Shutdown Over Border Security?

[carpedm9587]

And, in the process, he arms his opponents well.

[Cow Poke]

It's that verbosity! It will get ya every time!

[Yttrium]

So, I noticed this and dug up this out of it:

That White House official said the funding will break down as:
- $1.375 billion from the Homeland Security appropriations bill. This money cannot be used to build a wall but can be used to build other types of border barriers due to the way the bill is written
- $600 million from the Treasury Department's drug forfeiture fund, which would come from an executive action
- $2.5 billion from the Defense Department's drug interdiction program, which would come from an executive action
- $3.5 billion from the Defense Department's military construction budget, which would require a national emergency

I can picture all the military generals and admirals who are coming to the sudden and sickening realization that their construction projects are going to stop in order to fund a border wall.

[Cow Poke]

So, I noticed this and dug up this out of it:



I can picture all the military generals and admirals who are coming to the sudden and sickening realization that their construction projects are going to stop in order to fund a border wall.

Pssssshhhhhh... that's what, a dozen hammers and two toilets?

[carpedm9587]

Apparently - the right is not particularly united around this. There are more and more of these popping up.

[Sparko]

seems like a border wall would fall under "defense budget" to me.

[Starlight]

"I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster" - Trump, about his declaring an 'emergency'

Apparently the man doesn't understand that such statements can and will get quoted in the upcoming court cases about this.

I wonder how many judges will agree that "I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster" constitutes sufficient justification for a 'national emergency'?

[Starlight]

Apparently - the right is not particularly united around this. There are more and more of these popping up.

Even Ann Coulter, writer of In Trump We Trust, and who was pretty much single-handedly bullied Trump last year into shutting down the government due to lack of Wall funding, is throwing the toys out of the cot:

"The only national emergency is that our president is an idiot," she [Coulter] said, per Mediaite. She also fumed that Trump is just "fooling the rubes" with this national emergency declaration.

The root of Coulter's criticism isn't that Trump is bypassing Congress, as she argued that Trump never needed Congress to build the wall at all. Instead, she suggested the president is actually "hoping" the national emergency declaration will just be blocked by the courts "because for some reason, he really doesn't want to build the wall."...

...she told KABC that she is "going to spend the rest of my columns denouncing the president, for the rest of my life."

[lilpixieofterror]

"I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster" - Trump, about his declaring an 'emergency'

Apparently the man doesn't understand that such statements can and will get quoted in the upcoming court cases about this.

I wonder how many judges will agree that "I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster" constitutes sufficient justification for a 'national emergency'?

Obama: “I have a pen and a phone.”

Liberals: “Go Obama, bypass those obstructionist in congress”

Trump: “I’m going to declare a national emergency to build a boarder wall”

Liberals: “HE CAN’T BYPASS CONGRESS!!!”

[rogue06]

Obama: “I have a pen and a phone.”

Liberals: “Go Obama, bypass those obstructionist in congress”

Trump: “I’m going to declare a national emergency to build a boarder wall”

Liberals: “HE CAN’T BYPASS CONGRESS!!!”

Jonathan Turley, self-described liberal professor at the George Washington University Law School, wrote an interesting piece for the slightly left of center The Hill that will not please his fellow leftists

Source: Yes, Trump has authority to declare national emergency for border wall

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story once marveled, “How easily men satisfy themselves that the Constitution is exactly what they wish it to be.” If Story returned to life today, he would find these to be familiar times, as politicians and pundits have decided that the Constitution bars an action by President Trump, even when they reached the diametrically opposite conclusion on similar actions taken by President Obama during his term.

In the latest “constitutional crisis”� declared on Capitol Hill, Democrats are adamant that they will not fund the signature pledge of Trump to build a border wall. In response, Trump has threatened to start construction unilaterally under his emergency powers if Congress refuses to yield to his demand for more than $5 billion. Critics turned to the Constitution and found clear authority against Trump. Representative Adam Schiff, Berkeley law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman, and many others denounced such a move as flagrantly unconstitutional.

