Hurricane Harvey (National emergency) cost $125 billion.

Illegal immigration cost $150 billion PER YEAR.

Great comparison. lol

settegast said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

DioNoZeus said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

DioNoZeus said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

DioNoZeus said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Mr President do not enact a National Emergency for an unnecessary wall. It is beyond our democratic principles. It's smacks of dictatorship.
Sir, you lie continually to us. I do not believe in your crisis. Stop scaring and dividing us.

---

Me and my generation will be personally disenfranchised by massive illegal immigration.

It seems you do not care for people like me.

---

Both of these statements are gross exaggerations and perfectly illustrate what is wrong with the political discourse in this country.

---

Oh really? Because spending $150 billion a year on 22 million people and growing isn't playing with fire?

---

Please explain to me how you will be "personally disenfranchised" by "massive illegal immigration."

---

When the supply of workers goes up, the price that firms have to pay to hire workers goes down. Wage trends over the past half-century suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent. Even after the economy has fully adjusted, those skill groups that received the most immigrants will still offer lower pay relative to those that received fewer immigrants.

Both low- and high-skilled natives are affected by the influx of immigrants. But because a disproportionate percentage of immigrants have few skills, it is low-skilled American workers, including many blacks and Hispanics, who have suffered most from this wage dip. The monetary loss is sizable. The typical high school dropout earns about $25,000 annually. According to census data, immigrants admitted in the past two decades lacking a high school diploma have increased the size of the low-skilled workforce by roughly 25 percent. As a result, the earnings of this particularly vulnerable group dropped by between $800 and $1,500 each year.

So yes. My children will be effected.

Somebody's lower wage is always somebody else's higher profit. In this case, immigration redistributes wealth from those who compete with immigrants to those who use immigrants from the employee to the employer. And the additional profits are so large that the economic pie accruing to all natives actually grows. I estimate the current "immigration surplus"the net increase in the total wealth of the native population to be about$50 billion annually. But behind that calculation is a much larger shift from one group of Americans to another: The total wealth redistribution from the native losers to the native winners is enormous, roughly a half-trillion dollars a year. Immigrants, too, gain substantially; their total earnings far exceed what their income would have been had they not migrated.

When we look at the overall value of immigration, there's one more complicating factor: Immigrants receive government assistance at higher rates than natives. The higher cost of all the services provided to immigrants and the lower taxes they pay (because they have lower earnings) inevitably implies that on a year-to-year basis immigration creates a fiscal hole of at least $50 billion a burden that falls on the native population.

What does it all add up to? The fiscal burden offsets the gain from the $50 billion immigration surplus, so it's not too far fetched to conclude that immigration has barely affected the total wealth of natives at all. Instead, it has changed how the pie is split, with the losers the workers who compete with immigrants, many of those being low-skilled Americans sending a roughly $500 billion check annually to the winners. Those winners are primarily their employers. And the immigrants themselves come out ahead, too. Put bluntly, immigration turns out to be just another income redistribution program.

---

What jobs do you think people who are crossing our southern border illegally are taking?

---

I don't see it as taking jobs because honestly all of the wets I've come into contact with are hired, low skill hands, but what the wets do is burden government systems such as education, criminal justice, and healthcare. When I've got to go armed to a ranch where there's a drop off point for wets, their drugs, and their women/children not 20 yards from the gate and the county sheriff does nothing but ignore to as to push them through to another county so he doesn't have to deal with it, there's a massive problem.

---

In your post you state "dropoff points for wets, their drugs" etc...what's a "wet"?

---

What William notes. It's the cleanest term my Mexican friends use for them.

Doc Holliday said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

DioNoZeus said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Are you sure his successor didn't set that precedent lol?

---

Does it really matter? This decision is dumb.

---

It's the only option if congress can't represent their constituents.

Plus we got el chapo's 14 billion back so technically Mexican cartels paid for it lmao

---

No. We don't ignore the constitution just because we don't like what Congress does. We especially don't allow one man the right to do that. Rule by law is what protects us. Violating that concept is way beyond dangerousand never justified by "oh but I know what's best"

---

Please show me where this violates the constitution.

---

Let's here the argument for why he is not violating the appropriations clause.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretations/appropriations-clause-article-i-section-9-clause-7

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

DioNoZeus said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Are you sure his successor didn't set that precedent lol?

---

Does it really matter? This decision is dumb.

