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.

Prove to me that a fence will serve an appreciable self-defense purpose against foreign enemies. I'm dying to hear about how the mother and her two kids are going to blow up a building, or how the guy with 50 lbs. of pot strapped to his back is going to shoot up a school.

---

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.

Prove to me that a fence will serve an appreciable self-defense purpose against foreign enemies. I'm dying to hear about how the mother and her two kids are going to blow up a building, or how the guy with 50 lbs. of pot strapped to his back is going to shoot up a school.

I am going to paraphrase the hell out of this, both because I don't recall the person that said it ... nor do I recall the exact wording.

(Paraphrasing)

"You can't take over America with war machines, you will have to take over America through their voting system"

More and more politicians are of Hispanic decent ... Get ready to learn Spanish as your first language.

---

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.

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. 

This is not difficult. The President, from a constitutional standpoint, does not and should not have the power to go around congress. National Emergencies are not clearly defined. The ways the President can use military funding are not clearly defined. This has abuse written all over it. It should be universally condemned by all parties that want to keep government in check. Here are some more "illustrations" for  you.

Climate change is a national emergency. Use military funding to build windmills and hydro power.

Overpopulation is a national emergency. Use military funding to build planned parenthoods.

School shootings are a national emergency. Use military funding to do a gun buyback program.

This can go on and on. What do you want to bet the military housing and construction budgets balloons to allow for this newfound freedom? One is only limited by marketing and creativity. Who would be better at abusing this? Dems or Reps? The former has almost exclusive control of media, art, and education narratives. It will be easier to stretch the definition of national emergency AND easier for them to justify their solution. If you think it will be limited to the border, you are just being naive. 

The BEST possible solution is that the SC forces congress to clarify the National Emergencies Act. The worst solution (long term) is for the Supreme Court to uphold this law as it stands. This is not a power enumerated to the executive branch. I get that congress delegated the Presidency with an authority, but it is subject to supreme abuse at the expense of the people. Sorry, man. Can't get on board with that. 

Again, you want war, go to war. I can't abide by the whataboutisms that allows for the inevitable unification of powers. Why not let him interpret his own laws, too?

---

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.

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. 

This is not difficult. The President, from a constitutional standpoint, does not and should not have the power to go around congress. National Emergencies are not clearly defined. The ways the President can use military funding are not clearly defined. This has abuse written all over it. It should be universally condemned by all parties that want to keep government in check. Here are some more "illustrations" for  you.

Climate change is a national emergency. Use military funding to build windmills and hydro power.

Overpopulation is a national emergency. Use military funding to build planned parenthoods.

School shootings are a national emergency. Use military funding to do a gun buyback program.

This can go on and on. What do you want to bet the military housing and construction budgets balloons to allow for this newfound freedom? One is only limited by marketing and creativity. Who would be better at abusing this? Dems or Reps? The former has almost exclusive control of media, art, and education narratives. It will be easier to stretch the definition of national emergency AND easier for them to justify their solution. If you think it will be limited to the border, you are just being naive. 

The BEST possible solution is that the SC forces congress to clarify the National Emergencies Act. The worst solution (long term) is for the Supreme Court to uphold this law as it stands. This is not a power enumerated to the executive branch. I get that congress delegated the Presidency with an authority, but it is subject to supreme abuse at the expense of the people. Sorry, man. Can't get on board with that. 

Again, you want war, go to war. I can't abide by the whataboutisms that allows for the inevitable unification of powers. Why not let him interpret his own laws, too?

I thought you were done with this? In any case, your right, this is not difficult.

The President has broad Constitutional authority as executive power is vested into his office. Article II states he has power "by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate. The National Emergencies Act has specific power with Congressional consent. You say it should be universally condemned, however, it was universally passed into Federal Law!

1.) What specific Congressionally approved statute deals with climate change? Answer: NONE You can't even get scientists to universally agree climate change is anything but a natural occurrence.

2.) Perhaps we can build a wall and reform immigration policy to address overpopulation? Good luck trying to nail down supportive definition and analytics directly related to overpopulation here.

3.) What specific measureable states school shootings are a National Emergency? School shootings, more specifically homicide by firearm-specifically, doesn't even register in the Top 100 causes of death in the US. Specific Constituonionally approved statute? Answer: NONE Better ban motor vehicles and fast food before attempting to pull this rabbit. 

This can't go on and on, because you refuse to except that the National Emergencies Act gives SPECIFIC powers as delegated by Congress to the POTUS. There are over 500 discretionary powers by way of this Act and when applied in different manners, you essentially have given the POTUS power to run a country with minimum input from Congress. Did you know COngress has not once rescinded a declared emergency? A 2/3 majority of both chambers of Congress could extinguish this National Emergency and show it is universally condemned, but it won't happen.