The concern is well founded even if the conclusion is not. Congress has refused the funds needed for the wall, so Trump is openly claiming the right to unilaterally order construction by declaring a national emergency. On its face, that order would undermine the core role of Congress in our system of checks and balances. I happen to agree that an emergency declaration to build the wall is unwise and unnecessary. However, the declaration is not unconstitutional. Schiff, now chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, insists that Trump “does not have the power to execute”� this order because “if Harry Truman could not nationalize the steel industry during wartime, this president does not have the power to declare an emergency and build a multibillion dollar wall on the border.”�

The problem is Trump does have that power because Congress gave it to him. Schiff is referring to the historic case of Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company versus Charles Sawyer, in which the Supreme Court rejected the use of inherent executive powers by President Truman to seize steel mills during a labor dispute. He wanted to claim a national security emergency if steel production halted during the Korean War. In a powerful check on executive authority, the Supreme Court rejected his rationale for unilateral action. The Supreme Court was correct. But that was in 1952.

More than two decades later, Congress expressly gave presidents the authority to declare such emergencies and act unilaterally. The 1976 National Emergencies Act gives presidents sweeping authority as well as allowance in federal regulations to declare an “immigration emergency”� to deal with an “influx of aliens which either is of such magnitude or exhibits such other characteristics that effective administration of the immigration laws of the United States is beyond the existing capabilities”� of immigration authorities “in the affected area or areas.”� The basis for such an invocation generally includes the “likelihood of continued growth in the magnitude of the influx,”� rising criminal activity, as well as high “demands on law enforcement agencies” and “other circumstances.”

Democrats have not objected to use of this authority regularly by past presidents, including roughly 30 such emergencies that continue to this day. Other statutes afford additional emergency powers. Indeed, a report by the Congressional Research Service in 2007 stated, “Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the president may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens.”

Congress spent decades yielding authority to the executive branch. When it agreed with the president, such mighty authority was even celebrated. But now, consider the objections from Representative Joaquin Castro, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. He has declared that it would be “profoundly inappropriate for the president of the United States to circumvent the legislative branch and single handedly, against the will of the American people and the American Congress, put up a wall.”

This is a curious statement from one of many lawmakers who supported Obama when he openly circumvented Congress on immigration reforms. Obama ordered agencies to stop enforcing some federal laws and used executive orders to do precisely what Congress refused to do. When Obama declared in a State of the Union address that he would circumvent Congress if it failed to approve his immigration reforms, Democrats cheered at the notion of their own circumvention, if not obsolescence.

Likewise, Castro and his colleagues supported Obama when he ordered the payment of billions out of the Treasury into ObamaCare, after being denied the funds by Congress. These same Democrats were largely silent when Obama attacked Libya without a declaration of war or legislative authorization. Obama funded the Libyan war out of money slushing around in the Pentagon, without a specific appropriation. I represented lawmakers who opposed the Libyan war. I also served as attorney for the entire House of Representatives in successfully opposing the ObamaCare payments. Most Democrats opposed both these lawsuits.

Congress can act to stop circumvention under the National Emergencies Act. Trump must notify Congress of his declaration and detail the powers being claimed under that law. Congress could and should negate the declaration with a vote of both chambers. However, that does not make the declaration unconstitutional. Any declaration would create a myriad of legal issues and likely face an immediate legal challenge. Two questions that a court would have to consider are the source of the authority and the source of any funds. The latter is where some challenges could arise.

Congress gave Trump such authority in the National Emergencies Act, augmenting claims of inherent authority, but the source of the funds could be more challenging. Under two laws in Title 10 and Title 33 of the United States Code, he could seek to use unobligated funds originally set aside for military construction projects, or divert funds from Army civil works projects. There are limitations on the use of such money, and there could be strong challenges to the use of unobligated funds in other areas. There is money there to start but not nearly enough to finish such a wall without proper appropriation. Recall Obama funded the undeclared war in Libya out of money slushing around in the Pentagon, without the new strict constitutionalists objecting from the Democratic side of the aisle.

Courts generally have deferred to the judgments of presidents on the basis for such national emergencies, and dozens of such declarations have been made without serious judicial review. Indeed, many of the very same politicians and pundits declared the various travel ban orders to be facially unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court ultimately lifted the injunctions of lower courts. Moreover, Trump does not have to ultimately prevail to achieve part of his objective. Even if a court were to enjoin construction, the declaration could afford Trump the political cover to end the government shutdown, as the issue moved its way through the courts.

