk across.

Those were good days when nobody cared, but then there were really no incentives to come over here. Back then, teachers made few dollars, school administrators a few dollars more, but not that much. And 3 weeks allowance for kids in a family of 5 was pretty low. Even so, 75 cents US was a lot of pesos, and we spent like drunken sailors when we went to Nuevo Laredo, taking home a painted shiny wooden rattle with seeds in it to make a soft noise, couple of pretty feathers to make ink pens with (which didn't write later on craft day. <giggle> oh, yeh, and a little leather-handled paper fan for mama's birthday with roses tooled on it. My brother kept haggling with the shop keepers, so I told him how merciless he was, and he told me how dumb I was for NOT haggling because he said they expected it. He always knew how to shut me up, but I had the perfect word for him, "meanie." I remember concrete around where we crossed, but I don't remember the river being right there when we crossed. Maybe my big brother and I were fussing at each other over a gum wrapper or something. My kids did the same thing around the same ages as we were years later. lol I think the year was around 1958. I remember Dad took us to a really good restaurant with food like nothing I'd ever seen or tasted, but it was good. Seems there was a town square where a lot of little children hung out and begged for nickels. There were so many of them Dad got us back in the car and we left. Years later, I realized that we saw plants one would use in a xeriscape in a dry weather state like Arizona.

Wow your Tucson was pretty close to the border, but when we went through AZ years later, we stayed with my Great Aunt Dottie in Phoenix a couple of days. Think the year was 1965 in early summer. Dad had been appointed to assist the War on Poverty effort by Pres. Johnson, so it was a long way from Houston to Elsinore, California that was near the Ortega Mountains where the War on Poverty Camp was. Dad's skills in high school coaching were unparalleled, and the President may have wanted a winning baseball team so the poor kids would take some pride in winning something in their lives. Our house was on Lake Elsinore. I never saw a tree more pretty in my whole life than that one that was in the front of our house. Think it was a Eucalyptus. It had amazingly colored bark that was like peel-away skin, only prettier. Glad you had a good time at the border park in NM. Nothing like being young and camping out. Went to a junior college in Alta Loma after enjoying what was left of summer and bidding my older brother good bye as he enlisted in the Navy in San Diego. By that time we were friends, and I didn't see him for years later but we corresponded when he was out to sea and had absolutely nothing else to do, which was not often. That was our last summer of being just kids.

Don't know what's going to go down on the border barrier nor how long it takes to get there. I'm glad I talked to my cousin last week. She was a school administrator in Houston, and I got a lecture on her on how students in that city who were American weren't getting the quality of education due to teachers having to split their time between English speakers and Spanish speakers with the added burden of having to teach them 6 years' worth of information in only 2 years which exacerbated the educational problems in this border state. She is for stopping the flow of immigration, and I didn't know it until I asked what she thought of closing down the border before I made up my mind which way I was going to go on it. She opened my eyes to the fact that people paying taxes for American kids to learn were paying into a system that no longer has enough time to teach fully all they needed to know to get into college. I realized I could never let American kids down even though I empathasize with poor people since teachers kids back when I was growing up had few advantages, but we didn't know it because we were used to playing with neighborhood kids, setting up kool aid stands and selling it to anyone good enough to stop their car to pay ragamuffins like us 5 or 10 cents for a big paper cup of sugar water with a little color and flavor in it. Childhood was okay considering that we all had a lot of friends in our neighborhoods, knew where the best blackberries grew, and someone's parent was always there to rotate trips to the local swimming pool.

 

[Flopper]

Just a couple of comments"
"The Will of Congress" is understood to be the laws and resolutions passed by congress, not the opinions of a few congressional leaders nor individual members. So when we say, ignoring the will of congress, we are talking about ignoring laws and resolutions passed by congress. When congress approves the budget or other spending appropriations, the president is expected to abide by congress's decision, not declare a phony emergency and just spend the money as he pleases.

The battle between Trump and the media started years before Trump decide to run for office. Trump played the media for publicity. He kept his name in the media with outrageous attacks on just about anyone in the public spotlight. Remarks such as "she's much to fat for that dress", "She has no talent, she should have stuck with hustling drinks" "Definitely, she's a 1 maybe a 2." "Sure, I would love to **** her, she's not good for anything else", etc, etc. There was a joke running around in the 2000's, if you haven't been attacked by Trump, you're a nobody.

