Will trump be forced to use national emergency to build wall

[playtime]

he has to justify the reasoning. one problem that he will run into is the amount of time. he had 2 years to push it thru. he never really tried to do that...

Where does it say he has to justify the reason? To whom?

america, congress, the courts............... he is 'president' of the US , not dear leader of NK.

Okay, where in the law does it say he has to get approval from Congress or the courts? I don't see that.

i'm talking about the concept that the vast majority of public opinion & judicial opinion & congressional opinion against such a thing should carry weight with the 'president' of this country. not just what a rw tranny & oxy laden draft dodging radio talker has to say.

No matter what a President does or says, he will always have critics. So what? If he doesn't declare a national emergency he's going to have harsh critics anyway, just different ones.

'cept tribbles is swayed by harsh critics if they are from the 'right'.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It’s always a Constitutional issue. Congress cannot confer powers to the POTUS thst Congress does not itself possess. Considering that Congress is limited to power over the specific items listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; those same limits should apply to what a National Emergency can be related to.

Recognizing the need for the President to take action when Congress cannot act effectively on an issue the Congress passed laws in 1979 that in effect have Congress rubber stamping whatever the President does under a declaration of national emergency. Certainly, the Constitution does not prohibit Congress from doing that. If a President abuses this authority, Congress still have the power to impeach him and convict him, hence removing him from office.

Well.......not really. Impeaching a President does not remove him from office. And whatever "abuse" he's accused of would have to fall under the category of high crimes or misdemeanors.

You are of course correct that an impeachment is just an indictment and the President would have to be convicted by the Senate to be removed from office, however, since the Constitution gives us no clue as to what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" for the purpose of impeachment, it will effectively be whatever the House says it is.

Well misdemeanors do have a definition, but I don't know if there is a legal definition for high crimes. You are correct, the Congress may try it anyway, but Piglosi herself said she's not anxious to exercise impeachment unless it's a good enough reason. She may get her girdle in a bunch, but I don't think she'd get pissed off enough to try an impeachment over a wall.

not over a wall but

conspiracy to defraud the united states
obstruction of justice
witness tampering
witness intimidation
violating the emoluments clause
dereliction of duty
abuse of power

might do it. however, impeachment starts with jerry nadler, chair of the judiciary committee.

All of which are a phony as a blonde wig on a black woman.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Where does it say he has to justify the reason? To whom?

america, congress, the courts............... he is 'president' of the US , not dear leader of NK.

Okay, where in the law does it say he has to get approval from Congress or the courts? I don't see that.

i'm talking about the concept that the vast majority of public opinion & judicial opinion & congressional opinion against such a thing should carry weight with the 'president' of this country. not just what a rw tranny & oxy laden draft dodging radio talker has to say.

No matter what a President does or says, he will always have critics. So what? If he doesn't declare a national emergency he's going to have harsh critics anyway, just different ones.

'cept tribbles is swayed by harsh critics if they are from the 'right'.

No, he isn't, that's what MSM told you to believe.

 

[playtime]

Recognizing the need for the President to take action when Congress cannot act effectively on an issue the Congress passed laws in 1979 that in effect have Congress rubber stamping whatever the President does under a declaration of national emergency. Certainly, the Constitution does not prohibit Congress from doing that. If a President abuses this authority, Congress still have the power to impeach him and convict him, hence removing him from office.

Well.......not really. Impeaching a President does not remove him from office. And whatever "abuse" he's accused of would have to fall under the category of high crimes or misdemeanors.

You are of course correct that an impeachment is just an indictment and the President would have to be convicted by the Senate to be removed from office, however, since the Constitution gives us no clue as to what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" for the purpose of impeachment, it will effectively be whatever the House says it is.

Well misdemeanors do have a definition, but I don't know if there is a legal definition for high crimes. You are correct, the Congress may try it anyway, but Piglosi herself said she's not anxious to exercise impeachment unless it's a good enough reason. She may get her girdle in a bunch, but I don't think she'd get pissed off enough to try an impeachment over a wall.

not over a wall but

conspiracy to defraud the united states
obstruction of justice
witness tampering
witness intimidation
violating the emoluments clause
dereliction of duty
abuse of power

might do it. however, impeachment starts with jerry nadler, chair of the judiciary committee.

All of which are a phony as a blonde wig on a black woman.

who's next 'in the barrel'? it's a toss up between traitor tot, panty waist jared, or human sausage casing steve bannon.......................

 

[playtime]

america, congress, the courts............... he is 'president' of the US , not dear leader of NK.

Okay, where in the law does it say he has to get approval from Congress or the courts? I don't see that.

i'm talking about the concept that the vast majority of public opinion & judicial opinion & congressional opinion against such a thing should carry weight with the 'president' of this country. not just what a rw tranny & oxy laden draft dodging radio talker has to say.

