Economy The [Wall / Government Shutdown] Megathread

[Deleted member 158611]

Very amusing watching Coulter and others like her freak out over this.

 

[HockeyBjj]

Lol...Nancy Pelosi just said, not verbatim, "Republicans, keep in mind there will be future democrat presidents, parkland represents a national emergency"...

Wonder if this is worth the nonsense of a nonsense wall.

She also said she would never advocate avoiding Congress with manufactured crisis.

Damnit Trump. You just made me agree with Pelosi you jackass

The precident set by this "National Emergency to get my way in a political game" is the biggest problem here. Getting the wall or not is small fries compared to the can of worms opened up. Going nuclear to get a short term solution always, always backfires on the party that started it (right Biden?)

 

[Trotsky]

Sounds like she's on another planet. there has been a crisis on the southern border for decades.

An unsecured border that has several humanitarian crisis's and violence is a perfectly valid reason for any executive to declare a national emergency.

Illegal migration has been declining for a decade and net southern border migration has been negative for a decade.

Good lord, you guys live in a different fucking reality of your own choosing.

 

[glenwo2]

I really don't understand why people are so confident Trump will lose in the courts.

The dude is going to go emergency or executive order route and has a majority in the scotus....maybe a larger one by the time it reaches them

I think because Chief Justice Roberts has voted against him(him being the swing vote) recently on other issues, is what people are referring to.

And this, admittedly, worries me.

 

[andnowweknow]

Very amusing watching Coulter and others like her freak out over this.

Well she's right.

 

[Shoemaker]

Well she's right.

Well, she's pretty wrong when she equates "no wall" with "fully open borders."

 

[Quipling]

Yeh...maybe that will happen, but I wouldn't bet on it and I'm not sure why anyone else would. Is say it's more likely that it is upheld based on my reading of the law and the make up of the court.

So once again everyone is celebrating but Trump now has the dough to break new ground and good odds he'll get all those other billions right around the time he needs it most

I think that you're wrong here.

There are going to be a couple different challenges to the wall as-is, but the use of emergency powers carries with it a distinct set.

First, there's the statutory construction issue that you've touched on. I've done an example challenge below, but I'd like to know what section you see him proceeding under. Second, there are some serious constitutional hurdles that you haven't. You've pointed out that the court is largely conservative, but this doesn't help you as much as you think, because most of the conservative judges favor canons of interpretation that focus heavily on separation of powers issues: Gorsuch in particular tends to find separation of powers concerns persuasive - especially when it comes to the president attempting to assume congressional powers. Roberts has also come down on certain kinds of separation of powers issues pretty hard. Kavanaugh has that reputation, but he hasn't been on SCOTUS long enough to see how consistent he is here.

1. Is this something that Trump has the power to do under the text of the emergency powers act?

The emergency powers act is pretty broad, so I'm not sure which section you think he has the power under, but let's take a look at 10 U.S. Code § 2808 as a possibility. This provides that, where a national emergency "requires the use of armed services," the Secretary of Defense may "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." While I can see how you might interpret that language in support of Trump, there are several hurdles here (let's set aside what constitutes an emergency):

Here's how I would go about challenging it from the textual end:
First, the emergency must "require" the use of armed services. Does this? There were troops deployed to the border, but they provided indirect support at best and were largely idle, so its not clear the "emergency" so requires. Second, the military construction project must be "necessary" to support such use of the armed services. Is a wall necessary, or merely "useful"? Third, the "military construction project" must fit within the statutory definition of such. This is pretty broad, but it provides some guidance as to what sort of facilities are contemplated - and a border security wall might not be one. Fourth, it must be from certain existing funds relating to housing, which provides more guidance as to the sort of military construction this provision has in mind.

2. Constitutional challenges

Separation of Powers is the big one here. Congress has the power of the purse. They choose where spending goes, if they want. Under Youngstown, in a clash between Congress and the President, the president's powers are sharply limited, and he likely loses.

Trump's best counter argument is that there is no clash because Congress delegated some spending power to him via the above section. But, under Youngstown, the grant of power has to be clear - and whether the above allows him to build a wall is not. And the fact that the proposed budget prohibits the use of funds for a wall causes serious problems for this argument.

His other counter-argument is that this falls within his authority because it deals with border security. But the fact that the executive has power over border security does not give him appropriations power over issues dealing with border security, so this argument is a dead-end.

 

[glenwo2]

Very amusing watching Coulter and others like her freak out over this.

