- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 16 states sue trump/federal government over executive overreach
Posted on 2/19/19 at 7:57 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 2/19/19 at 7:57 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster.”
quote:
In legal terms, that is called an “admission.”.
That depends upon what he was referring to.
“I didn’t need to do this” could just as easily mean “I didn’t need to endorse this compromise agreement, but I want to speed things along”.
0
Posted on 2/19/19 at 7:58 am to roadGator
quote:
Admission that congress isn't doing its job.
Exactly. Love how liberals like hank are trying to spin it
Posted on 2/19/19 at 7:58 am to AggieHank86
quote:
AggieHank86
Upvote for asking legitimate questions. Most of those critiquing the Wall argue against it with a stance that boils down to little more than "because I don't like Trump".
Will respond to the questions after I get to work.
Posted on 2/19/19 at 8:01 am to NC_Tigah
I believe "theatre" is the preferred spelling of that word.
Posted on 2/19/19 at 8:17 am to CamdenTiger
quote:no other President has ever used their national emergency power to simply take funding for something they were already turned down for. thats not how the separation of powers works.
Has other President’s power to declare an emergency ever been challenged?
heres every National Emergency ever issued by Reagan...
- Continuation of Export Control Regulations
- Continuation of Export Control Regulations
- Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other Transactions Involving Nicaragua
- Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other Transactions Involving South
- Prohibiting Trade and Certain Transactions Involving Libya
- Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to Panama
same thing for W...
- Prohibiting the Importation of Rough Diamonds From Sierra Leone
- Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans
- Continuation of Export Control Regulations
- Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks
- Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism
- Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe
- Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq Has an Interest
- Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria
- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Côte d'Ivoire
- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
- Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions
- Continuing Certain Restrictions With Respect to North Korea and North Korean Nationals
and Obama...
- Declaration of a National Emergency With Respect to the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic
- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia
- Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya
- Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations
- Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen
- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi
- Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted From Nuclear Weapons
- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine
- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic
- Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela
- Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities
- Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan
theres 30 listed here.
28 of those 30 are about Trade or Sanctions of foreign governments.
1 was a public health outbreak.
1 was 9/11.
trump declared his because the Democrat-controlled House wouldn't pay for something he wanted (he never even asked when Republicans held the House), so he threw a hissyfit and usurped their power of the purse.
the framers gave the checkbook to the House for a very good reason. its our most representative branch. trump doesnt give a frick.
Posted on 2/19/19 at 8:22 am to MastrShake
Hawaii doesn't even have skin in the game. They have a moat around them. Hypocritical bastards.
Posted on 2/19/19 at 8:31 am to MastrShake
quote:Meaning that NONE of them are likely to have been true “emergencies” and that each was arguably an abuse of the NEA.
28 of those 30 are about Trade or Sanctions of foreign governments.
And Congress has let the abuse continue for more than 30 years. They need to do their job and fix their mistake.
This post was edited on 2/19/19 at 9:07 am
Posted on 2/19/19 at 8:40 am to Bard
quote:Far too many Americans see only one issue: Orange Man Bad vs MAGA (Why do you hate America)? Everyone in either of those two camps is a simpleton.
Upvote for asking legitimate questions
This post was edited on 2/19/19 at 8:44 am
Posted on 2/19/19 at 8:40 am to saints5021
quote:
If these are the civil war states, I am not worried at all. I think the rednecks between Texas and Alabama could take every snowflake state listed.
Most of those states have enough of their own maga to probably end a civil war within the state's respective borders. Probably need a little help in California though.
Posted on 2/19/19 at 8:41 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Yeah, but he spelled theater like the British do. So that makes it more sophisticated.
You realize this is from a BBC article quoting what the AG said
Posted on 2/19/19 at 9:50 am to MastrShake
Look familiar?
Posted on 2/19/19 at 10:35 am to pmacattack
quote:
That quote is not wrong. Had the GOPe and Dems given him the money he asked for there would be no need for to declare emergency.
Spin-mode
Posted on 2/19/19 at 10:35 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Is construction of a border Wall an “emergency” for purposes of the NEA?. Few would assert that control of the border is not an important issue, but that does not make construction of a Wall an “emergency. There is certainly evidence that even Trump,did not consider this project to be an “emergency,” but the evidence is not overwhelming either way. It may eventually depend upon who has the burden of proof and what the standard may be.
This is covered by 10 U.S. Code § 2808 LINK
quote:
(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
Trump already has troops assisting Border Patrol on the southern border and 1601(b) has no language limiting the President's action on this (1601(a) was a sunset for emegrencies prior to the passage of the NEA so it has no bearing on this).
Furthermore, the rest of 2808(a) states:
quote:
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.
This means it's up to the President to determine if such construction is necessary for the military personnel stationed there to support their role.
quote:
Is construction of a border Wall undertaken for “law enforcement purposes,” as that term is defined in 31 USC 9705?. Absent a specific Congressional prohibition, it probably qualifies, so the question thus becomes one of whether Congress prohibited such construction.
I think an argument against the wall funding via 9705 becomes moot if anyone assigned from Treasury is working those areas where a wall is intended.
