Trump isn't hard enough, that's just the truth. He's trying too hard to compromise

[STTAB]

As expected , he's being sued 16 states and multiple other groups over his declaration of a national emergency.

If this were me as President, I would take that $1.3B and hire as many new immigration judges as possible and order ICE to start targeting DACA douches for deportation until the Dems begged for mercy. Its time to break the Democrats, completely.

[jimnyc]

I was going to post in one of the other wall threads, so many!! Guess this is as good as any.

I'm more than nervous about this and have a feeling the wall ain't happening. 16 states & many individuals with their property. We know it will end up in the SC, I assume all of it in one form or another?

But the more I read about this and the more I hear from former judges.... I just think it's a tough battle ahead, for both sides. And even with the edge in the SC, I still wouldn't bet more than a dime on this one.

Trump literally did all he could. He was more than obstructed by the dem party as they said they would do, kudos to them. The right never lined up fully to support this president, really on any agenda/subject. The news, don't think that doesn't make a difference, trashed this man non-stop, and continues to do so. If he had support of his own team and fairness from the media - what a world of difference things would be from an already successful president.

--

So he should instantly get started with the $1.7 and do what he can with what he has for sure. Perhaps make it in a manner to where folks would want it finished if possible. Beef up the worst of the worst areas.

If the Dems would have compromised as I said all along, I think things would also be much better there. Great fencing and technology and more agents and such.... Things they already agreed to. Trump said he would more or less do just that, just with higher numbers. He even hung out a carrot of things for dreamers and such. They refused. Hence came out the national emergency and where we're at now.

[jimnyc]

As expected , he's being sued 16 states and multiple other groups over his declaration of a national emergency.

If this were me as President, I would take that $1.3B and hire as many new immigration judges as possible and order ICE to start targeting DACA douches for deportation until the Dems begged for mercy. Its time to break the Democrats, completely.

Btw, this might almost be possible, but he would need the entire team on the right on board, and that's not happening.

But he should most definitely play hardball with ILLEGAL immigrants and deportations and all that jazz...

[STTAB]

Btw, this might almost be possible, but he would need the entire team on the right on board, and that's not happening.

But he should most definitely play hardball with ILLEGAL immigrants and deportations and all that jazz...

100% fact that he doesn't have his own party behind him, because they no more want what is actually best for America than the Dems do, all these pieces of shit care about is their own power.

Paul Ryan, Jeff Flake, and John McCain three absolute traitors to this country.

[Drummond]

Could Trump be considering electoral tactics in all of this .. by which, I mean, he wants to show everyone that he's doing his best to satisfy his election pledges, but is meeting very stiff opposition at every turn ... so, he presents his opposers as those who show contempt for the 'popular mood and wishes'.

In that way, HE shows himself as a loyal servant of the People, therefore more electable for a second term than others ...

[STTAB]

Could Trump be considering electoral tactics in all of this .. by which, I mean, he wants to show everyone that he's doing his best to satisfy his election pledges, but is meeting very stiff opposition at every turn ... so, he presents his opposers as those who show contempt for the 'popular mood and wishes'.

In that way, HE shows himself as a loyal servant of the People, therefore more electable for a second term than others ...

I expected Trump to be different, the guy who didn't worry about reelection. He worried about fixing what he could and reelection would take care of itself.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I think that he couldn't be on any better legal footing if he had custom ordered it to contest these shit stain radicals in the states that are suing. I think if the SC doesn't side with the president, who clearly DOES have the LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL authority to declare this emergency, with MOUNTAINS of PROOF it IS an EMERGENCY, then our SC is a FARCE. We might as well just QUIT fighting. Just let the radicals take over, the Omars, the Cortezs, the feel the Berns and the Spartucus', just let them have it, ruin it, fuck it up until we look like North Korea, because republicans have lost their GUTS and the SC is no help what so ever.

It's either that or just have another full blown civil war. Just divide up and have a knock down, drag out, shoot 'em up WAR, winner take all. Frankly I'd prefer that.

[Drummond]

I expected Trump to be different, the guy who didn't worry about reelection. He worried about fixing what he could and reelection would take care of itself.

Not worrying about reelection is essentially the same as his considering that being in place for longer, to fully do the things he cares about, shouldn't matter to him. A President not wanting to care about how long he serves the People, is surely one not properly determined to reach his goals, achieve his promises ?

[High_Plains_Drifter]

https://i.ibb.co/VqgKqM0/Dzy-Tt-Of-Ws-AEMGUx.jpg

[jimnyc]

Another on the subject...