While the matter could be expedited to move through the courts in a matter of months, the government could seek to slow litigation to push any final decision into 2020. There are compelling arguments against funding the entire wall demanded by Trump, although some added border barriers clearly are warranted. However, one can oppose an emergency declaration without claiming that it is facially unconstitutional. It is not.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

[carpedm9587]

Jonathan Turley, self-described liberal professor at the George Washington University Law School, wrote an interesting piece for the slightly left of center The Hill that will not please his fellow leftists

Source: Yes, Trump has authority to declare national emergency for border wall

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story once marveled, “How easily men satisfy themselves that the Constitution is exactly what they wish it to be.” If Story returned to life today, he would find these to be familiar times, as politicians and pundits have decided that the Constitution bars an action by President Trump, even when they reached the diametrically opposite conclusion on similar actions taken by President Obama during his term.

In the latest “constitutional crisis”� declared on Capitol Hill, Democrats are adamant that they will not fund the signature pledge of Trump to build a border wall. In response, Trump has threatened to start construction unilaterally under his emergency powers if Congress refuses to yield to his demand for more than $5 billion. Critics turned to the Constitution and found clear authority against Trump. Representative Adam Schiff, Berkeley law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman, and many others denounced such a move as flagrantly unconstitutional.

The concern is well founded even if the conclusion is not. Congress has refused the funds needed for the wall, so Trump is openly claiming the right to unilaterally order construction by declaring a national emergency. On its face, that order would undermine the core role of Congress in our system of checks and balances. I happen to agree that an emergency declaration to build the wall is unwise and unnecessary. However, the declaration is not unconstitutional. Schiff, now chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, insists that Trump “does not have the power to execute”� this order because “if Harry Truman could not nationalize the steel industry during wartime, this president does not have the power to declare an emergency and build a multibillion dollar wall on the border.”�

The problem is Trump does have that power because Congress gave it to him. Schiff is referring to the historic case of Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company versus Charles Sawyer, in which the Supreme Court rejected the use of inherent executive powers by President Truman to seize steel mills during a labor dispute. He wanted to claim a national security emergency if steel production halted during the Korean War. In a powerful check on executive authority, the Supreme Court rejected his rationale for unilateral action. The Supreme Court was correct. But that was in 1952.

More than two decades later, Congress expressly gave presidents the authority to declare such emergencies and act unilaterally. The 1976 National Emergencies Act gives presidents sweeping authority as well as allowance in federal regulations to declare an “immigration emergency”� to deal with an “influx of aliens which either is of such magnitude or exhibits such other characteristics that effective administration of the immigration laws of the United States is beyond the existing capabilities”� of immigration authorities “in the affected area or areas.”� The basis for such an invocation generally includes the “likelihood of continued growth in the magnitude of the influx,”� rising criminal activity, as well as high “demands on law enforcement agencies” and “other circumstances.”

Democrats have not objected to use of this authority regularly by past presidents, including roughly 30 such emergencies that continue to this day. Other statutes afford additional emergency powers. Indeed, a report by the Congressional Research Service in 2007 stated, “Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the president may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens.”

Congress spent decades yielding authority to the executive branch. When it agreed with the president, such mighty authority was even celebrated. But now, consider the objections from Representative Joaquin Castro, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. He has declared that it would be “profoundly inappropriate for the president of the United States to circumvent the legislative branch and single handedly, against the will of the American people and the American Congress, put up a wall.”

This is a curious statement from one of many lawmakers who supported Obama when he openly circumvented Congress on immigration reforms. Obama ordered agencies to stop enforcing some federal laws and used executive orders to do precisely what Congress refused to do. When Obama declared in a State of the Union address that he would circumvent Congress if it failed to approve his immigration reforms, Democrats cheered at the notion of their own circumvention, if not obsolescence.