I tweeted her this response in one of them :

 

[andnowweknow]

Well, she's pretty wrong when she equates "no wall" with "fully open borders."

Ok

 

[Shoemaker]

Ok

Not just okay, but correct! She's just saying that to rile up the conservative base because they love saying that democrats are "in favor of open borders" simply because they oppose a wall. That's nonsense - there are other ways to secure the border. And not building a wall doesn't remove existing fencing or send the Border Patrol packing.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

Your perspective seems very personal and lacking wider understanding of the reality of the objective truth.

My post doesn't read that way at all, and nothing in it is "personal".

 

[kpt018]

In the event this strategy actually works for Trump I am going to bookmark this thread and quote you motherfuckers when a Democrat uses the same declaration for gun control measures or to force policy on climate change. If that happens I'll oppose it but I'll point out that some of you motherfuckers are hypocrites when you predictably cry about it.

 

[RoosterHucklebuck]

I am still trying to figure out how her dentures stayed in place for 8 hours when she gave that record breaking speech last year.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

I think because Chief Justice Roberts has voted against him(him being the swing vote) recently on other issues, is what people are referring to.

And this, admittedly, worries me.

Would that be the 9th libtard circuit?

 

[zebby23]

Actually quite a brilliant move.

Get as much from Congress as you can, and when they inevitably fall short, declare an emergency to make up for the gap.

This is the Man I voted for.

Quite the patriot you are there farmer. I look forward to quoting this post when our future democratic president declares a national emergency over guns

 

[jk7707]

Would that be the 9th libtard circuit?

Supreme court bud. But i'll give you a pass since you're from Canada.

 

[zebby23]

That's not what a "national emergency" declaration is supposed to be for. And it will more than likely be tied up in court for years. Yea "brilliant" all right.

Shhh. Remember Trump is a dumb persons idea of a smart person: you are ruining it for ol farmer

 

[glenwo2]

Very interesting :


Texas lawmakers propose funding border wall on their own

As Washington, D.C. debates a budget deal that would get President Trump barely 1/20th of the border wall funding he requested, and with significant strings attached, two local Texas lawmakers are proposing dipping into the state’s "rainy day" fund to finance the border barrier on their own.

Budget negotiators on Capitol Hill have come up with a budget compromise to prevent a partial government shutdown that includes approximately $1.3 billion for a barrier on the southern border, less than the $5.7 billion Trump had called for, and well below the approximately $20-25 billion a wall could cost. The funding also comes with a series of limits on where it can be built, and what models can be used.

So in Texas, lawmakers are taking matters into their own hands. State Reps. Kylie Biedermann and Briscoe Cain are planning on introducing a bill that would pull $2.5 billion from the state’s economic stabilization fund for a wall -- almost double what Trump is being offered in the nation's capital.

Biederman told the outlet that the money would be “to design, test, construct, and install physical barriers, roads, and technology along the international land border between the State of Texas and Mexico to prevent illegal crossings in all areas.”

"I believe that we have a duty to secure our border and ports," Cain told Fox News. "Drugs and human trafficking coming through our porous southern border put all Americans at risk."

"If Congress refuses to keep Americans safe, then Texas must act," he said.

The idea is likely to be met with approval by some Republican allies in the state, where Republicans control the House, Senate and governor’s office. Breitbart notes that Abbott is a close ally of President Trump.

However, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s office said he does not support the idea, and instead wants to invoice the feds for the billions of dollars the state has already spent on border security. With those funds, a wall could be built, his office told Breitbart.

Cain's office told Fox News that it had received "many calls" in support of the push, both from Texans and from residents in other states offering to help fund the project.

"I'm committed to working with my fellow lawmakers to find solutions that protect the integrity of our borders and keep all Texas families safe," Cain said.

 

[glenwo2]

Would that be the 9th libtard circuit?

Uhh... Chief Justice Roberts of the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, Trop.


Come on, man. You just made yourself look bad in front of the idiots and morons here.

 

[Quipling]

I think because Chief Justice Roberts has voted against him(him being the swing vote) recently on other issues, is what people are referring to.

And this, admittedly, worries me.

People are making a mistake by viewing the Supreme Court in purely political terms. Roberts isn't the only conservative Justice to have voted against certain actions by this administration, merely the most common one. Gorsuch and Thomas have also done so. Gorsuch, specifically, in an immigration case dealing with executive oversight. He also tends to find separation of powers arguments persuasive - and attempts to fund something that congress has not agreed to fund would run straight into that, because the power of the purse is pretty clearly reserved to Congress.