Trump is rocking it!

[Ingomike]

The court challenge to the law is the law "sufficiently specific and detailed to meet constitutional requirements.”.

MM

 

[mmpsteve]

P.S.: Fargo, sir, If you're a constitutional lawyer, I do apologise. I'm just a lowly printer, much like Benjamin Franklin (joke alert); I know nothing of Constitutional Law; only what I 'absorb' , much like an early American trying to figure it all out. I do insist that some common sense should be applied in all these legal battles. For instance, there's no way in hell that a Hawaii judge should be able to negate an immigration decision by the President of these United States. Some things stand on their own. I will learn, and prepare for battle with you, but I'm thinking you paid too much for your degree.

Strike that, it was the Turkey talking.

.

 

[jamil]

Yeah I want them to give trump total dictatorial powers and make him Emperor for life.

Okay. Funding the building of a border wall through emergency powers. Yes or no.

 

[mmpsteve]

Okay. Funding the building of a border wall through emergency powers. Yes or no.

Yes, I believe it is a crises. And becoming more so every day we do nothing. JMHO, as it were.

.

 

[jamil]

Whether Congress has laid down and intelligible principal on border control isn’t the legal question. It is whether or not there are sufficient principles in the emergency declaration act that the president is required to follow for it not to be a true grant of legislative authority.

Are there explicit principles and requirements in the emergency declaration act that the president is executing the law, and not making it up?

Things like an enforceable definition of what constitutes an emergency...

All of this ignores that the whole doctrine you are relying on was made up primarily so FDR could be king for a time.

He essentially admitted to making it up when he said he didn't have to do it. He just did it to make it go faster. In other words, he is saying there really is no emergency, and that he's exploiting the authority for expediency.

It is pretty obvious that the people supporting this are supporting it because they agree with the result. So the end justifies the means. That's not rule of law. And as Pelosi has said, it gives the next democrat president a precedent to declare an emergency power to do pretty much whatever it (wouldn't want to misgender the next bat**** crazy president) wants. And why wouldn't they use this new precedent?

 

[2A_Tom]

Absolutely, any thing he wants. He is the Supreme Commander.

Address him as My Liege.

 

[mmpsteve]

He essentially admitted to making it up when he said he didn't have to do it. He just did it to make it go faster. In other words, he is saying there really is no emergency, and that he's exploiting the authority for expediency.

It is pretty obvious that the people supporting this are supporting it because they agree with the result. So the end justifies the means. That's not rule of law. And as Pelosi has said, it gives the next democrat president a precedent to declare an emergency power to do pretty much whatever it (wouldn't want to misgender the next bat**** crazy president) wants. And why wouldn't they use this new precedent?

Whatevs, I'll trade border security for the next fight of socialist whatevs. It's a Presidential promise I support, and I'll fight to sucure the next round. That's all I can do.

.

 

[Mongo59]

Maybe we should be asking what part of current events we see as more pressing than border security. What is it that poses a greater threat than allowing anyone who wants into the country?

Do we seriously think "bad" people will respect some line on a map? If so, for how long?

 

[Fargo]

While I agree, this is in dissent.

The majority opinion was:

Justice Blackmun delivered the majority opinion. The Court held that, as society increases in complexity, Congress must delegate authority “under broad general directives." The broad delegation of power to the Commission was undoubtedly "sufficiently specific and detailed to meet constitutional requirements.”

Correct, which was why it was attributed to him and not the court. Regardless, the principal I quoted him for does not contradict the majority opinion. Under even the most liberal reading of the current caselaw, Congress cannot make the president Ceasar.

Even the FDR couldn’t pull that off under Schechter Poultry which is still good law on that point.

 

[jamil]

Yes, I believe it is a crises. And becoming more so every day we do nothing. JMHO, as it were.

.

So, the end justifies the means? You want the wall, so therefore it is a crisis? Because it's not all that clear that there's a crisis. Maybe you really do believe it's a crisis. Okay. It's not objectively clear it's a crisis, but one could reason so and not be bat-**** crazy. Seems like a real emergency would make a consensus belief more sure. Like Katrina. Does Trump really believe it's a crisis? Seems like if he did, the "crisis" would have lit a fire under his ass back when he had both the House and Senate.

Honestly I do think Trump thinks a wall would be good. His actions don't show that he thinks it's a crisis though. I suspect more that he kinda figured out the obvious, that talking about a wall during the primary, among other things, got a lot of people to follow him unquestioningly. My guess is, the only crisis for him is that he ****ed up in taking his time with getting started on the funding, woke up Wednesday morning after Midterms and had a Holy ****! moment. So I think he understands not getting his signature shtick well on its way by 2020 election cycle is problematic.

I'll say this about Trump. If he's in such a hurry to get his ***damn wall built, and THIS is his idea of getting it done faster, he's dumber than a bag of ****, because he didn't learn from the "Muslim ban". Just like with the "Muslim ban" some crazy ass judge from the 9th circuit is going to shut it down. And just like with the "Muslim ban", the Supreme court will ***** slap the 9th....again...eventually. Just like the "muslim ban" it'll SCOTUS 18-24 months even to hear the case. Assuming it gets heard and overturned, the election may be over before the wall can get started. But oh, wait. Never fear. Trump is playing 4d chess. I can't believe I agree with Ann Coulter on something. Trump is a moron.

