Check out some similar questions!

talaniman · Feb 14, 2019, 07:05 PM

>crunch... munch... crunch!< Told you to get popcorn and enjoy the show! When you gonna to listen?

paraclete · Feb 14, 2019, 11:57 PM

Well, of course, Tal, we know it is a circus and the Clown in Chief holds the centre ring. Personally I have a circus of my own to watch at the moment but yours is much more entertaining. You see, it couldn't happen here that a money bill could originate in the Senate and our Head of State has no individual power of appropriation

as I said elsewhere the last King of America was MAD and this King is also MAD! I think you have a different emergency

waltero · Feb 15, 2019, 12:40 PM

If Trump-haters paid attention to this core idea, they might understand why Trump supporters care far more about whether the president builds the wall and strengthen border security than they care about whether Mexico pays for the wall directly or indirectly.

jlisenbe · Feb 15, 2019, 01:51 PM

If Trump-haters paid attention to this core idea, they might understand why Trump supporters care far more about whether the president builds the wall and strengthen border security than they care about whether Mexico pays for the wall directly or indirectly.

The same people who are upset about Trump now making the American taxpayer pay for the wall were remarkably quiet when Obama did not deliver on "You can keep your doctor/private plan."

talaniman · Feb 15, 2019, 02:49 PM

He did deliver on that, but severely neglected to warn of maybe your doctor didn't want you. That was the biggest sticking point going forward from Obamacare. Many doctors don't take my new Medicare plans... BUMMER!

jlisenbe · Feb 15, 2019, 04:34 PM

He did deliver on that, but severely neglected to warn of maybe your doctor didn't want you.

You and perhaps five other people in America believe that. Changing to a different plan (couldn't keep your old one contrary to what Obama/Pelosi had promised) meant changing networks which meant, in many cases, you could not keep your doctor. Medicare has nothing to do with what happened to most people with Obamacare.

tomder55 · Feb 16, 2019, 06:55 AM

As far as I'm concerned ,the National Emergency Act(NEA )50 U.S.C. § 1601 is just another abdication of power by the Legislative Branch.In our constitutional system, Congress is supposed to do the legislating, which includes determining the conditions ;emergency or otherwise ; that call for legislation. The rise of the imperial Presidency began with the Wilson administration with the expansion growing every term. Precedence is with the President at this point .But if I were a property owner on the border ;and the President used executive powers to seize my land ,I would feel abused and would join a court challenge .

Congress passed Obamacare .It was not accomplished by declaring a national emergency . I think it was a bad law ;but it was passed as law should be passed.The payback will come when future President AOC declares the climate a national emergency requiring executive action.

jlisenbe · Feb 16, 2019, 07:29 AM

Tomder, I think you stated it well. I think Trump is making a mistake with this declaration of an emergency where there is plainly not one. However, it would seem that there are real emergencies that do need to be dealt with and require time-sensitive responses that legislation cannot meet. How should those be dealt with?

tomder55 · Feb 16, 2019, 10:41 AM

59 emergencies have been declared since the law passed .Most of them do not go away. Here is the list of National Emergencies we are operating under . Not many of them were real emergencies when the executive invoked them .

even those which began under emergency conditions, like 9/11, have lingered well past all reasonable understanding of the term.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/list...ry?id=60294693

Before the NEA Presidents always had the power to declare emergencies and Congress generally trusted the Presidents to responsibly exercise their inherent Article 2 powers .If Congress wanted to they could always defund .

Lawmakers were generally comfortable with giving the commander in chief the benefit of the doubt that he had the nation’s best interests at heart and would also use his authority responsibly.

But that wasn't always the case . FDR used it to intern Japanese American citizens . Harry Truman attempted to use emergency powers to seize American steel mills .

Lincoln conceded that his unilateral suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War was constitutionally questionable, but defended it as necessary to preserve the Union. The Constitution says only Congress has to power to suspend habeas corpus. ….“when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it” and “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

In theory the NEA was supposed to give the legislative branch a share of the responsibility .

