Senate votes to block Trump's emergency declaration

[unknown]

That is a lie.

I dont know about that.

Now I owe you 2 negs (note to self).

 

[Swordsmyth]

I dont know about that.

Then you shouldn't level accusations you aren't sure of.

Now I owe you 2 negs (not to self).

You earned them.

 

[unknown]

I dont know about that.

Now I owe you 2 negs (not to self).

While you say some valid things in support of liberty, youre a Trumptard first and foremost.

You should be endlessly negged directly up your butt.

 

[Swordsmyth]

While you say some valid things in support of liberty, youre a Trumptard first and foremost.

LOL

You should be endlessly negged directly up your butt.

 

[timosman]

While you say some valid things in support of liberty, youre a Trumptard first and foremost.

You should be endlessly negged directly up your butt.

Do you bottom?

 

[acptulsa]

He loves anything anti Ron and Rand.

Hates anything anti Trump.

I've noticed that.

I dont know about that.

Now I owe you 2 negs (not to self).

One of them is covered.

 

[unknown]

Do you bottom?

Nah bro.

I got this non-NFA non-GCA non-complaint firearm that shoots neg rounds.

This way I can zero in on his bunghole from a 100+ yards (no gayness).

 

[unknown]

One of them is covered.

I appreciate it.

That having been said, Operation Negs Up Swordsmyth's Bunghole is still in full effect.

 

[dillo]

That would be sweet.

Whats the constitutionality of these so called emergency powers?

It's never been challenged but I don't know what part of the constitution it would violate, congress in theory could still repeal the law and take control of emergency powers. However lets say congress does that and takes emergency powers away from the president, if we come under attack the president still has the power as the commander in chief. I don't think its too far fetched to say he would still have some authority at the border.

 

[Superfluous Man]

It's never been challenged but I don't know what part of the constitution it would violate

Trump is claiming that his emergency powers allow him to draw funds from the treasury contrary to their appropriation by law. Many here have parroted that claim (although none have been able to find any legal basis for it, constitutional or not).

If this claim is true, and Congress has passed a law saying that the president can draw funds from the treasury contrary to how they have been appropriated by law, then the part of the Constitution that law violates is found in Article 1, Section 9.7:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law

Of course, the Supreme Court can't be counted on to take the Constitution at face value. But if the president took his oath of office seriously, he would refuse to draw funds from the Treasury except in consequence to appropriations made by law, and he would recognize that no law passed by Congress could ever give him the authority to do that, since such a law would be unconstitutional.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Trump is claiming that his emergency powers allow him to draw funds from the treasury contrary to their appropriation by law. Many here have parroted that claim (although none have been able to find any legal basis for it, constitutional or not).

If this claim is true, and Congress has passed a law saying that the president can draw funds from the treasury contrary to how they have been appropriated by law, then the part of the Constitution that law violates is found in Article 1, Section 9.7:


Of course, the Supreme Court can't be counted on to take the Constitution at face value. But if the president took his oath of office seriously, he would refuse to draw funds from the Treasury except in consequence to appropriations made by law, and he would recognize that no law passed by Congress could ever give him the authority to do that, since such a law would be unconstitutional.

I showed you the laws repeatedly and those laws appropriate whatever money the President is allowed to use for whatever use he is allowed to use them for and Congress passed them, so the money has been appropriated by Congress.

 

[acptulsa]

I showed you the laws repeatedly and those laws appropriate whatever money the President is allowed to use for whatever use he is allowed to use them for and Congress passed them, so the money has been appropriated by Congress.

And you're still saying that, though everyone knows those laws do not apply to this situation.

 

[Swordsmyth]

And you're still saying that, though everyone knows those laws do not apply to this situation.

They do and I proved they do.

 

[acptulsa]

"If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself."--Joseph Goebbels

 

[Swordsmyth]

"If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself."--Joseph Goebbels

You certainly seem to believe that.

 

[acptulsa]

You certainly seem to believe that.

Hard to deny when you keep proving that last part of it.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Hard to deny when you keep proving that last part of it.

Even harder when you do it yourself.

 

[dillo]

Trump is claiming that his emergency powers allow him to draw funds from the treasury contrary to their appropriation by law. Many here have parroted that claim (although none have been able to find any legal basis for it, constitutional or not).

If this claim is true, and Congress has passed a law saying that the president can draw funds from the treasury contrary to how they have been appropriated by law, then the part of the Constitution that law violates is found in Article 1, Section 9.7:


Of course, the Supreme Court can't be counted on to take the Constitution at face value. But if the president took his oath of office seriously, he would refuse to draw funds from the Treasury except in consequence to appropriations made by law, and he would recognize that no law passed by Congress could ever give him the authority to do that, since such a law would be unconstitutional.

So let me ask you a hypothetical, a foreign army invades from our Southern Border. Does the president need congressional approval to send troops to the border. If building a wall was part of the military objective to protect the country from the current and future attacks would the funds need to be appropriated? What account does the money come from to respond to something like Pearl Harbor, before the declaration of war is signed?

 

[AZJoe]

 

[Schifference]

Do you think Massie supports Trump in regards to the southern border?