- 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: A list of where Trumps funds are coming from... should be no issue
Posted on 2/15/19 at 12:00 pm to Jjdoc
Posted on 2/15/19 at 12:00 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
$3.5 billion from a military construction fund
This will be the fly in the ointment. That money is earmarked for Base construction/improvements, and is an absolute sacred cow. Both R's and D's will oppose this vociferously.
2
Posted on 2/15/19 at 12:01 pm to RazorBroncs
quote:
This will not happen. First there will be cease and desist. Then will go through the courts. Before it has time to go through the courts it will be time for next years budget.
You think you know more than Trump's team of lawyers and advisers
a lib with a superiority complex... this is my shocked face
Posted on 2/15/19 at 12:01 pm to Jjdoc
bmy’s slavery loving arse is going to quote more lines from the constitution about how congress can’t limit the importation of slaves and say it restricts Trump from doing this.
Posted on 2/15/19 at 12:04 pm to OchoDedos
quote:
Both R's and D's will oppose this vociferously.
Still haven't cleaned up what is essentially a superfund site at a portion of Camp Lejuene. They both can spare me their pearl clutching until they fix that.
Posted on 2/15/19 at 12:10 pm to Jjdoc
Is it Mexico?
Posted on 2/15/19 at 12:10 pm to bmy
quote:
Anti-deficiency act says hello
These monies were already appropriated by Congress to the Executive Branch. The ADA has no bearing on this issue.
Posted on 2/15/19 at 12:10 pm to bmy
quote:
Anti-deficiency act says hello
The ADA prohibits the U.S. federal government from entering into a contract that is not "fully funded" because doing so would obligate the government in the absence of an appropriation adequate to the needs of the contract.
So are you saying that the US government dosen't have 5.7 billion or the money allocated to national defense does not have 5.7 billion to spare?
Posted on 2/15/19 at 12:11 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
They will lose. You can not name one thing illegal or over reaching about it.
Eminent domain by the executive branch is illegal, even under a state of emergency, without specific expressed approval from congress.
So he can use those funds on land already owned by the federal government, or on land where the landowner voluntarily hands it over, but that's it.
And the supreme court already ruled on this many decades ago.
It would be very very unlikely the court would overturn this decision.
Posted on 2/15/19 at 12:12 pm to bmy
quote:
If they have been appropriated for the building of a border wall then i have zero problem with it
They have no been appropriated for specifics except to be used as seen fit to combat Drug trafficking, Human Trafficking and illegal immigration.
Posted on 2/15/19 at 12:13 pm to OchoDedos
quote:
That money is earmarked for Base construction/improvements, and is an absolute sacred cow. Both R's and D's will oppose this vociferously.
Could be.
Posted on 2/15/19 at 12:13 pm to deeprig9
quote:
So he can use those funds on land already owned by the federal government, or on land where the landowner voluntarily hands it over, but that's it.
And the supreme court already ruled on this many decades ago.
I honestly don't know the answer to this question but I would assume the federal government either outright owns or has an easement along its national borders.
Posted on 2/15/19 at 12:14 pm to Placebeaux
quote:
The ADA prohibits the U.S. federal government from entering into a contract that is not "fully funded" because doing so would obligate the government in the absence of an appropriation adequate to the needs of the contract.
So are you saying that the US government dosen't have 5.7 billion or the money allocated to national defense does not have 5.7 billion to spare?
It is by agency, not by nation. I don't see a violation, but you can't say "The government has some money", it has to be appropriated to the agency.
Posted on 2/15/19 at 12:15 pm to Montezuma
quote:
it has to be appropriated to the agency.
Which, here, it has if the sources cited by the President are correct.
Posted on 2/15/19 at 12:17 pm to deeprig9
quote:
Eminent domain by the executive branch is illegal, even under a state of emergency, without specific expressed approval from congress.
Already won that battle in court.
LINK
LINK
quote:
So he can use those funds on land already owned by the federal government, or on land where the landowner voluntarily hands it over, but that's it.
Wrong.
quote:
And the supreme court already ruled on this many decades ago.
Nope.
Posted on 2/15/19 at 12:18 pm to Jjdoc
I have a question . Did the spending bill have legislation in it giving state's the power to reject border walls being built . I keep reading this , is this fake news? If its not how can Trump build a wall after signing a bill that gives States the ultimate authority to reject his wall .
This post was edited on 2/15/19 at 12:20 pm
Posted on 2/15/19 at 12:20 pm to Jjdoc
quote:So this is important. These are funds that should go toward the Constitutioanl duty of protecting the states. Crazy mofo might just get away with this one.
he is using $600 million from the Treasury Department's drug forfeiture fund; $2.5 billion from the Defense Department's drug interdiction program; and $3.5 billion from a military construction fund.
Posted on 2/15/19 at 12:21 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
Already won that battle in court.
LINK
LINK
Neither of these cases involve eminent domain
Posted on 2/15/19 at 12:22 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:What ever will be, will be.
Que sera sera
Posted on 2/15/19 at 12:23 pm to DreauxB2015
quote:
Did the spending bill have legislation in it giving state's the power to reject border walls being built . I keep reading this , is this fake news? If its not how can Trump build a wall after signing a bill that gives States the ultimate authority to reject his wall .
If true, that section would most likely violate the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.
Posted on 2/15/19 at 12:25 pm to DreauxB2015
I am curious to see how a state can block acquisition and construction for a federal project. And besides CA, which already has a lot of its border fenced, which states would fight that battle? Arizona won't, Texas won't. New Mexico could but it would be a losing battle.
Now... when are we walling the North?
Now... when are we walling the North?
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News