FYI, the SC cannot legislate from the bench. They deal with Constitutional Law and the National Emergencies Act has already stood the test of time through multiple court challenges. In fact, it was the Supreme Court that enforced the POTUS veto power as it related to the Act in a 1985 Ammendment. You state this isn't an enumerate power, but it is. It is the President’s duty to implement and enforce the law Congress makes. Congress established Immigration law and the National Emergencies Law. The President is using his independent judgement (executive powers) to uphold his oath of office as per the Constitution and Congress' enumerated powers.

I think if you review associated case law and history of this Act, you'll find a case of Congress attempting to limit Executive powers and having it backfire. Not the first time and won't be the last. People love checks and balances until they don't!!

---

1.) What specific Congressionally approved statute deals with border control? Answer: NONE

2.) Good luck trying to nail down supportive definition and analytics directly related to immigration efficacy.

3.) What specific measureable states border control is a National Emergency? Illegal immigration doesn't even register in the Top 100 causes of death in the US.

Your reasoning is sound.

---

1.) What specific Congressionally approved statute deals with border control? Answer: NONE

2.) Good luck trying to nail down supportive definition and analytics directly related to immigration efficacy.

3.) What specific measureable states border control is a  National Emergency? Illegal immigration doesn't even register in the Top 100 causes of death in the US.

Your reasoning is sound.

Boom.

---

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

1.) What specific Congressionally approved statute deals with border control? Answer: NONE

2.) Good luck trying to nail down supportive definition and analytics directly related to immigration efficacy.

3.) What specific measureable states border control is a  National Emergency? Illegal immigration doesn't even register in the Top 100 causes of death in the US.

Your reasoning is sound.

Stop being dense. 

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/fi...gs-act.pdf

1.) I already provided a few specific statutes previously. Of course, we can also lean on his Constitutional authority, 8 U.S.C., PL 109-367 and PL 104-208 at minimum.

2.) We just so happen to have an entire department charged with this called the DHS wich reports to Congress on a regular basis. And it just so happens the gaps and questionable efficacy is just one reason illegal immigration is being addressed in this manner. Can’t kick the can anymore.

3.) Take your pick. Huge National Security vulnerability, Disease (unvaccinated), Climbing Drug epidemic, increases in human trafficking, strain on U.S. social funding, strain on already poor education systems, loss of voter integrity, taking blue collar jobs from the lower-middle class, increased gang activity, etc. Or the fact “illegal immigration” is illegal and strains U.S. sovereignty. Immigration and all associated is currently out of control and beyond current support infrastructure.

---

1.) What specific Congressionally approved statute deals with border control? Answer: NONE

2.) Good luck trying to nail down supportive definition and analytics directly related to immigration efficacy.

3.) What specific measureable states border control is a  National Emergency? Illegal immigration doesn't even register in the Top 100 causes of death in the US.

Your reasoning is sound.

Boom.

...is the sound made when you finally pull your head out.

---

This isn’t all encompassing, but a decent snapshot of some of the delegated powers available.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/emergency-powers

---

1.) What specific Congressionally approved statute deals with border control? Answer: NONE

2.) Good luck trying to nail down supportive definition and analytics directly related to immigration efficacy.

3.) What specific measureable states border control is a  National Emergency? Illegal immigration doesn't even register in the Top 100 causes of death in the US.

Your reasoning is sound.

Stop being dense. 

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/fi...gs-act.pdf

1.) I already provided a few specific statutes previously. Of course, we can also lean on his Constitutional authority, 8 U.S.C., PL 109-367 and PL 104-208 at minimum.

2.) We just so happen to have an entire department charged with this called the DHS wich reports to Congress on a regular basis. And it just so happens the gaps and questionable efficacy is just one reason illegal immigration is being addressed in this manner. Can’t kick the can anymore.

3.) Take your pick. Huge National Security vulnerability, Disease (unvaccinated), Climbing Drug epidemic, increases in human trafficking, strain on U.S. social funding, strain on already poor education systems, loss of voter integrity, taking blue collar jobs from the lower-middle class, increased gang activity, etc. Or the fact “illegal immigration” is illegal and strains U.S. sovereignty. Immigration and all associated is currently out of control and beyond current support infrastructure.

---

Boom.

...is the sound made when you finally pull your head out.

Why would that action make a boom sound? Pulling things out doesn’t make a boom sound. It’s more like a “fwerp”.

