Democrats can and will use this in the future. JJ, you are too smart to defend this. I understand what Trump is doing. I understand the problem he is facing. I don't think this is the right solution, and in (x) amount of years when you're watching this be expanded by a progressive President, claiming it's not apples to apples, everyone is going to point to your defense of this position and use whataboutism.

Allowing the President to circumvent congress for something that is a problem (but not an emergency) is going to backfire in the long run. There is no EMERGENCY at the border. There is a slow leak, that causes problems and costs tax payers money. If the citizens don't like that, they should elect new officials. They should no roll over and contribute to the ever increasing powers of the President. I hope the SC strikes this down, because that's the best case scenario to prevent  future abuse.

One more thing: I was in the military. They need that housing budget.

1.) Not sure it's coming from the housing budget.  

2.) As I stated he has the specifically delegated authority under the statute.  He's also granted the most expansive legal authority under the constitution to enact foreign policy specifically immigration.  The SCOTUS intervention you advocate would be a JUDICIAL overreach.  

3.) There's no what aboutism, it's textuslism. 

4.) The last progressive president used executive authority to create defecto legal status to illegal immigrant children and give 150 billion dollars to terrorists.  Neither of those fit within delegated powers and both the daca program and the iran deal should have been subject to the legislative process.  The idea that if we're just nice to the left they won't shove things down our throat is asinine.

5.) The department of environmental protection was passed into law a long time ago.  A lefty president won't need an emergency declaration.  

6.) The SCOTUS invented a right that has never existed in the history of US or English common law to enact gay marriage over a duly passed state proposition in the most liberal state in the country.  Where's that outrage?  

7.) The judicial and legislative branches caused this problem by making immigration law progressively unenforceable.  A convicted rapist who kidnapped a child crossing the border currently has more standing than an unborn child in the womb, but Trump is exercising his delegated authority, that's the real problem!!!

---

1. It's the housing and construction budget. They are combined. Do we even know how much of this budget is currently unallocated? Technically, this is all he can use. Even if it hasn't, it will ultimately potentially affect military welfare and readiness.

2. I will concede that the National Emergencies Act gives some leverage to Trump. However, it was clearly not designed to be used as a bargaining tool and/or a tool to let the President bypass congressional oversight. There's nothing in our defense strategy about securing the southern border. We are not at war with Mexico. The Mexican government is not sending invaders; people are voluntarily leaving to look for economic opportunity. He's not building a wall on Mexico's soil; He's building it on US soil (negating the foreign aspect). He is deliberately circumventing congress who is expressly opposing funding the wall. Without even trying, I just rattled off 5 potential concerns about the validity of this order (and I could keep going). This will be challenged in the Supreme Court and it SHOULD BE. There are enough questions surrounding this order to challenge it in the court of law. Claiming this is judicial overreach is just a biased opinion. It is the more conservative position to defend against the expansion of federal government and/or threat to separation of powers.

3. See Above. It isn't textualism. It's like, your opinion, man.

4. So what? Dems are gonna Dem,. Do conservatives have to do it, too? Be wary of win at all costs.

5. Eh, not gonna live or die by this specific example. You can have this point if you want.

6. What's this have to do with our discussion? Do I need to bring up every possible issue that is outrageous to be justified? Seems a bit excessive.

7. I agree with the first half of your statement, but the later half is a non sequitur. It's its own issue.

---

1. It's the housing and construction budget. They are combined. Do we even know how much of this budget is currently unallocated? Technically, this is all he can use. Even if it hasn't, it will ultimately potentially affect military welfare and readiness.

2. I will concede that the National Emergencies Act gives some leverage to Trump. However, it was clearly not designed to be used as a bargaining tool and/or a tool to let the President bypass congressional oversight. There's nothing in our defense strategy about securing the southern border. We are not at war with Mexico. The Mexican government is not sending invaders; people are voluntarily leaving to look for economic opportunity. He's not building a wall on Mexico's soil; He's building it on US soil (negating the foreign aspect). He is deliberately circumventing congress who is expressly opposing funding the wall. Without even trying, I just rattled off 5 potential concerns about the validity of this order (and I could keep going). This will be challenged in the Supreme Court and it SHOULD BE. There are enough questions surrounding this order to challenge it in the court of law. Claiming this is judicial overreach is just a biased opinion. It is the more conservative position to defend against the expansion of federal government and/or threat to separation of powers.

3. See Above. It isn't textualism. It's like, your opinion, man.

4. So what? Dems are gonna Dem,. Do conservatives have to do it, too? Be wary of win at all costs.

5. Eh, not gonna live or die by this specific example. You can have this point if you want.

6. What's this have to do with our discussion? Do I need to bring up every possible issue that is outrageous to be justified? Seems a bit excessive.