Beyond that though, as we saw in 2808 the President can use the NEA to move non-obligated military construction funds to build a wall and thus not need 9705 (unless he needs more funds).
quote:
Is construction of a border Wall undertaken for “roads and fences and ... lighting,” as that term is defined in 10 USC 284?Basically, when does something ceases to be a “fence’” and become a “Wall?”. Trump does not help his argument by insisting thar fences are not enough and calling his project a Wall.
I think "fence" vs "wall" is splitting hairs. Regardless though a case can be made that a wall/fence is considered "equipment" under (b).
quote:
(b)Types of Support for Agencies of United States.—The purposes for which the Secretary may provide support under subsection (a) for other departments or agencies of the Federal Government or a State, local, or tribal law enforcement agencies, are the following:
(1) The maintenance and repair of equipment that has been made available to any department or agency of the Federal Government or to any State, local, or tribal government by the Department of Defense for the purposes of—
--(A) preserving the potential future utility of such equipment for the Department of Defense; and
--(B) upgrading such equipment to ensure compatibility of that equipment with other equipment used by the Department.
(2) The maintenance, repair, or upgrading of equipment (including computer software), other than equipment referred to in paragraph (1) for the purpose of—
--(A) ensuring that the equipment being maintained or repaired is compatible with equipment used by the Department of Defense; and
--(B) upgrading such equipment to ensure the compatibility of that equipment with equipment used by the Department.
quote:
Is construction of a border Wall something that “REQUIRES use of the armed forces,” for purposes of 10 USC 2808?”. In other words, COULD a border Wall physically be constructed without the use of the armed forces.”. COULD an entity other than the military engage in this construction?
That's either a question that doesn't understand 2808 or a purposely misdirecting one. The requirement aspect of 2808 is does the emergency require the presence/use of the armed forces. It neither requires nor denies construction by the military, only authorizes it if the presence\use of the military is deemed as "required" (and that deeming is done by the President).
As there is no mention one way or another of the necessity of contracting out such work, it should fall to the military to make that decision.
quote:
Is construction of a border Wall “military construction project() .... necessary to support (deployment) of the armed forces.,” as that term is defined in 10 USC 2808?” In other words, could US troops patrol the border without a big, beautiful 30-foot concrete Wall?
The actual quote:
quote:
undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces.
The latter part ("necessary to support such use of the armed forces") is answered with one question:
What is their purpose there? When the DHS made the request for military support, it specifically sought forces to assist with planning, engineering support to construct barriers, aviation support to transport Customs and Border Patrol personnel, medical teams, command and control capabilities and the ability to construct temporary housing for Customs and Border Patrol personnel.
Considering that part of their presence is to construct barriers, asking if it's "necessary" is only another way of trying to split hairs on "fence" versus "wall" for nothing more than politically biased purposes.
This post was edited on 2/19/19 at 10:42 am
Posted on 2/19/19 at 10:52 am to Bard
Appreciate the sustantive response.
Either of us could write a treatise on the applicability of the NEA (2808) and/or sections 9705 and/or 284. Both of us simplified things significantly to make them short enough for this audience. The law and facts on each point are both more complex than either you or I outlined here, and the simple fact is that MOST of this likely falls into a gray area. A competent lawyer could argue either side in complete good faith, without reliance upon any lies or distortions.
The point I was making is that the issue in this debate is not as simple as choosing between OMB and MAGA. Yet that is generally the level of discourse ... both here and elsewhere.
EDIT
I got to thinking about “splitting hairs” and found this quote from The Donald
Either of us could write a treatise on the applicability of the NEA (2808) and/or sections 9705 and/or 284. Both of us simplified things significantly to make them short enough for this audience. The law and facts on each point are both more complex than either you or I outlined here, and the simple fact is that MOST of this likely falls into a gray area. A competent lawyer could argue either side in complete good faith, without reliance upon any lies or distortions.
The point I was making is that the issue in this debate is not as simple as choosing between OMB and MAGA. Yet that is generally the level of discourse ... both here and elsewhere.
EDIT
I got to thinking about “splitting hairs” and found this quote from The Donald
quote:Apparently, the principal proponent of this thing sees the two words as being distinctly and importantly different.
He repeated the assertion most recently at a news conference in January of (2017) when he shot back at a reporter who asked him about the fence: "On the fence—it's not a fence. It's a wall. You just misreported it. We're going to build a wall."
This post was edited on 2/19/19 at 11:26 am
Posted on 2/19/19 at 11:11 am to MastrShake
Saw this coming. Wall will never be built.
Trump cucked himself by signing that bill and not forcing the issue via Govt shutdiwn
Trump cucked himself by signing that bill and not forcing the issue via Govt shutdiwn
Posted on 2/20/19 at 8:28 am to AggieHank86
if the states suing stops this and changes the precedence of executive overreach then that is a plus for us. there won't always be a republican in office.
Posted on 2/20/19 at 8:34 am to deltaland
quote:
Saw this coming. Wall will never be built.
Yet it's being built
Posted on 2/20/19 at 8:46 am to SDVTiger
and guess who is paying for it
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News