Likewise, Castro and his colleagues supported Obama when he ordered the payment of billions out of the Treasury into ObamaCare, after being denied the funds by Congress. These same Democrats were largely silent when Obama attacked Libya without a declaration of war or legislative authorization. Obama funded the Libyan war out of money slushing around in the Pentagon, without a specific appropriation. I represented lawmakers who opposed the Libyan war. I also served as attorney for the entire House of Representatives in successfully opposing the ObamaCare payments. Most Democrats opposed both these lawsuits.

Congress can act to stop circumvention under the National Emergencies Act. Trump must notify Congress of his declaration and detail the powers being claimed under that law. Congress could and should negate the declaration with a vote of both chambers. However, that does not make the declaration unconstitutional. Any declaration would create a myriad of legal issues and likely face an immediate legal challenge. Two questions that a court would have to consider are the source of the authority and the source of any funds. The latter is where some challenges could arise.

Congress gave Trump such authority in the National Emergencies Act, augmenting claims of inherent authority, but the source of the funds could be more challenging. Under two laws in Title 10 and Title 33 of the United States Code, he could seek to use unobligated funds originally set aside for military construction projects, or divert funds from Army civil works projects. There are limitations on the use of such money, and there could be strong challenges to the use of unobligated funds in other areas. There is money there to start but not nearly enough to finish such a wall without proper appropriation. Recall Obama funded the undeclared war in Libya out of money slushing around in the Pentagon, without the new strict constitutionalists objecting from the Democratic side of the aisle.

Courts generally have deferred to the judgments of presidents on the basis for such national emergencies, and dozens of such declarations have been made without serious judicial review. Indeed, many of the very same politicians and pundits declared the various travel ban orders to be facially unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court ultimately lifted the injunctions of lower courts. Moreover, Trump does not have to ultimately prevail to achieve part of his objective. Even if a court were to enjoin construction, the declaration could afford Trump the political cover to end the government shutdown, as the issue moved its way through the courts.

While the matter could be expedited to move through the courts in a matter of months, the government could seek to slow litigation to push any final decision into 2020. There are compelling arguments against funding the entire wall demanded by Trump, although some added border barriers clearly are warranted. However, one can oppose an emergency declaration without claiming that it is facially unconstitutional. It is not.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Go Trump go!

[Starlight]

Jonathan Turley, self-described liberal professor at the George Washington University Law School, wrote an interesting piece for the slightly left of center The Hill that will not please his fellow leftists

Are you deliberately misdescribing a libertarian as a 'leftist' to try to deceive readers here?

[Mountain Man]

"I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster" - Trump, about his declaring an 'emergency'

Apparently the man doesn't understand that such statements can and will get quoted in the upcoming court cases about this.

I wonder how many judges will agree that "I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster" constitutes sufficient justification for a 'national emergency'?

Only if the judges are clueless enough like you to not consider the statement in context. Trump was saying that he wouldn't have had to declare a national emergency if Congress had done its job in providing the necessary funds to secure the border.

[carpedm9587]

Only if the judges are clueless enough like you to not consider the statement in context. Trump was saying that he wouldn't have had to declare a national emergency if Congress had done its job in providing the necessary funds to secure the border.

I know that Trump's base has become real good at squinting and spinning the various things he says, and Trump is so vague and all over the map that it''s easy to do. But even YOU cannot spin this hard and this fast. The statement is clear: "I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster."

It has nothing to do with Congress. He acknowledged Congress' decision by noting that "he could do this over a longer period of time." He is clearly stating he wants to do it faster rather than slower, so he's declaring a national emergency. And he still has the problem that there is no actual emergency.

That being said - "go Trump go!"

He's now ticking off the right as well as the left, and setting some amazing precedents. I can just imagine what future liberal presidents will do with this one! And 2020 just became that much more in reach. So strip that money from FEMA, the military, and as many other places as you can, Mr. Trump. Go for it!

[Mountain Man]

I know that Trump's base has become real good at squinting and spinning the various things he says...

Your lack of self-awareness is almost startling sometimes. You want to talk about spin, Trump could say, "The sky is blue," and liberals like you would line up to denounce him because sometimes the sky is cloudy and grey, and sometimes it's orange and purple if there is a dramatic sunset, and for half of every 24-hour period, it's black.