---

Trump Is On Solid Legal Ground In Declaring A Border Emergency To Build A Wall

President Donald Trump is legally justified in using a declaration of a emergency to use already appropriated federal funds to build a border wall.

A review of existing federal laws makes clear that President Donald Trump has clear statutory authority to build a border wall pursuant to a declaration of a national emergency. Arguments to the contrary either mischaracterize or completely ignore existing federal emergency declarations and appropriations laws that delegate to the president temporary and limited authority to reprogram already appropriated funding toward the creation of a border wall between the United States and Mexico.

To analyze the legal basis for Trump’s declaration of a national emergency and subsequent transfer of existing appropriations to respond to the declared emergency, we must begin and end with the actual text of underlying federal laws governing presidential declarations and appropriations of federal funding. The most important text regarding the latter is Section 9 of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law[.]”

This law is what grants Congress the so-called “power of the purse” and effectively makes Congress the most powerful branch of the federal government. Not one dime may be spent by the federal government in the absence of an act of Congress. As a result, no mere declaration of emergency by the president is sufficient to allow the expenditure of funding that Congress has not already appropriated.

Much news coverage of Trump’s national emergency declaration has suggested that he is unilaterally spending money that has not been appropriated to fund construction of a wall (or fence, or security barrier, or whatever you want to call it) on the U.S. southern border, but that is simply not the case. In fact, the formal declaration of a national emergency on the U.S.-Mexico border cites two specific federal statutes that provide him the legal basis to use emergency funds to secure the border: one authorizing the president to declare national emergencies (50 U.S.C 1601 et. seq.) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-34) and the other authorizing the president to reprogram existing federal appropriations in response to an emergency declaration (10 U.S.C. 2808) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2808).

Between 2001 and 2014, according to a January 2019 analysis by the Congressional Research Service, Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama used those two laws in tandem 18 separate times to reprogram existing appropriations to address national emergencies, so there’s nothing unusual or unprecedented in Trump using the same authorities to respond to national security threats.

What Those Two Laws Allow Presidents to Do

But what do those two laws say about the use of presidential declarations to spend money? What kind of conditions do they require (if any), and what limitations do they place on the president? After all, as noted above, the only powers that the president can lawfully use in this instance must first be authorized by Congress.

The first law, known as the National Emergencies Act of 1976, explicitly authorizes the president to declare a national emergency. Here is the key text:


(a) With respect to Acts of Congress authorizing the exercise, during the period of a national emergency, of any special or extraordinary power, the President is authorized to declare such national emergency. Such proclamation shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.
(b) Any provisions of law conferring powers and authorities to be exercised during a national emergency shall be effective and remain in effect (1) only when the President (in accordance with subsection (a) of this section), specifically declares a national emergency, and (2) only in accordance with this chapter. No law enacted after September 14, 1976, shall supersede this subchapter unless it does so in specific terms, referring to this subchapter, and declaring that the new law supersedes the provisions of this subchapter.

As the text demonstrates, the president clearly has the authority to declare a national emergency. But it is important to note what is missing from the text: any conditions, requirements, or examples of what constitutes a “national emergency.” Congress put no constraints on whether a president may declare an emergency, or what conditions must be met in order for a particular event or crisis to be considered an “emergency.” Instead, the law leaves that decision solely up to the president.

Rather than constraining the president’s authority to declare an emergency, or setting conditions on what may be considered an emergency, Congress opted to limit the authority of the president to take certain actions in the event of an emergency. In other words, Congress allowed the president to walk into the room at his sole discretion, then limited what he was allowed to do in there once he entered.

The president’s authority to declare a national emergency established by statute, let us now turn to what authorities the president is granted once a national emergency is declared. Within the context of the emergency border wall debate, that law is 10 U.S.C. 2808, which delegates to the president, in the event of a national emergency that requires the U.S. military, the authority to reprogram existing appropriations for military construction projects in order to address the ongoing emergency. Here is the text of that particular statute:


(a) In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that requires use of the armed forces, the Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces. Such projects may be undertaken only within the total amount of funds that have been appropriated for military construction, including funds appropriated for family housing, that have not been obligated.
(b) When a decision is made to undertake military construction projects authorized by this section, the Secretary of Defense shall notify, in an electronic medium pursuant to section 480 of this title, the appropriate committees of Congress of the decision and of the estimated cost of the construction projects, including the cost of any real estate action pertaining to those construction projects.
(c) The authority described in subsection (a) shall terminate with respect to any war or national emergency at the end of the war or national emergency.