No matter what a President does or says, he will always have critics. So what? If he doesn't declare a national emergency he's going to have harsh critics anyway, just different ones.

'cept tribbles is swayed by harsh critics if they are from the 'right'.

No, he isn't, that's what MSM told you to believe.

sure ray ray, sure. donny's ego can't stand it when he's criticized. he obsesses over it.

 

[Aponi]

trump underestimated the speaker. oh - & he is a business man who had several business' go bankrupt - including casinos, that by their very nature, are designed to be a very easy profit making venue.

Really? Trump is the only one to file bankruptcy for a casino.......especially in a recession?

Donald Trump has owned or operated over 500 businesses in his life. He had five bankruptcies; two of them for one business. That means he filed less than one bankruptcy for every 100 businesses he owned or managed. I would call that a pretty good record, and Trump has never filed for personal bankruptcy.

uh-huh. his casinos went belly up 4 times, ray ray. casinos don't do that. AND back in the 90s he had to be put on an allowance by wall street because he was outa control... & anybody with a very rich daddy giving out millions of dollars to start out life with should have an edge. trumpco is all brand & not much more. where's trump steaks? trump airlines? vodka? etc etc etc...........all gone.

I hate to tell you this hes a billionare and like many people hes had failure and success.
I worked as a exotic dancer in upper end clubs in south florida to support my child and to save money.
I started a cleaning service .it failed.
I went back to dancing I made 500 to 1500 a night.
I again started a business .
Now i have 36 employees a business partner .
I have plans of opening a resturant .
It might fail it might not .
But in business thats how it goes . you fail or not you start over.

 

[Kondor3]

I think it will happen because democrats hate american values

Um, no, it has to be an actual emergency to use emergency powers.

The lowest level of illegal crossings in 30 years... This is not only a crisis, we are making real progress without a wall just doing what we are doing.

A declared State of Emergency can be rationalized in a wide variety of ways.

And, with a 5-4 SCOTUS handling a swiftly expedited review... The Creature just might pull it off.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well.......not really. Impeaching a President does not remove him from office. And whatever "abuse" he's accused of would have to fall under the category of high crimes or misdemeanors.

You are of course correct that an impeachment is just an indictment and the President would have to be convicted by the Senate to be removed from office, however, since the Constitution gives us no clue as to what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" for the purpose of impeachment, it will effectively be whatever the House says it is.

Well misdemeanors do have a definition, but I don't know if there is a legal definition for high crimes. You are correct, the Congress may try it anyway, but Piglosi herself said she's not anxious to exercise impeachment unless it's a good enough reason. She may get her girdle in a bunch, but I don't think she'd get pissed off enough to try an impeachment over a wall.

not over a wall but

conspiracy to defraud the united states
obstruction of justice
witness tampering
witness intimidation
violating the emoluments clause
dereliction of duty
abuse of power

might do it. however, impeachment starts with jerry nadler, chair of the judiciary committee.

All of which are a phony as a blonde wig on a black woman.

who's next 'in the barrel'? it's a toss up between traitor tot, panty waist jared, or human sausage casing steve bannon.......................

I guess that would have to be who did what before they even met Trump.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, where in the law does it say he has to get approval from Congress or the courts? I don't see that.

i'm talking about the concept that the vast majority of public opinion & judicial opinion & congressional opinion against such a thing should carry weight with the 'president' of this country. not just what a rw tranny & oxy laden draft dodging radio talker has to say.

No matter what a President does or says, he will always have critics. So what? If he doesn't declare a national emergency he's going to have harsh critics anyway, just different ones.

'cept tribbles is swayed by harsh critics if they are from the 'right'.

No, he isn't, that's what MSM told you to believe.

sure ray ray, sure. donny's ego can't stand it when he's criticized. he obsesses over it.

Well name me one time he ever said Ann or Rush had anything to do with his decisions. He never said that--the MSM did. But I'm sure you believe the MSM is so great they can even read minds.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The law does not give the courts a say in what an emergency is or not--only the President.

Actually, it does...

Trump can declare an emergency, but when it comes to seizing land, and spending money, he has to prove it.

The right of eminent domain is well established and the courts have no jurisdiction over individual cases if the government follows established procedures. Some politically motivated lower courts may slow the process down a little, but the legal principle is well established and the President will prevail.

Under a declaration of national emergency, the President can and other presidents have moved money that has already been appropriated around to prioritize objectives Congress never intended to fund, and that is what President Trump will do if the Democrats continue to stonewall negotiations.

other presidents have moved money that has already been appropriated around to prioritize objectives Congress never intended to fund,
That's really interesting. Can you give us some details on that--like what President, for what purposes and what funds he appropriated?