7. I agree with the first half of your statement, but the later half is a non sequitur. It's its own issue.

1.) It will not impact welfare and readiness. Nearly all housing is privatized. In addition, any construction goes through a vetting, appropriations, and bidding process well in advance. These funds fall under construction but that money, in most cases, is actually set aside for BRAC and condemned demolition. Lastly, each services Secretary will comb through their budgets to prioritize and set aside. There is zero mission impact as service budget appropriations took place months ago and are completely separate.

2.) This is a Federal issue involving specific power to the POTUS. Immigration is strictly Federal and constitutionally belongs to the President. Supreme Court has upheld this time and time again. Since Trump began his term he has attempted to use all avenues with zero support. Border security systems and courts are overwhelmed at this point. Federal trumps State on immigration, multiple National Emergencies have been declared and upheld for this very situation, all available avenues have been addressed, the National Emergencies Act gives specific power for this situation, Congress has approved numerous statutes for this very situation, funds will be moved from dormant accounts not impacting FY appropriations, environmental concerns have been cleared for specific segments, matter of national security (drug epidemic, increased gang activity, increased trafficking, strain on federal budget, etc.), precedence. No logical challenge. Even more bleak when you consider only two of 16 states challenging share a southern border and nearly all of some form of sanctuary law in place.

3.) Above is not opinion and court, statute, U.S. code black and white documented fact. Like, not my opinion man.

4.) Dems have been overly aggressive at their intentions since gaining house control. They have not attempted to hide their obstruction, resist, government dependency attempts. Conservatives have no choice but to push back with equal aggressiveness supported by law. Amazing how nationalism is so dirty nowadays. How dare we put our people first and attempt to grasp at everything that has made this country prominent and viable. So immoral.

---

multiple National Emergencies have been declared and upheld for this very situation

Source plz.

---

multiple National Emergencies have been declared and upheld for this very situation

Source plz.

They have been previously posted in one of the two threads. You can also google Haitian Immigration EOs and Immigration EOs.

---

Barring entry to certain classes of people on an emergency basis is a specifically delegated power that the president got from Congress.
No type of construction project is ever referred to in these types of statutes.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

My bad. I assumed you meant there was a precedent for this VERY situation. I guess I shouldn't read into your words.

---

People that think that there is no emergency on the southern border should go talk with the people that live along there.  The Constitution compels the President as well as members of congress to act and pass legislation to provide for the common defense.  That includes our borders and people invading from other countries.

It's not so much about the poor families "looking for a better way of life", it's more about the illegal activity (other than entering the country illegally).  The human and drug smuggling problem is a real thing that happens every day.

I've witnessed it myself.  My father has a friend that owns a ranch on the southern border.  I've seen the trash, the waste, etc. that these illegals leave behind.  He has had stuff stolen from him, had his property damaged and has to almost on a daily basis fix the border "fence" that separates his property from Mexico.  That "fence" is nothing more than a 4 wire barbed wire fence maybe 4ft high.  They cut it often and actually drive vehicles across his land.  He was advised by border patrol not to engage the trespassers because many are armed and dangerous.  Calling authorities out to his property when he detects the invaders takes hours and is mostly ineffective.

Every president since Clinton (possibly further back) including President Obama has expressed the need to secure the southern border against the cartels, yet nothing has really been done.  The only reason that democrats are opposing any of this is because of who the sitting president is.  I'm no big fan of President Trump, but he is at least trying to actually do something about it rather than paying lip service.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

My bad. I assumed you meant there was a precedent for this VERY situation. I guess I shouldn't read into your words.

There in fact is and that is what I was referring to. There are three EOs that dealt with being overunned with Haitian immigrants. Supreme court upheld international and domestic court challenges. The funding is another perk of the POTUS during said National Emergency. All these powers are specific and delegated by Congress. If Congress believes these statutes and the National Emergency Act to be unconstitutional then they can hold session to eliminate and or restrict. But of course that won't happen any time soon because it would restrict not only a Rep President but a Dem as well.

---

Tell me. At what point is it a stretch for a different President to declare a national emergency and fund (x) via the military budget? Could someone say that anchor babies are a problem, so there should be a planned parenthood at every port of entry in the nation? Would that be cool? Just a planned parenthood right at every airport, built by the military, bypassing congress. I hate to use absurd examples, but this is how the system gets abused.

There is no precedent for this very situation. The are precedents for similar situations, but this is clearly not how the National Emergencies Act was designed to work. It wasn't created to bypass the checks of a different branch of government. It was created to bypass red tape. You should be able to make that distinction.

I agree with you that Congress should change it, but they won't. I don't really care to argue this point further. I'm on record saying this should, hopefully, get struck down in the SC.

---

Tell me. At what point is it a stretch for a different President to declare a national emergency and fund (x) via the military budget? Could someone say that anchor babies are a problem, so there should be a planned parenthood at every port of entry in the nation? Would that be cool? Just a planned parenthood right at every airport, built by the military, bypassing congress. I hate to use absurd examples, but this is how the system gets abused.