Rest - http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/19/trump-solid-legal-ground-declaring-border-emergency-build-wall/

[pete311]

It's almost as if you guys want a dictator. We have checks and balances for a reason. The majority of us don't want a president that can do whatever he wants.

[jimnyc]

It's almost as if you guys want a dictator. We have checks and balances for a reason. The majority of us don't want a president that can do whatever he wants.

We want the law upheld, which has NEVER been done over the years and festered into a $100 - $125 billion a year problem - and growing and growing worse daily.

Yes, we have checks and balances. We'll see what the courts and likely the SC have to say about such an emergency declaration - which has been done many times before. If he's wrong, the courts will say so. Sometimes that's what happens when you have a congress that stated from day one that they would obstruct everything and anything from Trump.

The left has supported fences, technology, tons of agents, drones and more... Then they pulled their hands back to obstruct. So Trump had no alternative but to try a hail mary.

That is hardly one being a dictator, not even close. And if already acknowledging the courts, then that's not nearly doing whatever one wants - that's doing what the court decides.

If they decide against and say it's beyond his power to do so, then so be it, dead end I suppose, and will have to make do what what little there is. If they decide with him, then it's within his power to do so, end of case.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

It's almost as if you guys want a dictator. We have checks and balances for a reason. The majority of us don't want a president that can do whatever he wants.
Oh REALLY... well why weren't you belly aching about all the OTHER national emergencies declared by OTHER presidents... hmmm... ? You little shit talker... this is the FIRST N.E. declared by President Trump, and you have your little diaper ALL full of SHIT over it, even knowing full welll... IT IS a TRUE, NATIONAL EMERGENCY.

Trump's border wall joins 31 other national emergencies currently in effect

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-border-wall-other-national-emergencies-currently-in-effect

[Elessar]

It's almost as if you guys want a dictator. We have checks and balances for a reason. The majority of us don't want a president that can do whatever he wants.

The majority of what 'us'? liberals?
Admit it. You worshiped Obama as a dictator.
You two-faced swine.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

The majority of what 'us'? liberals?
Admit it. You worshiped Obama as a dictator.
You two-faced swine.
See... the little ASS CLOWN, Pedo Pete, would have to watch or read something OTHER than the BULL SHIT democrat propaganda wing CRAP he pumps his little empty skull full of before he'd realize he's sounding like a MORON.

[jimnyc]

I'm gonna try to post thoughts of judges and others I can find, thoughts defending either side.

---

Constitutional Lawyer Jonathan Turley: Trump Will Prevail, Wall Will Get Built

President Donald Trump knew his emergency declaration on the southern border would be challenged in court, and already 16 states, a number of leftwing organizations, and even landowners on the border are following suit. But one constitutional lawyer believes Trump will get his wall built.

This assessment came in an interview on taxpayer-funded and leftist National Public Radio’s (NPR) Weekend Edition Sunday, where the host questioned Jonathan Turley, a liberal law professor at George Washington University, about the legal challenges Trump will face.

“We just heard about one lawsuit being brought against the president by landowners and other stakeholders along the southern border. Do they have a case?” Lulu Garcia-Navarro asked Turley.

“Well, they have a case, but I’m afraid I don’t believe they have a particularly strong case,” Turley responded.

Turley explained that the National Emergencies Act enacted in 1976 “gave a president virtually unfettered authority.”

“In fact, it really doesn’t even define what an emergency is,” Turley said.

Turley also explained that Congress could look at two things if they want to stop the president: the act itself or the source of funding Trump is using.

But, Turley said, even challenging the funding might be “a long row to hoe because [Congress] gave the president over a billion dollars and he’s now identified at least three sources of largely undedicated funds that he can use.”

“Even if you knock out half of those, he’s still over $5 billion,” Turley said.

Garia-Navarro pressed Turley, saying — as many leftist media are highlighting — that Trump said he didn’t have to go with this plan but wanted to speed up the process and get the wall built.

Turley pointed out that many have lobbied Congress to change the act, but that has not happened.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/19/constitutional-lawyer-jonathan-turley-trump-will-prevail-wall-will-get-built/

[STTAB]

It's almost as if you guys want a dictator. We have checks and balances for a reason. The majority of us don't want a president that can do whatever he wants.

If I could find even a SINGLE example of you bitching when Obama did whatever the fuck he wanted I could at least take you seriously and engage you in a debate on whether THIS is simply Trump doing what Congress has empowered the POTUS to do, but I can not, so STFU you worthless little dipshit. I can't even believe that that cock sucker Jimmy banned Gabby but let's the likes you stick around.

Sorry Jimmy, we're cool, but you suck cock.