So when he announced his run for president, there were literally thousands of people in the media, entertainment, and government that absolutely hated him. On the first day of his campaign he declared war on the media. Within days he was launching personnel attacks against those that pointed out his lack of qualifications. Trump learned that the best way to goad the media into a fight was to stretch the facts or just make them up. The media would go bonkers giving him so much publicity that he announced the media was paying for his campaign because he didn't need to advertise. His supporters loved it and the media look liked fools.

I had no problem with his behavior until he put his hand on the Bible and took the oath of office. Misstating facts, gross exaggerations, and lies should have stopped. However, this behavior had worked so well for him for so long. He just couldn't change. He loved that attention and the controversy and it had paid off in the past.

Just the other day, when he was announcing his national emergency to get money to build the wall, he said, "I didn't need to do this. I could have done it over a long period of time. But I'd rather do it faster". It was "pure Trump", admit that the emergency you were declaring was one big lie with a grin on your face, guaranteed to drive the media wild. Then Trump get's to say, "Lies, False News, We're going to build the wall" to a cheering crowd of supporters.

Thank you for explaining why some people hate Trump. I don't read tabloids and didn't know that the repita, repita, repita, repita by DNC loyalists would keep in in the ever-present mind of easy-to-fool campus voters and the View watchers.

I'm glad you mentioned the will of Congress. Even so, there's a thin line of responsibility between what a President does, and what the Congress does. Some of the discord going on there is not only furnished by partisan reporters and committees, but is rebutted by partisan advisers on the opposite aisle.

President Trump's message about making the nation a leader again, seems he forgot to beg the Democrats to go along with it, and is going forward with it anyway. For that he will likely receive the maximum press ninnyhammering, constant and regurgitated alleged high crimes charges that cannot be proved to be against the law levied by Pelosi and Co. This will frustrate the already-beleaguered border states who suffer the brunt of the murders, drug bartering, human trafficking, and starving masses looking for work.

And I thank President Trump for trying to show mercy on these states in the absence of congressional caring, and glad that Trump cares about the conundrum the teachers are having, trying hard to get some of their border children through six years of elementary work in only 2 years. I heard him acknowledging these teachers and other collateral victims in his speech. At least one person in this nation is willing to face the sour will of the Congress that does not appear to give a damn how hard it's been for them to furnish educations to the children of this unfortunate situation they're in.

The will of the Congress seems merciless to the taxpayers, but this congress was voted in because people really believed the false charges against President Trump about Russian "collusion." It was all political baloney, and those perpetrating it knew that it was indeed hubris, but wanted to use the hatred against Republicans running for Congress so they could further burden the border states who didn't vote Democrat either.

I doubt the impact of the Russia investigations was the primary factor in democrats capturing the House. In 2016 about 4.4 million Obama voters stayed home, some because they weren't enthusiastic about Hillary and others because they believed Trump had no chance of winning. By 2018, the shock of Trump winning had sunk in and the realization of what would happen it republicans controlled congress for two more years. Also, many people believed that once he was president, Trump would act like a president and stop all the crazy tweets, hate speech, lies, and exaggerations. However, within days of Trump taking office he dispelled any hope that he would change. In fact, he got a lot worse.

Crime along the border continues to be a major theme for Trump. Shocking images and anecdotes of crime along the border fuel his narrative, but rarely are facts deployed to make his case. And there is good reason. The fact is crime along the Mexican border is lower than in the rest of the country. If the entire United States in 2017 had crime rates identical to those in counties along the U.S.-Mexico border, there would have been 5,720 fewer homicides, 159,036 fewer property crimes, and 99,205 fewer violent crimes across the entire country. Before you scream false news, you should know that this data is from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2017.

Crime Along the Mexican Border Is Lower Than in the Rest of the Country

One point President Trump brought up to one of the reporters who kept ninnyhammering him over statistics was that his information came from a different source. Trumps stats came from Homeland Security that show the problem to be far worse than the reporters' insufficiently-based stats. No one can touch Homeland Security's means of information. No one.

My family lived near the border of Laredo/Nueva Laredo when I was young. My memories of the land in the surrounding general area included overlooking the Rio Grande that at the time was low. I'm sure it's a lot more grown up today than it was in 1958, but I was wondering how they could call someone a wetback who waded through that, because their back would likely be dry. But what does a kid know?