There is no precedent for this very situation. The are precedents for similar situations, but this is clearly not how the National Emergencies Act was designed to work. It wasn't created to bypass the checks of a different branch of government. It was created to bypass red tape. You should be able to make that distinction.

I agree with you that Congress should change it, but they won't. I don't really care to argue this point further. I'm on record saying this should, hopefully, get struck down in the SC.

You are making an assumption that no specifics are offered or mandatory. Declaring a National Emergency is specific in nature. Your examples are free-for-alls. Congress has designated, get this, specific statutes. And yes, there is International and Domestic (Supreme Court) precedents whether you choose to except that or not. Below are just two statutues available to the POTUS at this time. Took me 5 minutes to research them. You may disagree with Trumps method, but it appears well thought out and legally supported. Much like the travel ban.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2808

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/2293

---

Do u think someone coming to the border requesting an abortion isn't getting one?

---

Do u think someone coming to the border requesting an abortion isn't getting one?

To be really blunt, I'd rather they do it here and not die than do it with a pair of scissors and a clothes hanger in a dark alley in Tijuana and probably die. Ban them from the US and deport them afterwards.

---

Do u think someone coming to the border requesting an abortion isn't getting one?

I'm not advocating for abortions. I was making an absurd example to highlight why this is a bad precedent. It will be abused.

B2, don't know what else to say. You're not researching or posting anything I don't already know. It's not a problem of whether or not Trump can do it. It's whether or not he should. This will create a loophole that will eventually allow future Presidents to work around congress. Not a conservative position to support that. Now that the cat's out of the bag, it will be used again unless congress changes it or the SC strikes this down or gives points of clarity (or, most reasonably, demands congress revise certain parts for clarity). Like I said. I'm just going on record now. I'm sure we'll revisit this topic in a few years.

---

Do u think someone coming to the border requesting an abortion isn't getting one?

I'm not advocating for abortions. I was making an absurd example to highlight why this is a bad precedent. It will be abused.

B2, don't know what else to say. You're not researching or posting anything I don't already know. It's not a problem of whether or not Trump can do it. It's whether or not he should. This will create a loophole that will eventually allow future Presidents to work around congress. Not a conservative position to support that. Now that the cat's out of the bag, it will be used again unless congress changes it or the SC strikes this down or gives points of clarity (or, most reasonably, demands congress revise certain parts for clarity). Like I said. I'm just going on record now. I'm sure we'll revisit this topic in a few years.

This doesn't create a loophole, it follows existing law.  You keep asserting that this is something outside the bounds of the constitution, but it's following the plain text of a statute.  

Moreover, Congress isn't bypassed.  They have the ability to end the state of emergency if they pass a motion of disapproval by a veto proof majority.  That's a far cry from being tied in the corner. 

The Obama administration gave Iran 150 billion dollars.  150 billion.  He created an immigration program without the approval of congress and the lefty courts actually blocked the president from overturning it.  But Trump is setting a precedent?  

It has been CONDITIONED into modern American society that conservatives and republicans are the only ones that are EVER to be evaluated about ANYHING.  Don't pay attention the what the left does, try to combat what the left does, don't follow the plain text of laws that have been dully passed and used by previous presidents.  Stand in a corner, on your head with your pants around your ankles and if you move or breathe your neo-con hypocrite.

---

Do u think someone coming to the border requesting an abortion isn't getting one?

I'm not advocating for abortions. I was making an absurd example to highlight why this is a bad precedent. It will be abused.

B2, don't know what else to say. You're not researching or posting anything I don't already know. It's not a problem of whether or not Trump can do it. It's whether or not he should. This will create a loophole that will eventually allow future Presidents to work around congress. Not a conservative position to support that. Now that the cat's out of the bag, it will be used again unless congress changes it or the SC strikes this down or gives points of clarity (or, most reasonably, demands congress revise certain parts for clarity). Like I said. I'm just going on record now. I'm sure we'll revisit this topic in a few years.

Hey, at least you admit that you intentionally use fallacious reasoning, unlike some people I know around here.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I understand your argument, and don't even disagree with it. However, you can't be for both limited government and expansive powers of the government (only when it suits you). You're either in the business of preservation or you aren't. If you want war, choose war. The National Emergency Act needs clarity. Trump is using it a way that expands the power of the executive branch, and it should be changed.

---

Expansive powers of the government? Limited government carries with it certain enumerated powers, the first and most important is defense of the country from all enemies foreign and domestic.

In reality, you should be upset that Congress is more concerned with taking over domestic industry than securing the border of the country.

---

I can be upset with both.

---

You still haven't illustrated how the commander and chief of the armed forces directing the military to construct a fence using congressionally delegated authority constitutes an "expansion" of government powers.

---