Rand Paul Introduces ‘BE SAFE’ Act to Fund Border Security

[Swordsmyth]

Here is case law from 1990 on this subject.

https://openjurist.org/863/f2d/654/u...v-munoz-flores

By its terms, the origination clause applies only to bills that raise revenue. However, the fact that a statute produces governmental income is not dispositive. Supreme Court decisions hold that origination clause constraints do not extend to bills that incidentally create revenue if those bills were enacted for purposes other than revenue raising. See, e.g., Millard, 202 U.S. at 436, 26 S.Ct. at 675; Nebeker, 167 U.S. at 202, 17 S.Ct. at 768-69; Norton, 91 U.S. at 569.


Rand's bill about building a wall. The revenue being raised is incidental to the wall building function. You're just mad your boy Trump didn't think of this first.

Rand's bill is about raising money to build a wall, Congress already voted to authorize the building of a wall.
And I am delighted that Rand thought of this and I prefer Rand to Trump but Rand is committing a trivial but blatant Constitutional violation after attacking Trump over a debatable violation.

[jmdrake]

Rand's bill is about raising money to build a wall, Congress already voted to authorize the building of a wall.

Which is why it is not unconstitutional. It's not about raising money for the sake of raising money.

Edit: From Rand's bill.

Enumerates the authorized uses of funds in the Border Security Enhancement Fund, including: border barriers, fencing or wall construction; enforcement, detention, and removal operations; counter-trafficking; improving ports of entry; reducing visa overstays; conducting oversight of student visa holders, refugees, and asylees; expanding trusted traveler programs; reducing immigration court backlogs; completing a biometric entry-exit system.

And I am delighted that Rand thought of this and I prefer Rand to Trump but Rand is committing a trivial but blatant Constitutional violation after attacking Trump over a debatable violation.

Trumps violation is the one that is not debatable. And there is no debate about Rand because there is no constitutional violation. Read the case. I gave you a link.

The only thing I dislike about Rand's bill is the "biometric entry/exit system." But Trump is doing that by executive order.