Senate votes to block Trump's emergency declaration

[Swordsmyth]

You haven't read that act, I can tell. Go ahead, go read it. I'll wait; it's short.

[h=3]Public Law No: 109-367 (10/26/2006)[/h] (This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on September 14, 2006. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Secure Fence Act of 2006 - Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, within 18 months of enactment of this Act, to take appropriate actions to achieve operational control over U.S. international land and maritime borders, including: (1) systematic border surveillance through more effective use of personnel and technology, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar coverage, and cameras; and (2) physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful border entry and facilitate border access by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, such as additional checkpoints, all weather access roads, and vehicle barriers.
Defines "operational control" as the prevention of all unlawful U.S. entries, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.
Directs the Secretary to report annually to Congress on border control progress.
Amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to direct the Secretary to provide at least two layers of reinforced fencing, installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors extending: (1) from ten miles west of the Tecate, California, port of entry to ten miles east of the Tecate, California, port of entry; (2) from ten miles west of the Calexico, California, port of entry to five miles east of the Douglas, Arizona, port of entry (requiring installation of an interlocking surveillance camera system by May 30, 2007, and fence completion by May 30, 2008); (3) from five miles west of the Columbus, New Mexico, port of entry to ten miles east of El Paso, Texas; (4) from five miles northwest of the Del Rio, Texas, port of entry to five miles southeast of the Eagle Pass, Texas, port of entry; and (5) 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to the Brownsville, Texas, port of entry (requiring fence completion from 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to 15 southeast of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry by December 31, 2008).
States that if an area has an elevation grade exceeding 10% the Secretary may use other means to secure such area, including surveillance and barrier tools.
Directs the Secretary to: (1) study and report to the House Committee on Homeland Security and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on the necessity, feasibility, and economic impact of constructing a state-of-the-art infrastructure security system along the U.S. northern international land and maritime border; and (2) evaluate and report to such Committees on U.S. Customs and Border Protection authority (and possible expansion of authority) to stop fleeing vehicles that enter the United States illegally, including related training, technology, and equipment reviews.

Dictionary definitions and legal practice are not equivalent.

Words have meanings and this one means "In spite of", there really wouldn't be any point to an emergency law that didn't override normal laws.

But, just so that I'm sure that I understand your argument, let's drill down a little:


You believe that, based on a statute about tariffs, the Secretary of the Treasury can void all other laws to respond to an emergency by performing any action he pleases?

That's what it says, I imagine you could argue that it would be any action within his responsibilities as Secretary of the Treasury. (Like allocating money)

 

[Swordsmyth]

The Constitution says, "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."

The first code you quoted only permits the use of those funds for *authorized* civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects. It isn't giving the Secretary the power to violate the Constitution by drawing money from the Treasury apart from appropriations made by law.

The wall has been authorized and so has the money that was reallocated to it.

As for the second law, yes, spending money is an action. But it is a given that the President is still bound by his constitutional limits. The US Code can't authorize him to violate the Constitution. Even if you could interpret this code broadly enough to allow the president to spend funds on things other than they were appropriated for by law, it would still be unconstitutional. US Code can't override the Constitution. You need a constitutional amendment to do that. But notice that the words of that code can't even be taken that broadly anyway. For example, notice what it permits for altering the number of employees at a location: It only permits reducing them, not adding to them.

Congress is allocating any money the Secretary of the Treasury needs for an emergency in that law.

 

[EBounding]

That is not Trump's twitter, no blue check mark in it.

It’s his Facebook. Only 1000 shirts left! $35!
https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=153080620724&ref=content_filter

 

[TheCount]

(1) from ten miles west of the Tecate, California, port of entry to ten miles east of the Tecate, California, port of entry;
(2) from ten miles west of the Calexico, California, port of entry to five miles east of the Douglas, Arizona, port of entry (requiring installation of an interlocking surveillance camera system by May 30, 2007, and fence completion by May 30, 2008);
(3) from five miles west of the Columbus, New Mexico, port of entry to ten miles east of El Paso, Texas;
(4) from five miles northwest of the Del Rio, Texas, port of entry to five miles southeast of the Eagle Pass, Texas, port of entry; and
(5) 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to the Brownsville, Texas, port of entry (requiring fence completion from 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to 15 southeast of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry by December 31, 2008).