"Congress has delegated at least 136 distinct statutory emergency powers to the President upon the declaration of an emergency. Only 13 require a declaration from Congress; the remainder are invoked by an executive declaration with no Congressional input.[15]

Emergency presidential powers are dramatic, and range from suspending all laws regulating chemical and biological weapons, including the ban on human testing (50 U.S.C. § 1515, passed 1969); to suspending any Clean Air Act implementation plan or excess emissions penalty upon petition of a state governor (42 U.S.C. (f) § 7410 (f), passed 1977); to authorizing and constructing military construction projects (10 U.S.C. (a) § 2808 (a), passed 1982) using any existing defense appropriationsfor such military constructions ($10.4 billion in FY2018[16]); to drafting any retired Coast Guard officers (14 U.S.C. § 331, passed 1963) or enlisted members (14 U.S.C. § 359, passed 1949) into active duty."

Will trump be forced to use national emergency to build wall

 

[toomuchtime_]

I think it will happen because democrats hate american values

Forced? For a made up “emergency” that is nothing but a lunatics ego trip?

Why wasn’t there an emergency when the rightwingnut teumpacum had bothhousss of Congress?

Pathetic little trumpkins

Clearly, you have no idea how Congress works. To pass legislation the Democrats opposed in the Senate would have required 60 votes and the Republicans never had 60 votes, so your claim the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress is false.

114th Congerss ... Republican majority in the House & Senate -- CLEARLY.

But not the 60 votes in the Senate needed to overcome Democratic opposition to the fence.

 

[toomuchtime_]

It’s always a Constitutional issue. Congress cannot confer powers to the POTUS thst Congress does not itself possess. Considering that Congress is limited to power over the specific items listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; those same limits should apply to what a National Emergency can be related to.

Recognizing the need for the President to take action when Congress cannot act effectively on an issue the Congress passed laws in 1979 that in effect have Congress rubber stamping whatever the President does under a declaration of national emergency. Certainly, the Constitution does not prohibit Congress from doing that. If a President abuses this authority, Congress still have the power to impeach him and convict him, hence removing him from office.

Well.......not really. Impeaching a President does not remove him from office. And whatever "abuse" he's accused of would have to fall under the category of high crimes or misdemeanors.

You are of course correct that an impeachment is just an indictment and the President would have to be convicted by the Senate to be removed from office, however, since the Constitution gives us no clue as to what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" for the purpose of impeachment, it will effectively be whatever the House says it is.

Well misdemeanors do have a definition, but I don't know if there is a legal definition for high crimes. You are correct, the Congress may try it anyway, but Piglosi herself said she's not anxious to exercise impeachment unless it's a good enough reason. She may get her girdle in a bunch, but I don't think she'd get pissed off enough to try an impeachment over a wall.

not over a wall but

conspiracy to defraud the united states
obstruction of justice
witness tampering
witness intimidation
violating the emoluments clause
dereliction of duty
abuse of power

might do it. however, impeachment starts with jerry nadler, chair of the judiciary committee.

And so far not a single piece of evidence to support any of these allegations. An impeachment hearing would only be for the purpose of setting up a venue for talking trash about the President.

 

[danielpalos]

he had 2 years to do it. that will be taken into account.

Taken into account by whom? One more time, the courts do not have the ability to rule whether something is an emergency or not. They can only rule on the constitutionality of the issue or if if the law was followed properly.

correct. & if they decide his 'national emergency' really isn't - based on constitutional law --- like his abuse of power --- then that will be that, won't it? & he might even be gone by the time the courts decide anyhow.

There is no constitutional law when it comes to declaring a national emergency. It was a law passed by Congress many years ago that gave the President (not Congress, not the court) explicit power to decide what an emergency was. As long as Trump did it by the procedure outlined in the law, there is nothing a court can do. The law did not give the power to the courts to decide what an emergency was--only a President.

oh so if he said he wanted to declare a national emergency based on his very real belief that mars IS attacking, then he can?

Legally, yes he can. The law has no oversight on what a President is allowed to declare an emergency. Democrats may be able to remove him from office because he lost his mind, but not because what he declares an emergency.

there is no express wall building power and we have no common defense issue on the border; it is a refugee problem.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, but that's a different category altogether. Eminent Domain is constantly used in this country. In most instances the landowner loses the case.

whatever... I don't think the courts are going to let Trump seize land to build something Congress didn't authorize.

This is how this is going to play out. He'll declare an emergency, the courts will slap him down, and he'll go back to you rednecks and say, "Well, I tried" and you'll vote for him anyway.

Provided he isn't impeached by then, which he probably will be.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, but that's a different category altogether. Eminent Domain is constantly used in this country. In most instances the landowner loses the case.

whatever... I don't think the courts are going to let Trump seize land to build something Congress didn't authorize.

This is how this is going to play out. He'll declare an emergency, the courts will slap him down, and he'll go back to you rednecks and say, "Well, I tried" and you'll vote for him anyway.