[jimnyc]

If I could find even a SINGLE example of you bitching when Obama did whatever the fuck he wanted I could at least take you seriously and engage you in a debate on whether THIS is simply Trump doing what Congress has empowered the POTUS to do, but I can not, so STFU you worthless little dipshit. I can't even believe that that cock sucker Jimmy banned Gabby but let's the likes you stick around.

Sorry Jimmy, we're cool, but you suck cock.

Won't happen. Pete had/has little to not interest about anything within his own party, anything of wrongdoing or anything like that. That stuff never mattered to him in the slightest bit. Whether that be literally law breaking type stuff, or horrible agenda and spending and anything else that is bitched about now that Trump is in office.

Ummmm, I think we're cool too. But uh.... you couldn't find a better way to mess with my head?

I don't care if folks get offended in the way I say it or not - I'm NO WAY in the world any type of fag or queer or any type of the cuckoos that are suddenly accepted today.

[STTAB]

Won't happen. Pete had/has little to not interest about anything within his own party, anything of wrongdoing or anything like that. That stuff never mattered to him in the slightest bit. Whether that be literally law breaking type stuff, or horrible agenda and spending and anything else that is bitched about now that Trump is in office.

Ummmm, I think we're cool too. But uh.... you couldn't find a better way to mess with my head?

I don't care if folks get offended in the way I say it or not - I'm NO WAY in the world any type of fag or queer or any type of the cuckoos that are suddenly accepted today.

LOL You banned Gabby = cock sucker. I know she was a PITA liberal dumb shit, but she was fun to look at and could at least joke around, this dipshit Pete is well a dipshit

Speaking of getting shit canned, the cowards over at USMB banned another poster who they thought mmight be me. I don't know why they are so frightened of little old me.

Also, as you well know, I was kidding bout the cock sucker thing, but speaking of cock suckers, is Gunny alright? Havent seen him post in some time, hopefully I just have missed it.

[jimnyc]

LOL You banned Gabby = cock sucker. I know she was a PITA liberal dumb shit, but she was fun to look at and could at least joke around, this dipshit Pete is well a dipshit

Speaking of getting shit canned, the cowards over at USMB banned another poster who they thought mmight be me. I don't know why they are so frightened of little old me.

Also, as you well know, I was kidding bout the cock sucker thing, but speaking of cock suckers, is Gunny alright? Havent seen him post in some time, hopefully I just have missed it.

Because it's ran by liberals from what I understand? I don't even really peek in over there anymore.

As for Gabby, she was given like 2,324 chances and continued on. Even now, no remorse. But if, if she showed a little remorse, sent me an email with an apology, she's welcome back. But you and I both know she'll never do so.

Gunny has popped in a few times in the past month and shot out a message. I think he's quite busy on the home and family level. Hopefully he'll have more time and come back to post with us before long!!

[The Sage of Main Street]

It's almost as if you guys want a dictator. We have checks and balances for a reason. The majority of us don't want a president who can do whatever he wants.

"Our" system of government is the problem. It has been guilty of the late, slow, and defenseless development of the West, the Civil War, the Robber Baron era, the Depression, savage riots and gangs, the $20 trillion debt, and all other anti-populist tyranny. But its few beneficiaries are made so suffocatingly strong by it that they are able to create a mental block against blaming their elitist Constitution as the enemy of self-determination. So we are tricked into blaming ourselves.

[Drummond]

"Our" system of government is the problem. It has been guilty of the late, slow, and defenseless development of the West, the Civil War, the Robber Baron era, the Depression, savage riots and gangs, the $20 trillion debt, and all other anti-populist tyranny. But its few beneficiaries are made so suffocatingly strong by it that they are able to create a mental block against blaming their elitist Constitution as the enemy of self-determination. So we are tricked into blaming ourselves.

I continue to find it difficult to follow your postings with any real clarity of mind.

But, simply: what solution to all that you apparently hate, would you like to see meaningfully employed ... that wouldn't be so drastic in its deployment, that IN FACT, it'd be so disruptive as to be destructive in the extreme ?

Bear in mind the realities of human nature, should you decide to answer me. No system can ultimately thrive and do good things if it doesn't interlock with the reality of human nature.

[aboutime]

It's almost as if you guys want a dictator. We have checks and balances for a reason. The majority of us don't want a president that can do whatever he wants.


If you were smarter petey, and not so full of dumb hatred. You might recognize (if you educate yourself), how President Trump IS NOT doing whatever he wants. But then, since you and the other liberals despise the Constitution (the real version...not just the parts you like). You'd see, President Trump makes certain..Everything he does, or wants to do...Is Constitutional.

Dems, and the rest of you haters can't take Trump because all of you ONLY THINK you are smarter than everyone else....Until an Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Jalipenio, Juarez, Mexically, like you arrives...:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[STTAB]

This is a perfect illlustration of liberal "logic" as one could get

Obama as President " I dont' really have the authority to create DACA, that is something Congress should do, but since they don't want to, I'll do it anyway"

Liberals "Yay Obama you the man, if Congress doesn't act, you must"

Trump as President "WHat Obama did was illegal, and so I'm cancelling DACA and challenging Congress to do it the legal way"

Same Liberals "Trump you motherfucker, you have overstepped your authority, you are a traitor to this country you orange bastard"

Idiots.

[The Sage of Main Street]

But, simply: what solution to all that you apparently hate, would you like to see meaningfully employed ... , it'd be so disruptive as to be destructive in the extreme ?

No system can ultimately thrive and do good things if it doesn't interlock with the reality of human nature.

Conformists to the status quo always justify themselves by pretending that change will bring chaos. Your view of human nature is illogically backed up by how much it has been dumbed-down, demoralized, and defeated by the present hereditary oligarchy.

In order to uplift the people, we need to allow self-determination through referendums on all important issues, taking away the present power of pre-owned politicians. Absolute rule of the majority, with no Constitutional overlord to humiliate our will.

[Drummond]

Conformists to the status quo always justify themselves by pretending that change will bring chaos. Your view of human nature is illogically backed up by how much it has been dumbed-down, demoralized, and defeated by the present hereditary oligarchy.

In order to uplift the people, we need to allow self-determination through referendums on all important issues, taking away the present power of pre-owned politicians. Absolute rule of the majority, with no Constitutional overlord to humiliate our will.

--- Really ? ---

OK, then. Let's examine this in some useful detail.

How - in purely practical, realistic terms, would you set about achieving what you say you want ?

What actual ACTIONS would be involved in bringing any of that about ?

While you're at it ... what proof do you have to offer which suggests that coherent support for all you advocate exists, in any meaningfully large numbers of people ? Could it be that you're far more alone in dreaming up your 'wish-list' than you'd like to admit ?

[The Sage of Main Street]

How - would you set about achieving what you want ?

What actual ACTIONS would be involved in bringing any of that about ?

While you're at it ... what proof do you have to offer which suggests that coherent support for all you advocate exists, in any meaningfully large numbers of people ?

If the majority don't have the guts to overthrow the hereditary elitists, they won't have the guts to stop patriots who do. As for the Chickenhawk rulers hiring people to protect them, they're so conceited that they believe everybody is naturally on their side, so it will be easy for free men to fake them out and get rid of them up close and personal.

[Drummond]

If the majority don't have the guts to overthrow the hereditary elitists, they won't have the guts to stop patriots who do. As for the Chickenhawk rulers hiring people to protect them, they're so conceited that they believe everybody is naturally on their side, so it will be easy for free men to fake them out and get rid of them up close and personal.
@The Sage of Main Street (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=3847) .....

Words. That's all I see here. At best, this is categorised as a tirade, one I strongly suspect to be an impotent one. I see little (if anything) of substance in your reply.

So, I'll ask you this again, in the 'hope' that - this time - you see fit to give me a proper answer.

How - in purely practical, realistic terms, would you set about achieving what you say you want ?

What actual ACTIONS would be involved in bringing any of that about ?

Would you care to answer, this time, or will you offer evasion instead ?

Maybe you'll not answer at all.

Subject to correction, of course ... I'm guessing that no response might be your wisest course. Let's see, shall we ?

[Gunny]

It's almost as if you guys want a dictator. We have checks and balances for a reason. The majority of us don't want a president that can do whatever he wants.I'd pretty-much just as soon have a dictator before a Dem. We'd still have more freedom.

[Drummond]

@The Sage of Main Street (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=3847) .....

Words. That's all I see here. At best, this is categorised as a tirade, one I strongly suspect to be an impotent one. I see little (if anything) of substance in your reply.

So, I'll ask you this again, in the 'hope' that - this time - you see fit to give me a proper answer.

How - in purely practical, realistic terms, would you set about achieving what you say you want ?

What actual ACTIONS would be involved in bringing any of that about ?

Would you care to answer, this time, or will you offer evasion instead ?

Maybe you'll not answer at all.

Subject to correction, of course ... I'm guessing that no response might be your wisest course. Let's see, shall we ?

No reply, then, 'Sage'.

Well, quite.

QED.