Exactly; this is the area in which there are already walls. Are you suggesting that a law which explicitly defines where wall shall be built somehow authorizes construction of a wall along the entire border?

Words have meanings and this one means "In spite of", there really wouldn't be any point to an emergency law that didn't override normal laws.


That's what it says, I imagine you could argue that it would be any action within his responsibilities as Secretary of the Treasury. (Like allocating money)

The document which defines his responsibilities as Secretary of the Treasury is a law, which - according to you - is no barrier to him.

Why are you quoting the other law about the Secretary of the Army? If God Emperor Mnuchin (pbuh) can perform literally any constitutional action, he doesn't need the Secretary of the Army. Mnuchin and Pence could remove Trump from office tomorrow and overthrow the entire government.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Exactly; this is the area in which there are already walls. Are you suggesting that a law which explicitly defines where wall shall be built somehow authorizes construction of a wall along the entire border?

That's only part of it, the part you left out covers the whole border:

Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, within 18 months of enactment of this Act, to take appropriate actions to achieve operational control over U.S. international land and maritime borders, including: (1) systematic border surveillance through more effective use of personnel and technology, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar coverage, and cameras; and (2) physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful border entry and facilitate border access by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, such as additional checkpoints, all weather access roads, and vehicle barriers.
Defines "operational control" as the prevention of all unlawful U.S. entries, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.
Directs the Secretary to report annually to Congress on border control progress.

The document which defines his responsibilities as Secretary of the Treasury is a law, which - according to you - is no barrier to him.

Are you making a statement or asking a question?
Did you forget to post a document that you had in mind?

Why are you quoting the other law about the Secretary of the Army? If God Emperor Mnuchin (pbuh) can perform literally any constitutional action, he doesn't need the Secretary of the Army. Mnuchin and Pence could remove Trump from office tomorrow and overthrow the entire government.

Options matter and that law provides another option.
And I said that an argument could be made that the Secretary of the Treasury's open ended authorization would be limited to his responsibilities as Secretary of the Treasury. (Like allocating money)

 

[nbhadja]

Yes.

Not true. Not all of the funds that a department gets are allocated to something specific. A lot of the funds are just general funds that can be used on anything within the department's role.

 

[nbhadja]

12 Senators of his opwn party siding with Dems to defeat his emergency call on the "most important issue" of his political campaign is a rebuke. There was a "vote against MAGA at your own risk" sorta threat also few days ago but more in Congress seem to be realizing that MAGA's influence in GOP is waning even if he's starting to win more support from hispanics. blacks, LGBT, jewish groups etc. But the emerging Van Jones leaning Adelson funded "conservative" GOP-Likud alliance seems to be losing ground and doesn't seem to have longterm future.

I'm no expert on 'Steel Slats' score controversy but this is what is is being claimed on conservative media outlets like Breitbart and Drudge:




On Drudge now:

Border agency says ZERO new walls have gone up!
​

If you were implying former reality TV star NY Republican turned America First leader does not care very much about what is said about him by NY media corporations, you're mistaken I'm afraid.

The new border wall construction will begin in April. A majority of Americans agree with Trump. They want the wall. Even a high percentage of democrats want the wall. Only the hardcore leftist block of the Dem party opposes a wall. Many moderate democrats want a wall.

The RINOs who voted against this will be voted out by MAGA supporters, who now completely control the GOP base. Only the purists like Paul that voted for it based on principle will get re-elected and even he is getting blasted for voting for it, but overall his resume is way too good to get voted out of office.

 

[Zippyjuan]

The new border wall construction will begin in April. A majority of Americans agree with Trump. They want the wall. Even a high percentage of democrats want the wall. Only the hardcore leftist block of the Dem party opposes a wall. Many moderate democrats want a wall.

