Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 41 of 41

Thread: Amash: Trump violating our constitutional system with wall order

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    I didn't really say it was. Are you sure he isn't open borders? Many libertarians are. I can't watch the video, do you have him on record saying he is not for open borders? And what does "open borders" even mean? does it mean no country? Or a country with no actual defense of its border?

    My issue is with claiming Trumps actions are unconstitutional. I don't think Trump even needs to declare an "emergency" he can just build the wall with allocated, but unearmarked funds in the defense budget.
    https://amash.house.gov/press-releas...ul-immigration
    "1) Ensuring the security of our borders, including both our physical borders and the “virtual” border of visa overstays (which account for almost half of our current illegal immigrant population) with such security acting as a pre-requisite or “trigger” for other reforms;"
    ΟΥ ΓΑΡ ЄCΤΙΝ ЄξΟΥCΙΑ ЄΙ ΜΗ ΥΠΟ ΘЄΟΥ

    "Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping graven images" - Ironman77

    "ideas have the potential of being more powerful than any army....The concept of personal sovereignty was pulled screaming from the ether into this reality by the force of men believing in a self evident truth, that men are meant to be free." - The Northbreather

    "Trump is the security blanket of aggrieved white men aged 18-60." - Pinoy



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    Can you give a citation where Amash specifically says he is not for "open borders" and defines what "open borders" means to him? TIA
    No. But I can make the simple observation that nothing in the OP supports the conclusion, "So Amash is for open borders."

    I don't have any problem with saying that he is if it's defensible based on what he actually does say elsewhere, or for saying that Ron Paul is either, given the policies that Ron Paul supports. But I note that in spite of supporting policies that immigration restrictionists would call "open borders," Ron Paul describes his own position as not being for open borders, and those same immigration restrictionists cling to quotes like that as if they overturn the specifics of the actual policies he supports. This all points to the flexibility of the phrase "open borders" along with other phrases like "border security," and the ways immigration restrictionists constantly misuse them to label people in precisely the ways I described.
    Last edited by Superfluous Man; 03-04-2019 at 07:21 AM.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by The Rebel Poet View Post
    https://amash.house.gov/press-releas...ul-immigration
    "1) Ensuring the security of our borders, including both our physical borders and the “virtual” border of visa overstays (which account for almost half of our current illegal immigrant population) with such security acting as a pre-requisite or “trigger” for other reforms;"
    Thanks, it appears that Amash is NOT "open borders". I think it was a reasonable question since he identifies as libertarian.
    edit: meant not
    Last edited by specsaregood; 03-04-2019 at 11:11 AM.

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    Thanks, it appears that Amash is "open borders". I think it was a reasonable question since he identifies as libertarian.
    Amash is not for "open borders" in the way it is currently used against anyone disagreeing with haters on the forum.

    He is for reasonable laws and ways to secure the border but also acknowledging the strength in good immigration. Here's a letter to Rand Paul on this very thing. Massie is also a signer on this letter.

    Senator Paul,

    We write to offer you our support, encouragement and assistance as we work together to identify the principles that must guide our nation’s thinking on immigration reform.

    You noted Tuesday in your remarks to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce that “somewhere along the line, Republicans have failed to understand and articulate that immigrants are an asset to America, not a liability,” and that the Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration. We wholeheartedly agree – and stand alongside you in your efforts. We believe you put it best when you said, “Immigration reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans… become part of the solution.”

    While we recognize that many details and specific proposals will need to be worked out, we want you to know that we support what we see as the three-legged stool of systemic immigration reform:

    1) Ensuring the security of our borders, including both our physical borders and the “virtual” border of visa overstays (which account for almost half of our current illegal immigrant population) with such security acting as a pre-requisite or “trigger” for other reforms;

    2) Expanding legal immigration, with a special eye toward encouraging highly-skilled workers educated here to remain here, expanding opportunities for entrepreneurs who want to come here, and providing an adequate legal migrant worker system to help serve our agricultural and tourism industries; and

    3) Finding a way to reasonably address the reportedly 11 million people who came here knowingly and illegally – in a way that is best for all Americans. This means protecting the rights of those who are seeking and continue to seek to come here legally. But it also may mean providing a legal status, upon certain conditions and that may not include full rights of citizenship, to people who are currently here.

    We believe such an approach would put the broader health of our economy – not entrenched special interests – at the forefront of this debate. Indeed, it would go great lengths to reinforce the principles we share as Americans, and as sons and daughters of immigrants ourselves.

    Immigration has been essential to the advancement of our nation’s well-being – and we believe you are on the right track both in acknowledging this elemental contribution and safeguarding it in a fair and consistent manner for all of our nation’s workers.

    Sincerely,
    Mick Mulvaney (R-SC)
    Justin Amash (R-MI)
    Thomas Massie (R-KY)
    Jeff Duncan (R-SC)
    Trey Radel (R-FL)
    Mark Meadows (R-NC)
    https://amash.house.gov/press-releas...ul-immigration
    There is no spoon.

  7. #35
    Supporting Member
    Phoenix, AZ
    Cleaner44's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    4
    Posts
    8,119
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    I suppose an emergency is in the eye of the beholder.
    Citizen of Arizona
    @cleaner4d4

    I am a libertarian. I am advocating everyone enjoy maximum freedom on both personal and economic issues as long as they do not bring violence unto others.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleaner44 View Post
    I suppose an emergency is in the eye of the beholder.
    Here's Ron Paul on the unconstitutional emergency order.

    Emergencies Do Not Trump the Constitution
    By Ron Paul

    Ron Paul Institute

    February 26, 2019

    After Congress rejected President Trump’s request for 5.7 billion dollars for the border wall, the president declared a national emergency at the southern border. Present Trump claims this “emergency” gives him the authority to divert funds appropriated for other purposes to building the border wall.