---

Stop being dense. 

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/fi...gs-act.pdf

1.) I already provided a few specific statutes previously. Of course, we can also lean on his Constitutional authority, 8 U.S.C., PL 109-367 and PL 104-208 at minimum.

2.) We just so happen to have an entire department charged with this called the DHS wich reports to Congress on a regular basis. And it just so happens the gaps and questionable efficacy is just one reason illegal immigration is being addressed in this manner. Can’t kick the can anymore.

3.) Take your pick. Huge National Security vulnerability, Disease (unvaccinated), Climbing Drug epidemic, increases in human trafficking, strain on U.S. social funding, strain on already poor education systems, loss of voter integrity, taking blue collar jobs from the lower-middle class, increased gang activity, etc. Or the fact “illegal immigration” is illegal and strains U.S. sovereignty. Immigration and all associated is currently out of control and beyond current support infrastructure.

---

...is the sound made when you finally pull your head out.

Why would that action make a boom sound? Pulling things out doesn’t make a boom sound. It’s more like a “fwerp”.

I guess whether it is a fwerp, pssss, pop, or boom depends on how often it gets burried up there! 

---

Boom.

...is the sound made when you finally pull your head out.

I wouldn't know.  I'm guessing you hear it on a regular basis, though.

---

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

...is the sound made when you finally pull your head out.

I wouldn't know.  I'm guessing you hear it on a regular basis, though.

I know you are but what am I? 

---

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

...is the sound made when you finally pull your head out.

I wouldn't know.  I'm guessing you hear it on a regular basis, though.

I'm retired, so no. No longer surrounded by those pesky newbie dolts venturing into adult life from the warm embrace of their mother's arms. Perhaps one day you will enjoy the deafening sounds of the pop. Until then, enjoy that soup sandwich! LOL

---

I wouldn't know.  I'm guessing you hear it on a regular basis, though.

I'm retired, so no. No longer surrounded by those pesky newbie dolts venturing into adult life from the warm embrace of their mother's arms. Perhaps one day you will enjoy the deafening sounds of the pop. Until then, enjoy that soup sandwich! LOL

... how young do you think I am?

---

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

I'm retired, so no. No longer surrounded by those pesky newbie dolts venturing into adult life from the warm embrace of their mother's arms. Perhaps one day you will enjoy the deafening sounds of the pop. Until then, enjoy that soup sandwich! LOL

... how young do you think I am?

Young enough to not remember 1983.

---

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

... how young do you think I am?

Young enough to not remember 1983.

I mean 1983 had some cool stuff but it wasn't all that. Episode VI, Wargames, my O's won a WS, and McDonalds introduced McNuggets. Other than that... meh.

---

I'm retired, so no. No longer surrounded by those pesky newbie dolts venturing into adult life from the warm embrace of their mother's arms. Perhaps one day you will enjoy the deafening sounds of the pop. Until then, enjoy that soup sandwich! LOL

... how young do you think I am?

Haven't given it a thought to be honest. Mid 30-ish (34-37) would be my guess.

---

Young enough to not remember 1983.

I mean 1983 had some cool stuff but it wasn't all that. Episode VI, Wargames, my O's won a WS, and McDonalds introduced McNuggets. Other than that... meh.

The early 80's had that weird and awkward teenager vibe to it. Didn't quite know what it wanted to be!

---

... how young do you think I am?

Young enough to not remember 1983.

Ya got me. 
But do you really need to have lived through something to be able to put it in context? If so, we are all screwed trying to interpret our Founding Documents.
I think we are talking past each other anyways.
In 1983, Congress investigated a massive, deadly failure of both State and DoD in the Middle East, without turning it into a partisan issue.  I don't need to have lived through that to know.  And you agree, this is what happened.  The investigation was not very political.  
In 2013,  they couldn't do it anymore.  I think that speaks to a negative change in our culture during the last 30 years.  Others are trying to make excuses, focusing on small differences between the two events being investigated.  You only care about those small differences because you know that acknowledging the essential sameness of the two events means that the party you have unduly pledged allegiance to (though some of you claim to be independent, hah) has a lot of cultural decay to answer for.
As for me, I just registered Republican so I could vote in primaries.  I don't give them any allegiance and if you didn't either you would admit you see my point.

---

... how young do you think I am?

Haven't given it a thought to be honest. Mid 30-ish (34-37) would be my guess.

Yep.  My first exposure to Star Wars was the special editions.  I went with my friend who was the same age as me and he had seen the movies previously, though.  He filled up my ear about how Han shot first and Jabba didn't have a tail, etc, but it made no difference to me.

---

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