The RINOs who voted against this will be voted out by MAGA supporters, who now completely control the GOP base. Only the purists like Paul that voted for it based on principle will get re-elected and even he is getting blasted for voting for it, but overall his resume is way too good to get voted out of office.

Actually, they don't.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/246455/solid-majority-opposes-new-construction-border-wall.aspx

Solid Majority Still Opposes New Construction on Border Wall


WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sixty percent of Americans oppose major new construction of walls along the U.S.-Mexico border -- the goal behind President Donald Trump's budget showdown with Democratic leaders that led to a record 35-day partial shutdown of the federal government.

The shutdown, which ended Jan. 25, and the political battles that preceded it over the past several months have had little apparent effect on public opinion about a wall. Fifty-seven percent opposed major new construction of walls seven months ago, a statistically insignificant three-percentage-point difference from the current number.

Post uses Swordsmyth's key words. Using the same internet guide book?

 

[Superfluous Man]

Not true. Not all of the funds that a department gets are allocated to something specific. A lot of the funds are just general funds that can be used on anything within the department's role.

Could you point to the part of the budget that you have in mind? I suspect that either you are mistaken completely, or the funds you're talking about are a lot less than you think, or that phrase "within the department's role" refers to a set of allowable uses of the funds that is strictly delineated by law, and not just left up to the president to say that he considers any given thing that he wants to spend money on to be "within the department's role."

The whole point of Trump not signing budgets during the government shutdown was because they did not appropriate any money to anything that he could use for building a border wall. The whole point of his national emergency declaration was so that he could spend more on the wall than Congress appropriated and without the strict limitations on location and type of wall that Congress put on the use of those funds, by spending funds that were appropriated to other things and not to be used for building a border wall.

You and others seem to think that there was already billions of dollars in the budget all along that he was free to spend on building a border wall, and that he could have used that money any time he wanted over these past 2 years to do that without needing to bicker with Congress about it.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Only the hardcore leftist block of the Dem party opposes a wall.

Like Ron Paul?

In fact, hardcore leftism is the philosophy that drives support for the border wall. Immigration restrictionism is and always has been a hardcore leftist ideology.

 

[jmdrake]

The $5.6 billion Trump wants to steal from the Department of Defense was appropriated in 1976?

Yes.

 

[jmdrake]

Hypocrites, didn't do $#@! all the times Obama abused executive powers. Remember DACA??? legal status created without congress???

DACA was an executive order blocking enforcement of existing law. That's no different that Trump blocking enforcement of federal marijuana laws in states that have legalized marijuana. (And that's one good thing Trump did.) What is unconstitutional is the action by the federal courts to stop Trump from overturning DACA.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wh...s-the-trump-administration-want-to-do-with-it

It makes no sense to say one president can stop enforcing the law (that's true) but the next president can't start enforcing it again.

 

[Superfluous Man]

DACA was an executive order blocking enforcement of existing law. That's no different that Trump blocking enforcement of federal marijuana laws in states that have legalized marijuana. (And that's one good thing Trump did.) What is unconstitutional is the action by the federal courts to stop Trump from overturning DACA.

Exactly.

In fact, probably the actual most praiseworthy accomplishments of the Trump administration have been his deregulation by way of his executive authority to relax enforcement of existing laws. This is the very same thing DACA was, and the very same thing that immigration restrictionists insist the president can't do when they act like the law obligates him to separate kids from their parents because failure to do so would in their minds entail not enforcing the law.

Trump's national emergency declaration is without precedent, unless you go all the way back to an attempt of by Truman to do basically the same thing, way back over 20 years before the 1976 law intended to limit presidential emergency powers was passed (not to expand them, as some here seem to think). And Truman's attempt was rightly struck down by the Supreme Court precisely for the reason that it would spend funds differently than appropriated by Congress, in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer.

Repeatedly in these discussions, Trump's lemmings have used that line, "What about all Obama's national emergency declarations? Why does it only now become unconstitutional when Trump does it?" And again and again these people have been asked to find one single national emergency declaration of Obama's that is at all like this one of Trump's, and nobody has ever been able to find one.