 

[Fargo]

Whatevs, I'll trade border security for the next fight of socialist whatevs. It's a Presidential promise I support, and I'll fight to sucure the next round. That's all I can do.

.

Regardless of how I feel about border security, I’m not going to get on board with unconstitutional expansion of executive power. We are braiding a wicked cord of tyranny for our own backs.

It is the people that we elected to Congress that are not willing to fund trumps plan. That is a decision that the Constitution gives to them, not the president.

 

[jamil]

Whatevs, I'll trade border security for the next fight of socialist whatevs. It's a Presidential promise I support, and I'll fight to sucure the next round. That's all I can do.

.

By any means necessary. Right?

 

[Fargo]

By any means necessary. Right?

Like you said, if it wasn’t an emergency for the two years that the Republicans held both houses and the presidency, how the hell is it now?

 

[mmpsteve]

He essentially admitted to making it up when he said he didn't have to do it. He just did it to make it go faster. In other words, he is saying there really is no emergency, and that he's exploiting the authority for expediency.

It is pretty obvious that the people supporting this are supporting it because they agree with the result. So the end justifies the means. That's not rule of law. And as Pelosi has said, it gives the next democrat president a precedent to declare an emergency power to do pretty much whatever it (wouldn't want to misgender the next bat**** crazy president) wants. And why wouldn't they use this new precedent?

Well here's the question: why not go all in, when we have a president that will do it? I'm about tired of Repubs who promise to support our ****, who then do not support our ****. what the hell do we have to lose? I starting to not give a ****. You want to come at me with your SJW ****, I want to do carnage to your SJW ****; theoretically speaking. There is a way forward, I've just not seen it yet as applies to politicians. And I would not be saying this ****, but I know Jamil likes asterisks ****.

.

 

[Fargo]

Well here's the question: why not go all in, when we have a president that will do it? I'm about tired of Repubs who promise to support our ****, who then do not support our ****. what the hell do we have to lose? I starting to not give a ****. You want to come at me with your SJW ****, I want to do carnage to your SJW ****; theoretically speaking. There is a way forward, I've just not seen it yet as applies to politicians. And I would not be saying this ****, but I know Jamil likes asterisks ****.

.

You want us to go all in on a president who has no regard for the constitutional limitations on his power as evidenced by the bump stock executive order and this one?

You can have your monarch, I’ll take a hard pass. Pissing away the constitutional separation of powers in pursuit of a wall is just baffling to me.

 

[2A_Tom]

By any legal means necessary. Right?

This^^^

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well here's the question: why not go all in, when we have a president that will do it? I'm about tired of Repubs who promise to support our ****, who then do not support our ****. what the hell do we have to lose? I starting to not give a ****. You want to come at me with your SJW ****, I want to do carnage to your SJW ****; theoretically speaking. There is a way forward, I've just not seen it yet as applies to politicians. And I would not be saying this ****, but I know Jamil likes asterisks ****.

.

Is that really a question? I mean, seriously you have to understand why this isn't ideal for the future of the nation.

 

[jamil]

Regardless of how I feel about border security, I’m not going to get on board with unconstitutional expansion of executive power. We are braiding a wicked cord of tyranny for our own backs.

It is the people that we elected to Congress that are not willing to fund trumps plan. That is a decision that the Constitution gives to them, not the president.

I want border security too. I want illegal immigration to end. I want legal immigration to happen in an orderly fashion. Maybe a wall will help that. I kinda was hoping that the Dems and Repubs would reach an agreement which included the wall. But, I'm not in favor of giving up rule of law to get it. The justification against such actions is the same justification we used when Obama wanted to bypass congress. If Trump can just make up his own laws at his own whim without congress, exploiting emergency powers to appropriate his own funding, that's not the rule of law way to do it. I don't want it that badly. BAMN is the principle of radicals. Rational people should not adopt it.

I've heard people justify it by saying congress made the power broad, so Trump is just use the power Congress gave him, and that's true enough. But by what precedent have presidents used the power? Are there examples of other presidents claiming something is an emergency just to exploit that power. Let's be clear here, that's what Trump has admitted to doing. At least he's honest about that.

But Republicans. ****ing hypocrites. I guess I expect it of people like Mitch McConnell. I can't believe *limited government* Republicans are going along with this. WTF is wrong with them? It's clear the only limited government they really want is when Democrats hold the power. When it's a Republican, just give the POTUS all the power it takes to get their will done. That's not a nation of laws. It's a nation led by ideologues. Shame on them.

I'm guessing Republicans plan when a Democrat becomes president is to white about abuse of power when they call "gun violence" an emergency.

 

[jamil]

This^^^

By exploiting powers not intended for the purpose? Nah. **** that.

BAMN is for **********s with questionable gender, blue hair, black masks, and soi boobs. Not principled *rule of law* rational people.

 

[Route 45]

How many Anakins we got on INGO?

[video=youtube;WNSq5wYdwb0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNSq5wYdwb0[/video]