The law says that Congress is mandated to meet six months after a specific emergency is issued “to consider a vote on a joint resolution to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated.” If, for whatever reason, both houses of Congress believed a declaration was no longer appropriate, lawmakers could pass a joint resolution ending it. The truth is that it has never been invoked .Congress has never even met to consider ending one ;let alone every six months, to vote on whether to end them.

tomder55 · Feb 16, 2019, 11:51 AM

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...the-wall-fight

tomder55 · Feb 16, 2019, 12:05 PM

Yeah we don't need a wall

“It’s cheap. And abundant. That is why we are seeing a dramatic escalation of crystal methamphetamine use because it is being shipped to our county at the border. People aren’t making it anymore, because it comes here so cheap from Mexico.”Cleveland says meth labs started popping up in Ashtabula in 2002, but due to a crackdown “in the last 18 months, we’ve seen almost a wholesale elimination” of them. “That void . . . is being filled by Mexican cartels bringing meth across the borders,”

https://nypost.com/2019/02/16/mexico...ruining-lives/

talaniman · Feb 16, 2019, 12:34 PM

A wall isn't going to make a dent in the drug trade.

Drug trafficking Â» Immigration to the United States

jlisenbe · Feb 16, 2019, 01:52 PM

If the wall helps with the drug trade, then that's great, but the much greater purpose, at least in my mind, is to cut back on illegal immigration.

talaniman · Feb 16, 2019, 03:16 PM

You really think a big beautiful wall will deter migrants? How many illegals will it stop , since most fly in on a visa and don't go home. The gang members and criminals get caught and deported many times so how will a wall work for them? You think a gangster can't get a visa? You think they worry about a wall? You've seen the tunnels, and they find new ones all the time. It's a never ending story.

Maybe the best outcome is helping the dufus build a wall and if it doesn't work as advertised then the taxpayers can send him the bill. HEHEHE I doubt we do much collecting on that, it's more likely we get stiffed like everybody else who deals with the dufus.

paraclete · Feb 16, 2019, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by talaniman

You really think a big beautiful wall will deter migrants? How many illegals will it stop , since most fly in on a visa and don't go home. The gang members and criminals get caught and deported many times so how will a wall work for them? You think a gangster can't get a visa? You think they worry about a wall? You've seen the tunnels, and they find new ones all the time. It's a never ending story.

Maybe the best outcome is helping the dufus build a wall and if it doesn't work as advertised then the taxpayers can send him the bill. HEHEHE I doubt we do much collecting on that, it's more likely we get stiffed like everybody else who deals with the dufus.

Yes undoubtedly the wall needs to be built some place else and the southern Mexican border would be a cheaper and quicker option but the Mexicans don't appear to be concerned by the flow of refugees, etc

jlisenbe · Feb 16, 2019, 04:50 PM

since most fly in on a visa and don't go home. The gang members and criminals get caught and deported many times so how will a wall work for them?

So we just keep doing what we've been doing which is working... lousy?? No, most don't fly in on a visa. Most walk in from south to north, and yes, I think a wall will slow that down considerably. As for the gang members and criminals, we need to put them in a hot jail in the middle of the Nevada desert and let them sit for a few years.

paraclete · Feb 17, 2019, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

So we just keep doing what we've been doing which is working... lousy?? No, most don't fly in on a visa. Most walk in from south to north, and yes, I think a wall will slow that down considerably. As for the gang members and criminals, we need to put them in a hot jail in the middle of the Nevada desert and let them sit for a few years.

It is a mistake to keep these people in jail in country, you need to deposit them in a dark place far away so they cannot develop their networks in a prison population. Think, what would Kim do with them. Ah. But you are too civilised to do this. Put them to work, perhaps building a border wall. No pay of course, enslave them the way they enslave others. This they understand

tomder55 · Feb 25, 2019, 03:58 AM

last night at the Academy Awards .... oh the irony

jlisenbe · Feb 25, 2019, 04:54 AM

I've always suspected the Academy was run by a bunch of racist homophobes. The wall proves it! Down with the Academy and their big, beautiful wall. (<:

talaniman · Feb 25, 2019, 07:01 AM

There is no irony over temporary security measures for an event.