    President Trump’s emergency declaration is not just an end run around Congress. It is an end run around the Constitution. Article One of the Constitution gives Congress sole authority to allocate federal funds.

    While President Trump’s order may be a particularly blatant abuse of power, it is hardly unprecedented. Most modern presidents have routinely used so-called national emergencies to expand their power, often at the expense of liberty. For example, Present Franklin Delano Roosevelt used “emergency powers” to justify internment of Japanese-Americans during World War Two.

    President Trump, like other recent presidents, is relying on the 1976 National Emergencies Act for legal justification for his emergency declaration. This act gives the president broad powers to declare national emergencies for almost any reason. All the president need do is inform Congress he has declared an emergency. Once the emergency is declared, the president simply needs to renew the declaration once a year to maintain a state of emergency. Since this act passed, 59 emergency declarations have been issued, with 31 of those still in effect.

    Another statute giving the president broad “emergency” powers is the Defense Production Act. Under this law, the president can force private businesses to produce goods for the military. The law also enables the president to impose wage and price controls and even make loans to private businesses. All a president need do to invoke these vast powers is submit “findings” to Congress that “national security” requires the president seize near-dictatorial control of certain industries or even the entire economy. According to the Congressional Research Service, some presidents have invoked the Defense Production Act without making the required findings to Congress, and the act has been used to justly federal interference in areas having little or nothing to do with national defense.

    Section 606(c) of the Communications Act gives the president “emergency” power to seize control of every television network, radio station, smartphone, laptop, and other electronic devices.

    Emergency powers are not the only means by which presidents violate the Constitution. The 2001 authorization for use of military force (AUMF), which only authorizes the president to use force against those responsible for the September 11 attacks, has been used to justify military interventions that have no relationship to those attacks. The 2001 AUMF has been used to justify mass surveillance, indefinite detention, and even “kill lists.” Fortunately, Representative John Garamendi has introduced the Walter B. Jones Restoring Power to Congress Act that would pay tribute to a true champion of peace by repealing the 2001 AUMF.

    Many neoconservatives and progressives who defended prior presidents’ abuses of power are critical of President Trump’s emergency declaration. These “never-Trumpers” will no doubt resume their love affair with the imperial presidency when the Oval Office is again occupied by someone who shares their agenda.

    This week, the House of Representatives will vote on a resolution terminating President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency. Hopefully, this precedent will be used against all future presidents who use spurious claims of national emergencies to expand their powers and shrink our liberties.
    There is no spoon.

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by The Rebel Poet View Post
    You guys are jumping the shark. Just because he is against how Trump is aquiring funds, doesn't make him "open borders."
    @Bryan can we get a site rule against lying about site-endorsed candidates?
    According to some, anything less than a 100% sealed border (a physical impossibility) is supporting "open borders". Ron and Rand Paul must be for "open borders". It is a phrase used for anybody opposed to spending billions more on what we already have. As Bush used to like to say, "either you are for us or you support the terrorists!"


    Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'

    "Truth isn't truth"- Rudy Giuliani

    "China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very, very large brain," - Donald Trump.

    "Yeah, I have to say these guys(trolls) are pretty sharp. Sort of good to get a challenge and sharpen your thoughts." NorthCarolinaLiberty

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  10. #38
    Supporting Member
    Phoenix, AZ
    Cleaner44's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    4
    Posts
    8,119
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Here's Ron Paul on the unconstitutional emergency order.
    I wonder if the same case could be made for all emergency orders. When a hurricane hits and a state of emergency is declared, bringing with it massive funding not appropriated by Congress, is that constitutional? We know that the majority of what the people in DC do is unconstitutional... but nobody gives a crap. These government workers swear an oath to uphold the constitution and then with in minutes are ready willing and able to ignore it.

    Hell we have people sitting on the supreme court that don't believe in our constitution. (I'm looking at you Ginsburg)
    Citizen of Arizona
    @cleaner4d4

    I am a libertarian. I am advocating everyone enjoy maximum freedom on both personal and economic issues as long as they do not bring violence unto others.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Amash is not for "open borders" in the way it is currently used against anyone disagreeing with haters on the forum.

    He is for reasonable laws and ways to secure the border but also acknowledging the strength in good immigration. Here's a letter to Rand Paul on this very thing. Massie is also a signer on this letter.


    https://amash.house.gov/press-releas...ul-immigration
    I would just note that letter is from 2013, when Obama was POTUS. A lot of water under the bridge since then. I doubt Amash has changed his mind, but someone like Meadows might not sign it today.
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    I would just note that letter is from 2013, when Obama was POTUS. A lot of water under the bridge since then. I doubt Amash has changed his mind, but someone like Meadows might not sign it today.
    I'm sure Amash has not changed his mind- the letter is on his website for all to peruse.
    There is no spoon.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleaner44 View Post
    When a hurricane hits and a state of emergency is declared, bringing with it massive funding not appropriated by Congress, is that constitutional?
    Can you find an example of that ever happening?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Similar Threads

  1. Google, Twitter and Facebook are violating Constitutional Law
    By goldenequity in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-20-2018, 09:34 AM
  2. Justin Amash: Trump views job in 'extra-constitutional' way
    By tsai3904 in forum Justin Amash Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-04-2016, 07:20 AM
  3. Rick Perry: Trump's Mexico wall will be a 'digital wall'
    By CPUd in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-11-2016, 05:46 PM
  4. PETA Sues SeaWorld for Violating Orcas' Constitutional Rights
    By bobbyw24 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 10-28-2011, 08:39 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-17-2010, 12:09 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •