Trump’s Emergency
 

Trump has now decided that he needs to declare an Emergency.
I expect the House to pass legislation denying his emergency.
McConnell then is required to put it to a vote, no if ands or buts. If the Republican majority in the Senate ignores the Constitution and fails to pass it they will have ceded the power of the purse to the President and set a very dangerous precedent, that will be repeated in the future. Of course it won’t be over at that point, Trump would most likely veto it and then we would really find out if the executive branch controls all of Government.
All of us heard plenty of wailing about Obama’s overreaches on DACA and Libya to know that for the Republicans to not act on this is hypocritical at best.

Fascists love a dictator ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe after you experience a family member get hooked on the drugs that are and have been flooding in from Mexico and they overdose & die, then you change your tune.
Maybe you need a family member killed by an illegal to change your tune.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nothing you have said here indicates that Trump's invoking of his emergency power would set a dangerous or anti-Constitutional precedent.

Use of emergency power spending does not cede the congressional power of the purse to the President. Congress can deny the money, unless it has already been designated and a majority does not revoke that. If Trump can find already allocated funds, and Congress does not deny his use of them, he can constitutionally use the money.

It can eventually go to the Supreme Court to decide. I'm sure you would have no issue with how the Court would decide it since you approve of the judicial right to "interpret" on the basis of personal opinion on what is right.

Sure he can take the money earmarked to get some of our military families out of the run down, mold invested sh*tholes they are living in to solve a national emergency that even he admits doesn’t really exist. Or he can steal the money earmarked to make our elections safe from foreign governments, we certainly don’t need either of those things
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

= brainwashed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have several times though none have been killed by illegal immigrants, several have had drug issues, luckily so far all have made it thru to date. I’m sorry for your loss but a wall won’t stop drugs. There’s too much money involved. We need to make it so Suboxone is less than opiates and make sure it’s available to addicts.
I also know people that have lost family members to gun violence which claims 100+ victims daily in this country, which is far more than murders by illegal immigrants and that’s not an emergency.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Murder committed by American citizens is a crime that is addressed at the state level. It is not a federal government responsibility to solve the problem. The President cannot invoke his emergency powers to stop the murders by citizens that happen in the various states.

Last I heard the opiate crisis was supplied by American pharmasutical companies.

Thanks for your well wishes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can’t fight the base with facts, they can’t believe the CDC’s stats that deaths can be attributed to 40% prescription opioids, 37% heroin and 46% fentanyl. Blame doctors and the US Pharmas for the first, the Mexican cartels for heroin and China for fentanyl. The DEA says most of the Mexican heroin is coming in by air and sea, but these facts don’t matter, this is and always has been all about a campaign promise.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Two things that make me wonder about the use of the "most" meme.

First, how is it known that most come by air and sea? Is that a supposedly educated guess? If actual deliveries have been known to be happening, then they all should have been stopped. If the smuggling has been successful (undetected), as it apparently was, then how has it been determined which way it came?

Second, what is "most" and why must that mean that the "least" should not also be stopped as well as possible? And is the ratio of the "most/least" a 51/49 or 60/40 or 70/30 or 90/10, etc.? A nebulous notion of "most" is not persuasive in this case in regards to a solution.

So what would be the method of smuggling if the air/sea combination is solved? Would that just mean that "the most" would be by land? Or would it mean that no more illegal narcotics would be delivered here from south of the border?

Stoners love to call everyone fascists :smokin:



If you put up barriers (like a wall) you can move more resources to other areas. The problem is that both sides have reduced this argument to a brick wall and a stick to beat each other.

The real National Emergency is the National Effing Debt.

Stupid argument. No one is saying that all crime is committed by illegals. But we can't kick out American citizens who are would-be criminals, and send them to Mexico. The federal government certainly can deport all those who are here illegally, and many feel they should. Before Trump was POTUS, we heard Obama, Pelosi, Hilary talk about the downside of illegal immigration and porous borders.

Not heroin.

If something cannot be solved, it is not an emergency. It is a fait accompli.

Heroine is easier and cheaper to get for people hooked on Oxy.

Fentanyl is cheaper and easier for drug dealers to use to screw over people wanting heroine.

As mush as I liked the SOTU address, I didn't like it when Trump referred to drug dealing as a non-violent crime. Plenty of blood on their hands.

You got that right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Applying the "most" meme as a critical factor in how Congress will prioritize it's responsibilities, what do you think is "most" likely to occur, a solution to border problems or to eliminating the national debt? Not that we can depend on it doing anything meaningful in either case.

fixed it for you
Stupid reason for the reallocation of resources.

How exactly do you deport 12 million people, many with families containing minor US citizens?

Was it stupid when the democrats supported it in 2006 and 2013?

You probably don't. But as detbuch said, that is the jurisdiction of the federal government, while dealing with murders committed by US citizens, is usually the responsibility of the states.

Pete gave the argument (the weak argument) that most crime isn't committed by illegals. We can't do anything about legal citizens who are about to commit crime. But we can do something about the illegals who are potential criminals.

This is pretty convoluted, it's the same argument Stephen Miller tried to use when Wallace embarrassed him yesterday morning. How about the pineapple smuggling along the Rio Grande? What, never heard of it??? Exactly the point.

How about a really simple answer, the experts at the DEA have studied the issue in depth.

If the DEA says most drugs don't come across the porous border he wants to wall off, no one should claim otherwise. I sthat fair enough?

Now here's a question for you...if you are so confident in relying on the "experts at the DEA" to conclude that the wall won't help put a huge dent in the drug smuggling...how come you're equally quick to dismiss the "experts at the Border Patrol (including the guy Obama picked to head the entire border patrol), who say that a wall will certainly help with a host of problems?

Looks to me, like you instantly agree with one set of experts, and instantly dismiss another set of experts. Depends on whether those experts agree with Trump or not, is that your criteria?

I don't believe that's the case.

Name one case where a president has asked Congress for money, Congress has refused, and the president has then invoked national emergency powers to get the money anyway.

Oh, well you've done impeccable research clearly.

Here is the guy Obama selected to lead the entire Border Patrol, and he was fired by Trump. So Obama thought he was an expert on border security, and he has little reason to lie to make Trump look good.

https://www.wnd.com/2019/01/obamas-b...wall-it-works/

And here's what the head of the BP union had to say...

https://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-w...-patrol-union/

And here, a union survey of 600 agent sin two of the southern border's busiest areas, 89% support the wall.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-survey-finds/

I don't offhand know of such a case. Nor do I wish to research it. It is irrelevant to what I said. Do you know that there never was such a case? Why does that matter? If this was the first time it ever happened, does that mean it is improper, or somehow set a dangerous or anti-Constitutional precedent?

If there were no "first time" for anything, nothing would exist. Being the first time does not make something unconstitutional nor make it a dangerous precedent. I pointed out that nothing you said indicated that Trump's invoking of his emergency power would set a dangerous or anti-Constitutional precedent. That is still true, regardless if it had ever happened before or not.