But recalling that day, the river could have been low for a lot of reasons including drought or just a seasonal oddity for one reason or another. Where we stood on the outskirts of that not too large of a town back then is probably a neighborhood or even a city block by now. We spent time in Nueva Laredo, too. It was fascinating for a kid knowing I was on foreign soil for the first time in my life, and it didn't feel much different, but the market we went to was so pretty and colorful. Even so, however far it would be to the nearest ranch or ranchette along the border today, it'd be a pretty austere scene, and I'm not sure where the fences are in place along the Texas border. Probably not too many miles of it considering that only 700 of the 4000 miles as I understand it (and not from Homeland Security, either) along the entire border have no fence, no berm, no wall. We will have to wait and see what goes down on Monday. I think I read about lawsuits, etc. being filed to delay or obstruct the building of the wall, which the Congress has the right to level. I'm sorry it had to come to this stuff I'm hearing is going to be engaged in. My side is pretty ticked. Your side is pretty ticked. I hope an early decision is made if the suit is brought forward, and that the wall gets built.

There's actually about a half dozens suits, land owner's in the Rio Grande Valley, an environmental group, ACLU, and the California AG. I think the most important suits are yet to come, those challenging the president's power to move money from the selected categories. I suspect the lawsuits that will start off in various district courts and will take the rest of the year to resolve. There is certainly no rush. Trump acknowledged that in his announcement of the national emergency. All he needs is few miles of border wall to display on TV and his rallies and he can just create the rest.

Suits challenging the president authority to declare illegal immigration at the Southern border a national emergency will probably fail. The law does not limit the president as to what is an emergency. Unless the court uses the principal of reasonableness, I don't see how it can succeed.

What may be a bigger problem is convincing voters. 64% of American are not in favor of the president declaring a national emergency which is even higher than those that were against building of a wall, about 53%.

The Security Fence Act of 2005 began in 2006 and completed in 2015 built 670 miles of fencing. All the fencing at El Paso was completed out of these funds and according to the Border Patrol it reduced illegal crossing by 85%.

The very first secure fence built on the border was the San Diego steel fence. Back in the 1980's there were about 60 miles of border there, secured by a barb wire fence and a single cable used to mark the border; that is no security at all. Mexicans and Americans crossed the border in the thousands every day. It all came to a head in 1986, when the Border Patrol agents in the San Diego district apprehended 629,656 people, slightly more than the population of Las Vegas. It was estimated more 200,000 were not apprehended. Now, that would certainly qualify as a national emergency. However, attitudes were a lot different then. What resulted was the building of a steel fence and the assignment of about 25% of the total border patrol force to that area. As a result the barrier was almost 100% effective, which resulted in large numbers of illegal crossing to east and in Arizona.

I too lived near the border just outside of Tucson when I was a kid. We use to camp out in what is now Coranada National Memorial just south of Sierra Vista. Never knew whether we were in Mexico or the US but nobody really seem to care. We would run into Mexicans from time to time, some camping and some backpacking. I suppose some were illegal but as I said, nobody really cared. Of course drugs weren't the big deal then they are now.

BTW the Rio Grande is deep in places up to about 40 feet or so but yes you're correct, at some places, depending on rains and time of year, you can walk across.

Those were good days when nobody cared, but then there were really no incentives to come over here. Back then, teachers made few dollars, school administrators a few dollars more, but not that much. And 3 weeks allowance for kids in a family of 5 was pretty low. Even so, 75 cents US was a lot of pesos, and we spent like drunken sailors when we went to Nuevo Laredo, taking home a painted shiny wooden rattle with seeds in it to make a soft noise, couple of pretty feathers to make ink pens with (which didn't write later on craft day. <giggle> oh, yeh, and a little leather-handled paper fan for mama's birthday with roses tooled on it. My brother kept haggling with the shop keepers, so I told him how merciless he was, and he told me how dumb I was for NOT haggling because he said they expected it. He always knew how to shut me up, but I had the perfect word for him, "meanie." I remember concrete around where we crossed, but I don't remember the river being right there when we crossed. Maybe my big brother and I were fussing at each other over a gum wrapper or something. My kids did the same thing around the same ages as we were years later. lol I think the year was around 1958. I remember Dad took us to a really good restaurant with food like nothing I'd ever seen or tasted, but it was good. Seems there was a town square where a lot of little children hung out and begged for nickels. There were so many of them Dad got us back in the car and we left. Years later, I realized that we saw plants one would use in a xeriscape in a dry weather state like Arizona.

Wow your Tucson was pretty close to the border, but when we went through AZ years later, we stayed with my Great Aunt Dottie in Phoenix a couple of days. Think the year was 1965 in early summer. Dad had been appointed to assist the War on Poverty effort by Pres. Johnson, so it was a long way from Houston to Elsinore, California that was near the Ortega Mountains where the War on Poverty Camp was. Dad's skills in high school coaching were unparalleled, and the President may have wanted a winning baseball team so the poor kids would take some pride in winning something in their lives. Our house was on Lake Elsinore. I never saw a tree more pretty in my whole life than that one that was in the front of our house. Think it was a Eucalyptus. It had amazingly colored bark that was like peel-away skin, only prettier. Glad you had a good time at the border park in NM. Nothing like being young and camping out. Went to a junior college in Alta Loma after enjoying what was left of summer and bidding my older brother good bye as he enlisted in the Navy in San Diego. By that time we were friends, and I didn't see him for years later but we corresponded when he was out to sea and had absolutely nothing else to do, which was not often. That was our last summer of being just kids.

Don't know what's going to go down on the border barrier nor how long it takes to get there. I'm glad I talked to my cousin last week. She was a school administrator in Houston, and I got a lecture on her on how students in that city who were American weren't getting the quality of education due to teachers having to split their time between English speakers and Spanish speakers with the added burden of having to teach them 6 years' worth of information in only 2 years which exacerbated the educational problems in this border state. She is for stopping the flow of immigration, and I didn't know it until I asked what she thought of closing down the border before I made up my mind which way I was going to go on it. She opened my eyes to the fact that people paying taxes for American kids to learn were paying into a system that no longer has enough time to teach fully all they needed to know to get into college. I realized I could never let American kids down even though I empathasize with poor people since teachers kids back when I was growing up had few advantages, but we didn't know it because we were used to playing with neighborhood kids, setting up kool aid stands and selling it to anyone good enough to stop their car to pay ragamuffins like us 5 or 10 cents for a big paper cup of sugar water with a little color and flavor in it. Childhood was okay considering that we all had a lot of friends in our neighborhoods, knew where the best blackberries grew, and someone's parent was always there to rotate trips to the local swimming pool.

Looking into my crystal ball, I have a pretty good idea of how the border barrier is going to go. First, it's not going be a wall because a wall is solid structure. It's going to be a fence much like what we have now around El Paso. Trump will still call it a wall because that creates dissension which he seems to enjoy and his supporters like to think of it as a wall.

Second, like everything the government does it will take a long time to finish. The fencing from the 2005 border fence act, which was a small project compared to the wall was scheduled to compete in 3 year. It took 9 years and democrats supported it unlike the wall.

Within 10 years, undocumented immigrants in the US will be down to less than 5 million plus we will have immigration reform with a path to citizenship, tougher laws on illegal immigration and hiring, and more liberal admission policies. The result of tougher security at the border and easier entry to the US will eliminate most illegal immigration. If Trump is around then, he'll be claiming his wall saved American and eliminated illegal immigration and democrats will be saying immigration reform did it.

Funny, how when I look back at my early days in the desert and remember them as being so great. Today, I don't even particularly like the desert. I think of it as a hot dry wasteland.

 

[charwin95]

Trump fulfilling his promise to build the wall.

I thought he promised Mexico will pay for the wall.
Don’t tell us Trump is not lying.

 

[charwin95]

Wall is a comin' !

Possibly, but if it comes that way, the next Democratic president will use the same method to do something about climate change and all those guns. Trump might regret the precedent he is thinking about making.

Exactly. I don’t think these morons know what they are getting in to.

 

[charwin95]

This is a win for the Libs.

Trump has proven he cannot broker a deal and now has to admit he lost the battle with them.

Declaring a national emergency is a waving the white flag


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

We are still under 7 national emergencies signed by Bush and Obama....I bet you didn't even know that did you?.....

But those are real emergencies.Trump
created his own emergencies.
Even Ann Coulter will tell you that Trump national emergency is a fake.

Ann Coulter: National Emergency Designed ‘for Trump to Scam the Stupidest People in His Base’

Ann Coulter: National Emergency Designed ‘for Trump to Scam the Stupidest People in His Base’

 

[charwin95]

This is a win for the Libs.

Trump has proven he cannot broker a deal and now has to admit he lost the battle with them.

Declaring a national emergency is a waving the white flag


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

We are still under 7 national emergencies signed by Bush and Obama....I bet you didn't even know that did you?.....

But those are real emergencies.Trump
created his own emergencies.
Even Ann Coulter will tell you that Trump national emergency is a fake.

Ann Coulter: National Emergency Designed ‘for Trump to Scam the Stupidest People in His Base’

Ann Coulter: National Emergency Designed ‘for Trump to Scam the Stupidest People in His Base’

Trump National Emergency was designed to scam the stupidest people in his base.
WOW.