---

It's the only option if congress can't represent their constituents.

Plus we got el chapo's 14 billion back so technically Mexican cartels paid for it lmao

---

No. We don't ignore the constitution just because we don't like what Congress does. We especially don't allow one man the right to do that. Rule by law is what protects us. Violating that concept is way beyond dangerousand never justified by "oh but I know what's best"

---

Please show me where this violates the constitution.

---

Let's here the argument for why he is not violating the appropriations clause.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretations/appropriations-clause-article-i-section-9-clause-7

---

Just positing that a declaration as an emergency under the National Emergency Act (Congress gave the Executive that power), he can spend money from any statutes that allow new or transfer spending during emergency periods.

If there is a national emergency as defined by the statute. A POTUS doesn't just get to just define a national emergency let alone falsely claim anything he wants to be a national emergency is one because he can't get enough money from Congress for a budget item.

The whole point and the only point is the democrat party has no desire to secure our country and Trump does!

All the rest here is mental masturbation which left adores as diversion

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

---

Congress passed the ACA. But you knew that.

---

The policy man. The policy forced Americans to purchase insurance or receive a penalty.

---

Yes, the policy passed by Congress, not by executive emergency proclamation. What's your point?

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

---

Congress passed the ACA. But you knew that.

---

The policy man. The policy forced Americans to purchase insurance or receive a penalty.

---

Yes, the policy passed by Congress, not by executive emergency proclamation. What's your point?

---

Its authoritarian.

Surely you understand that we're dealing with authoritarian leftists at this point?

YoakDaddy said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

DioNoZeus said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Are you sure his successor didn't set that precedent lol?

---

Does it really matter? This decision is dumb.

---

It's the only option if congress can't represent their constituents.

Plus we got el chapo's 14 billion back so technically Mexican cartels paid for it lmao

---

No. We don't ignore the constitution just because we don't like what Congress does. We especially don't allow one man the right to do that. Rule by law is what protects us. Violating that concept is way beyond dangerousand never justified by "oh but I know what's best"

---

Please show me where this violates the constitution.

---

Let's here the argument for why he is not violating the appropriations clause.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretations/appropriations-clause-article-i-section-9-clause-7

---

Just positing that a declaration as an emergency under the National Emergency Act (Congress gave the Executive that power), he can spend money from any statutes that allow new or transfer spending during emergency periods.

---

The law's constitutionality will be tested in court.

Meanwhile I can't wait to see how POTUS explains taking money from the DoD drug interdiction program as he claims a drug emergency at the very same border. A wall won't stop drugs coming in the way they usually do at ports of entry or the Gulf Coast.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

---

Congress passed the ACA. But you knew that.

---

The policy man. The policy forced Americans to purchase insurance or receive a penalty.

---

Yes, the policy passed by Congress, not by executive emergency proclamation. What's your point?

---

Its authoritarian.

Surely you understand that we're dealing with authoritarian leftists at this point?

---

The authoritarian is in the White House.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

---

Congress passed the ACA. But you knew that.

---

The policy man. The policy forced Americans to purchase insurance or receive a penalty.

---

Yeah it was horrible. People getting healthcare. How cruel can you get?

---

Healthcare they can't afford coupled with massive spikes in prices.

The ACA made the insurance and pharmaceutical companies filthy rich. How cruel can you get?

Can you see past MSM narratives or are you a sheep?

---

Guess who raised those costs with insurance companies via their scare tactics - answer the GOP.
With the crazies in the gop shouting "government control" the insurance companies saw uncertainty of risk. They hedges against that risk with higher premiums. It was self fulfilling prophecy by the gop and its obstruction.

YoakDaddy said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

DioNoZeus said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Are you sure his successor didn't set that precedent lol?

---

Does it really matter? This decision is dumb.

---

It's the only option if congress can't represent their constituents.

Plus we got el chapo's 14 billion back so technically Mexican cartels paid for it lmao

---

No. We don't ignore the constitution just because we don't like what Congress does. We especially don't allow one man the right to do that. Rule by law is what protects us. Violating that concept is way beyond dangerousand never justified by "oh but I know what's best"

---

Please show me where this violates the constitution.

---

Let's here the argument for why he is not violating the appropriations clause.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretations/appropriations-clause-article-i-section-9-clause-7

---

Just positing that a declaration as an emergency under the National Emergency Act (Congress gave the Executive that power), he can spend money from any statutes that allow new or transfer spending during emergency periods.

---

I don't even know what that means. Even during physical land wars between nations, it is Congress that appropriates funds for the military. Having a hard time understanding why this is different. If Roosevelt had to ask for money to fight the Nazis, it seems a little odd that Trump can just name his price to fight off 12 year olds from Honduras.

Give me an example of a "statute that allows new or transfer spending during emergency periods."

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

---

Congress passed the ACA. But you knew that.

---

The policy man. The policy forced Americans to purchase insurance or receive a penalty.

---

Yeah it was horrible. People getting healthcare. How cruel can you get?

---

Healthcare they can't afford coupled with massive spikes in prices.

The ACA made the insurance and pharmaceutical companies filthy rich. How cruel can you get?

Can you see past MSM narratives or are you a sheep?

---

Guess who raised those costs with insurance companies via their scare tactics - answer the GOP.
With the crazies in the gop shouting "government control" the insurance companies saw uncertainty of risk. They hedges against that risk with higher premiums. It was self fulfilling prophecy by the gop and its obstruction.

---

Wrong. The reason insurance costs increased was because the penalty for not signing up was less than premiums. The people who signed up on the exchanges were people who were generally sicker; many healthy people decided not to sign up because it was cheaper not to. Without the healthy people in the insurance pools to bring down the cost for the sicker people the companies had no choice but to raise premiums.

And I will add that a cynic would say that "design flaw" was intentional in order to cause the private insurance to collapse, making it easier for the government to justify taking it over.

Booray said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

DioNoZeus said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Are you sure his successor didn't set that precedent lol?

---

Does it really matter? This decision is dumb.

---

It's the only option if congress can't represent their constituents.

Plus we got el chapo's 14 billion back so technically Mexican cartels paid for it lmao

---

No. We don't ignore the constitution just because we don't like what Congress does. We especially don't allow one man the right to do that. Rule by law is what protects us. Violating that concept is way beyond dangerousand never justified by "oh but I know what's best"

---

Please show me where this violates the constitution.

---

Let's here the argument for why he is not violating the appropriations clause.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretations/appropriations-clause-article-i-section-9-clause-7

---

Just positing that a declaration as an emergency under the National Emergency Act (Congress gave the Executive that power), he can spend money from any statutes that allow new or transfer spending during emergency periods.

---

I don't even know what that means. Even during physical land wars between nations, it is Congress that appropriates funds for the military. Having a hard time understanding why this is different. If Roosevelt had to ask for money to fight the Nazis, it seems a little odd that Trump can just name his price to fight off 12 year olds from Honduras.

Give me an example of a "statute that allows new or transfer spending during emergency periods."

---

As you know, bills that appropriate spending may limit that spending on certain specific line items. An example of this would be what Trump just signed that limits him to spending no more than $1.375 billion on a physical barrier. Under an NEA declaration, he could, for example, utilize military funding bills that are specific only to certain programs that don't limit or are not specific as to what the funds could be spent on. For example, there are border protection funds for the military, yet it's not the military that chases, catches, and prosecutes illegals, that's ICE. The military merely observes. Funds appropriated to the military for border protection, if not specific or limited in the bill, could be used to build a wall in addition to what he just received from congress.

DioNoZeus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

---

Congress passed the ACA. But you knew that.

---

The policy man. The policy forced Americans to purchase insurance or receive a penalty.

---

Yeah it was horrible. People getting healthcare. How cruel can you get?

---

Healthcare they can't afford coupled with massive spikes in prices.

The ACA made the insurance and pharmaceutical companies filthy rich. How cruel can you get?

Can you see past MSM narratives or are you a sheep?

---

Guess who raised those costs with insurance companies via their scare tactics - answer the GOP.
With the crazies in the gop shouting "government control" the insurance companies saw uncertainty of risk. They hedges against that risk with higher premiums. It was self fulfilling prophecy by the gop and its obstruction.

---

Wrong. The reason insurance costs increased was because the penalty for not signing up was less than premiums. The people who signed up on the exchanges were people who were generally sicker; many healthy people decided not to sign up because it was cheaper not to. Without the healthy people in the insurance pools to bring down the cost for the sicker people the companies had no choice but to raise premiums.

---

Do more research. A fund created to calm concern of the insurance was torpedo by gop. Business hates uncertainty and hedge against it.

Waco1947 said:

---

DioNoZeus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

---

Congress passed the ACA. But you knew that.

---

The policy man. The policy forced Americans to purchase insurance or receive a penalty.

---

Yeah it was horrible. People getting healthcare. How cruel can you get?

---

Healthcare they can't afford coupled with massive spikes in prices.

The ACA made the insurance and pharmaceutical companies filthy rich. How cruel can you get?

Can you see past MSM narratives or are you a sheep?

---

Guess who raised those costs with insurance companies via their scare tactics - answer the GOP.
With the crazies in the gop shouting "government control" the insurance companies saw uncertainty of risk. They hedges against that risk with higher premiums. It was self fulfilling prophecy by the gop and its obstruction.

---

Wrong. The reason insurance costs increased was because the penalty for not signing up was less than premiums. The people who signed up on the exchanges were people who were generally sicker; many healthy people decided not to sign up because it was cheaper not to. Without the healthy people in the insurance pools to bring down the cost for the sicker people the companies had no choice but to raise premiums.

---

Do more research. A fund created to calm concern of the insurance was torpedo by gop. Business hates uncertainty and hedge against it.

---

Hard to imagine someone can think like you do

You have no idea of what you speak! Clueless

Abusive: To argue that proposals, assertions, or arguments must be false or dangerous because they originate with atheists, Christians, Muslims, communists, capitalists, the John Birch Society, Catholics, anti-Catholics, racists, anti-racists, feminists, misogynists (or any other group) is fallacious. This persuasion comes from irrational psychological transference rather than from an appeal to evidence or logic concerning the issue at hand. This is similar to the genetic fallacy, and only an anti-intellectual would argue otherwise.
Note the psychological transference of personal attack. There's something in you that you don't like and I trigger it. What is it?

Waco1947 said:

---

Abusive: To argue that proposals, assertions, or arguments must be false or dangerous because they originate with atheists, Christians, Muslims, communists, capitalists, the John Birch Society, Catholics, anti-Catholics, racists, anti-racists, feminists, misogynists (or any other group) is fallacious. This persuasion comes from irrational psychological transference rather than from an appeal to evidence or logic concerning the issue at hand. This is similar to the genetic fallacy, and only an anti-intellectual would argue otherwise.
Note the psychological transference of personal attack. There's something in you that you don't like and I trigger it. What is it?

---

You don't trigger me

You just remind me of someone old senile fool that's virtually locked in his own home due to fear of unknown outdoors, goes nowhere because of fear and is very shallow in presently losing his mind

Waco1947 said:

---

DioNoZeus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

---

Congress passed the ACA. But you knew that.

---

The policy man. The policy forced Americans to purchase insurance or receive a penalty.

---

Yeah it was horrible. People getting healthcare. How cruel can you get?

---

Healthcare they can't afford coupled with massive spikes in prices.

The ACA made the insurance and pharmaceutical companies filthy rich. How cruel can you get?

Can you see past MSM narratives or are you a sheep?

---

Guess who raised those costs with insurance companies via their scare tactics - answer the GOP.
With the crazies in the gop shouting "government control" the insurance companies saw uncertainty of risk. They hedges against that risk with higher premiums. It was self fulfilling prophecy by the gop and its obstruction.

---

Wrong. The reason insurance costs increased was because the penalty for not signing up was less than premiums. The people who signed up on the exchanges were people who were generally sicker; many healthy people decided not to sign up because it was cheaper not to. Without the healthy people in the insurance pools to bring down the cost for the sicker people the companies had no choice but to raise premiums.

---

Do more research. A fund created to calm concern of the insurance was torpedo by gop. Business hates uncertainty and hedge against it.

---

I don't think you understand how insurance markets work

Florda_mike said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Abusive: To argue that proposals, assertions, or arguments must be false or dangerous because they originate with atheists, Christians, Muslims, communists, capitalists, the John Birch Society, Catholics, anti-Catholics, racists, anti-racists, feminists, misogynists (or any other group) is fallacious. This persuasion comes from irrational psychological transference rather than from an appeal to evidence or logic concerning the issue at hand. This is similar to the genetic fallacy, and only an anti-intellectual would argue otherwise.
Note the psychological transference of personal attack. There's something in you that you don't like and I trigger it. What is it?

---

You don't trigger me

You just remind me of someone old senile fool that's virtually locked in his own home due to fear of unknown outdoors, goes nowhere because of fear and is very shallow in presently losing his mind

---

He just got back from Mexico. You know, criminals, rapists, diseases.

Where have you been lately, brave one? Ybor City?

DioNoZeus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

DioNoZeus said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

---

Congress passed the ACA. But you knew that.

---

The policy man. The policy forced Americans to purchase insurance or receive a penalty.

---

Yeah it was horrible. People getting healthcare. How cruel can you get?

---

Healthcare they can't afford coupled with massive spikes in prices.

The ACA made the insurance and pharmaceutical companies filthy rich. How cruel can you get?

Can you see past MSM narratives or are you a sheep?

---

Guess who raised those costs with insurance companies via their scare tactics - answer the GOP.
With the crazies in the gop shouting "government control" the insurance companies saw uncertainty of risk. They hedges against that risk with higher premiums. It was self fulfilling prophecy by the gop and its obstruction.

---

Wrong. The reason insurance costs increased was because the penalty for not signing up was less than premiums. The people who signed up on the exchanges were people who were generally sicker; many healthy people decided not to sign up because it was cheaper not to. Without the healthy people in the insurance pools to bring down the cost for the sicker people the companies had no choice but to raise premiums.

---

Do more research. A fund created to calm concern of the insurance was torpedo by gop. Business hates uncertainty and hedge against it.

---

I don't think you understand how insurance markets work

---

On this we can agree

Come on Waco, answer him

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Abusive: To argue that proposals, assertions, or arguments must be false or dangerous because they originate with atheists, Christians, Muslims, communists, capitalists, the John Birch Society, Catholics, anti-Catholics, racists, anti-racists, feminists, misogynists (or any other group) is fallacious. This persuasion comes from irrational psychological transference rather than from an appeal to evidence or logic concerning the issue at hand. This is similar to the genetic fallacy, and only an anti-intellectual would argue otherwise.
Note the psychological transference of personal attack. There's something in you that you don't like and I trigger it. What is it?

---

You don't trigger me

You just remind me of someone old senile fool that's virtually locked in his own home due to fear of unknown outdoors, goes nowhere because of fear and is very shallow in presently losing his mind

---

He just got back from Mexico. You know, criminals, rapists, diseases.

Where have you been lately, brave one? Ybor City?

---

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Abusive: To argue that proposals, assertions, or arguments must be false or dangerous because they originate with atheists, Christians, Muslims, communists, capitalists, the John Birch Society, Catholics, anti-Catholics, racists, anti-racists, feminists, misogynists (or any other group) is fallacious. This persuasion comes from irrational psychological transference rather than from an appeal to evidence or logic concerning the issue at hand. This is similar to the genetic fallacy, and only an anti-intellectual would argue otherwise.
Note the psychological transference of personal attack. There's something in you that you don't like and I trigger it. What is it?

---

You don't trigger me

You just remind me of someone old senile fool that's virtually locked in his own home due to fear of unknown outdoors, goes nowhere because of fear and is very shallow in presently losing his mind

---

He just got back from Mexico. You know, criminals, rapists, diseases.

Where have you been lately, brave one? Ybor City?

---

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Booray said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

DioNoZeus said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Are you sure his successor didn't set that precedent lol?

---

Does it really matter? This decision is dumb.

---

It's the only option if congress can't represent their constituents.

Plus we got el chapo's 14 billion back so technically Mexican cartels paid for it lmao

---

No. We don't ignore the constitution just because we don't like what Congress does. We especially don't allow one man the right to do that. Rule by law is what protects us. Violating that concept is way beyond dangerousand never justified by "oh but I know what's best"

---

Please show me where this violates the constitution.

---

Let's here the argument for why he is not violating the appropriations clause.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretations/appropriations-clause-article-i-section-9-clause-7

---

Just positing that a declaration as an emergency under the National Emergency Act (Congress gave the Executive that power), he can spend money from any statutes that allow new or transfer spending during emergency periods.

---

I don't even know what that means. Even during physical land wars between nations, it is Congress that appropriates funds for the military. Having a hard time understanding why this is different. If Roosevelt had to ask for money to fight the Nazis, it seems a little odd that Trump can just name his price to fight off 12 year olds from Honduras.

Give me an example of a "statute that allows new or transfer spending during emergency periods."

---

As you know, bills that appropriate spending may limit that spending on certain specific line items. An example of this would be what Trump just signed that limits him to spending no more than $1.375 billion on a physical barrier. Under an NEA declaration, he could, for example, utilize military funding bills that are specific only to certain programs that don't limit or are not specific as to what the funds could be spent on. For example, there are border protection funds for the military, yet it's not the military that chases, catches, and prosecutes illegals, that's ICE. The military merely observes. Funds appropriated to the military for border protection, if not specific or limited in the bill, could be used to build a wall in addition to what he just received from congress.

---

Thanks. Not sure that is how it will work out. The rationale presupposes that the crisis requires the use of the military. It seems like circular logic to me. Also doesn't seem very "originalist."

Regardless, my guess is the Democrat's plan is to just tie it up in the courts for 23 months.

robby44 said:

---

Is it really a national emergency if you go on vacation hours after you declare a national emergency

---

Well put RW

Booray said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Booray said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

DioNoZeus said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Are you sure his successor didn't set that precedent lol?

---

Does it really matter? This decision is dumb.

---

It's the only option if congress can't represent their constituents.

Plus we got el chapo's 14 billion back so technically Mexican cartels paid for it lmao

---

No. We don't ignore the constitution just because we don't like what Congress does. We especially don't allow one man the right to do that. Rule by law is what protects us. Violating that concept is way beyond dangerousand never justified by "oh but I know what's best"

---

Please show me where this violates the constitution.

---

Let's here the argument for why he is not violating the appropriations clause.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretations/appropriations-clause-article-i-section-9-clause-7

---

Just positing that a declaration as an emergency under the National Emergency Act (Congress gave the Executive that power), he can spend money from any statutes that allow new or transfer spending during emergency periods.

---

I don't even know what that means. Even during physical land wars between nations, it is Congress that appropriates funds for the military. Having a hard time understanding why this is different. If Roosevelt had to ask for money to fight the Nazis, it seems a little odd that Trump can just name his price to fight off 12 year olds from Honduras.

Give me an example of a "statute that allows new or transfer spending during emergency periods."

---

As you know, bills that appropriate spending may limit that spending on certain specific line items. An example of this would be what Trump just signed that limits him to spending no more than $1.375 billion on a physical barrier. Under an NEA declaration, he could, for example, utilize military funding bills that are specific only to certain programs that don't limit or are not specific as to what the funds could be spent on. For example, there are border protection funds for the military, yet it's not the military that chases, catches, and prosecutes illegals, that's ICE. The military merely observes. Funds appropriated to the military for border protection, if not specific or limited in the bill, could be used to build a wall in addition to what he just received from congress.

---

Thanks. Not sure that is how it will work out. The rationale presupposes that the crisis requires the use of the military. It seems like circular logic to me. Also doesn't seem very "originalist."

Regardless, my guess is the Democrat's plan is to just tie it up in the courts for 23 months.

---

Yeah. It's not very "originalist" at all. I don't care for an emergency declaration use under any circumstances for that very reason. To me it's like the War Powers Act...yeah it limits a presidents use of the military, but it allows a president to use the military without a congressional declaration of war.

robby44 said:

---

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Repubs must not allow Pres Obama to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress.

8:36 AM Nov 20, 2014 Twitter Web Client

---

Republicans are treating Trump the same way they're treating climate change. They aren't going to do anything about him until it's too late, and then they'll blame the Democrats, the people, women, gays, Muslims, Mexicans and African Americans.

Trump golfs for third day in a row after declaring national emergency: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-golfs-third-day-in-a-row-since-declaring-national-emergency-on-border

Even the Washington Examiner is disgusted.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Trump golfs for third day in a row after declaring national emergency: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-golfs-third-day-in-a-row-since-declaring-national-emergency-on-border

Even the Washington Examiner is disgusted.

---

Funny timing as Trump is holding a rally w/ Cuban/Hispanic Americans down in Miami right now.
Considering he worked over Christmas & New Year's as the liberals were off hanging out in beaches not caring about the Govt shutdown I think he deserves a little break. He works more in a week than Obama did in a month. I never saw these posts when Obama was hanging out w/ Hollywood & NBA stars and late night comics every week.

I don't trigger you? You are projecting your crap on to me. I am sorry that I trigger that repulsive stuff in you. God be with you in your pain. It simply cannot feel good to attempt to hurt so many people - blacks, women, illegally, asylum seekers, Muslims, Dems, gays, liberals.
You have a lot hate. God can release you if open yourself to love.