But they keep using that line anyway.

 

[Swordsmyth]

DACA was an executive order blocking enforcement of existing law. That's no different that Trump blocking enforcement of federal marijuana laws in states that have legalized marijuana. (And that's one good thing Trump did.) What is unconstitutional is the action by the federal courts to stop Trump from overturning DACA.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wh...s-the-trump-administration-want-to-do-with-it

It makes no sense to say one president can stop enforcing the law (that's true) but the next president can't start enforcing it again.

One president stopped enforcing a Constitutional law, the other stopped enforcing an unconstitutional law.
There is a big difference.

 

[Stratovarious]

Exactly.

In fact, probably the actual most praiseworthy accomplishments of the Trump administration have been his deregulation by way of his executive authority to relax enforcement of existing laws. This is the very same thing DACA was, and the very same thing that immigration restrictionists insist the president can't do when they act like the law obligates him to separate kids from their parents because failure to do so would in their minds entail not enforcing the law.

Trump's national emergency declaration is without precedent, unless you go all the way back to an attempt of by Truman to do basically the same thing, way back over 20 years before the 1976 law intended to limit presidential emergency powers was passed (not to expand them, as some here seem to think). And Truman's attempt was rightly struck down by the Supreme Court precisely for the reason that it would spend funds differently than appropriated by Congress, in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer.

Repeatedly in these discussions, Trump's lemmings have used that line, "What about all Obama's national emergency declarations? Why does it only now become unconstitutional when Trump does it?" And again and again these people have been asked to find one single national emergency declaration of Obama's that is at all like this one of Trump's, and nobody has ever been able to find one.

But they keep using that line anyway.

False

 

[enhanced_deficit]

MAGA may have lost a battle but not the war. As long as Adelson's money keeps backing him and does not switch to some other primary challenger, MAGA still has a good shot at winning 2020.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Quite the opposite. It makes the constitutional issues involved very clear cut. I'm sure that it will come up in the lawsuits.

My guess is there's only gonna be a few of them talking about the Constitution. Democrats will oppose it because Trump supports it. Republicans will support it because, well the democrats did it when they were in charge. Rand certainly has his work cut out for him. He needs to be planning his case for the Constitution with Mike Lee so *if* they are given time to speak, they can make it count.

I'm actually surprised how many of the ones who supported it actually mentioned the Constitution.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/meet-12-gop-senators-voted-terminate-trumps-national-emergency
Some names I haven't heard of that might be worth watching.

 

[nikcers]

My guess is there's only gonna be a few of them talking about the Constitution. Democrats will oppose it because Trump supports it. Republicans will support it because, well the democrats did it when they were in charge. Rand certainly has his work cut out for him. He needs to be planning his case for the Constitution with Mike Lee so *if* they are given time to speak, they can make it count.

I'm actually surprised how many of the ones who supported it actually mentioned the Constitution.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/meet-12-gop-senators-voted-terminate-trumps-national-emergency
Some names I haven't heard of that might be worth watching.

I thought Rand supported it because the left had been pushing this talking point that Rand Paul was Donald Trump's lapdog and always supports Trump even when it's against his core beliefs.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I thought Rand supported it because the left had been pushing this talking point that Rand Paul was Donald Trump's lapdog and always supports Trump even when it's against his core beliefs.

I don't think Rand really cares what the left thinks. I'd be very surprised if that was a factor in his decision-making process. The only lefty I've ever seen him work well together with is Ron Wyden when it comes to trying to knee-cap the Unpatriotic Act.

 

[nikcers]

I don't think Rand really cares what the left thinks. I'd be very surprised if that was a factor in his decision-making process. The only lefty I've ever seen him work well together with is Ron Wyden when it comes to trying to knee-cap the Unpatriotic Act.

Oh I group a lot of people together when I say the left on rpf because most people are to the left of Ron Paul lol. That talking point was being pushed everywhere on Twitter and Reddit and there are a lot of Rand Paul people who correct them but not enough that it still becomes a political propaganda meme. I am glad he did it for the right reason but also hope it works for refuting that talking point as well.