Provided he isn't impeached by then, which he probably will be.

The courts only judge whether a case is legal or constitutional. They don't (at least righty judges) make law on the bench. Since this law was enacted in the 70's, and since the Constitution gave authorization for the Congress to do this, there is nothing the court can do. As for Eminent Domain, that will slow down the project but not stop it. A lot of wall to build so while that's being processed, they can work on the areas where there is no problem. From what I understand, many border people are willing to donate the land just to stop the problem.

 

[Kondor3]

...The President cannot just declare a "national emergency" unless there is an ACTUAL national emergency...

Vast numbers of Americans would say that the presence of 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens upon United States soil IS a National Emergency.

...give Mitch McConnell the excuse to impeach Trump and save his Senate mahority.

I seriously doubt that the Republican-controlled Senate would convict (not impeach) Trump for finding a way to build The Wall.

 

[danielpalos]

I think it will happen because democrats hate american values

Um, no, it has to be an actual emergency to use emergency powers.

The lowest level of illegal crossings in 30 years... This is not only a crisis, we are making real progress without a wall just doing what we are doing.

A declared State of Emergency can be rationalized in a wide variety of ways.

And, with a 5-4 SCOTUS handling a swiftly expedited review... The Creature just might pull it off.

we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.

 

[danielpalos]

The law does not give the courts a say in what an emergency is or not--only the President.

Actually, it does...

Trump can declare an emergency, but when it comes to seizing land, and spending money, he has to prove it.

The right of eminent domain is well established and the courts have no jurisdiction over individual cases if the government follows established procedures. Some politically motivated lower courts may slow the process down a little, but the legal principle is well established and the President will prevail.

Under a declaration of national emergency, the President can and other presidents have moved money that has already been appropriated around to prioritize objectives Congress never intended to fund, and that is what President Trump will do if the Democrats continue to stonewall negotiations.

other presidents have moved money that has already been appropriated around to prioritize objectives Congress never intended to fund,
That's really interesting. Can you give us some details on that--like what President, for what purposes and what funds he appropriated?

"Congress has delegated at least 136 distinct statutory emergency powers to the President upon the declaration of an emergency. Only 13 require a declaration from Congress; the remainder are invoked by an executive declaration with no Congressional input.[15]

Emergency presidential powers are dramatic, and range from suspending all laws regulating chemical and biological weapons, including the ban on human testing (50 U.S.C. § 1515, passed 1969); to suspending any Clean Air Act implementation plan or excess emissions penalty upon petition of a state governor (42 U.S.C. (f) § 7410 (f), passed 1977); to authorizing and constructing military construction projects (10 U.S.C. (a) § 2808 (a), passed 1982) using any existing defense appropriationsfor such military constructions ($10.4 billion in FY2018[16]); to drafting any retired Coast Guard officers (14 U.S.C. § 331, passed 1963) or enlisted members (14 U.S.C. § 359, passed 1949) into active duty."

Will trump be forced to use national emergency to build wall

general socialism?

 

[danielpalos]

...The President cannot just declare a "national emergency" unless there is an ACTUAL national emergency...

Vast numbers of Americans would say that the presence of 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens upon United States soil IS a National Emergency.

...give Mitch McConnell the excuse to impeach Trump and save his Senate mahority.

I seriously doubt that the Republican-controlled Senate would convict (not impeach) Trump for finding a way to build The Wall.

no, it isn't. we have no Constitutional immigration clause; that is all just right wingers getting their panties in a bunch over their national socialism.

 

[playtime]

trump underestimated the speaker. oh - & he is a business man who had several business' go bankrupt - including casinos, that by their very nature, are designed to be a very easy profit making venue.

Really? Trump is the only one to file bankruptcy for a casino.......especially in a recession?

Donald Trump has owned or operated over 500 businesses in his life. He had five bankruptcies; two of them for one business. That means he filed less than one bankruptcy for every 100 businesses he owned or managed. I would call that a pretty good record, and Trump has never filed for personal bankruptcy.

uh-huh. his casinos went belly up 4 times, ray ray. casinos don't do that. AND back in the 90s he had to be put on an allowance by wall street because he was outa control... & anybody with a very rich daddy giving out millions of dollars to start out life with should have an edge. trumpco is all brand & not much more. where's trump steaks? trump airlines? vodka? etc etc etc...........all gone.

I hate to tell you this hes a billionare and like many people hes had failure and success.
I worked as a exotic dancer in upper end clubs in south florida to support my child and to save money.
I started a cleaning service .it failed.
I went back to dancing I made 500 to 1500 a night.
I again started a business .
Now i have 36 employees a business partner .
I have plans of opening a resturant .
It might fail it might not .
But in business thats how it goes . you fail or not you start over.

uh, sure.