Senate votes to block Trump's emergency declaration

[Superfluous Man]

Does anyone know where we can find the list of the things Congress did appropriate the money for?

I think this is it.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...T-2019-APP.pdf

[Swordsmyth]

You keep saying that. And I've repeatedly asked you to find that provision in that law, and you have never been able to. Have you found it yet?

If not, then please stop saying this as if you know it to be true, when in fact you have absolutely no reason to believe it.

33 U.S.C. § 2293

Secretary of the Army may terminate or defer any Army civil works project and apply the resources, including funds, personnel, and equipment, of the Army’s civil works program to authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense, without regard to any other provision of law (1986)


19 U.S.C. § 1318

Secretary of the Treasury may eliminate, consolidate, or relocate any office or port of entry of the Customs Service; modify hours of service, alter services rendered at any location, or reduce the number of employees at any location; or take any other action that may be necessary to respond directly to the national emergency or specific threat

[enhanced_deficit]

Significant political rebuke? What the hell does that matter? Washington DC is built on people doing whatever they want, even if it is blatantly unconstitutional and rarely are they stopped. Words don't matter, knowledge isn't power... the one thing that matters is action. Trump is taking action while the Congress is blabbering words. The barriers will keep going up on the border regardless of any rebuke.

Congress gave away much of their power of many decades. Stupid voters and politicians cheered creating a extra strong Executive branch. Nobody tried to seriously stop Obama or Bush or Clinton. We have had presidents create wars without Congressional declarations. We have unconstitutional spying on American citizens not suspected of any crimes. Let's face facts, the federal government of the US doesn't work for We The People.

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:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...y-the-numbers/

Originally Posted by Ann Coulter
Under my new approach, I will provide a numerical evaluation of the Trump presidency, which I call:

TRUMP BY THE NUMBERS!

No editorializing, no invective, no opinion.

** ** **

NUMBER OF MILES OF WALL BUILT ON OUR SOUTHERN BORDER SINCE TRUMP HAS BEEN PRESIDENT:

ZERO.

** ** **

NUMBER OF MILES OF FENCE, BOLLARD, OR GARDEN TRELLIS BUILT ALONG OUR 2,000-MILE BORDER SINCE TRUMP HAS BEEN PRESIDENT:

26.

** ** **

NUMBER OF TIMES TRUMP HAS CLAIMED ON TWITTER HE’S ALREADY BUILDING THE WALL:

16 BY MY COUNT.

** ** **

NUMBER OF TIMES TRUMP HAS COMPLAINED ON TWITTER THAT CONGRESS WON’T GIVE HIM FUNDS TO BUILD THE WALL THAT HE SAYS HE’S ALREADY BUILDING:

AT LEAST 30 BY MY COUNT.

** ** **

NUMBER OF WALL “PROTOTYPES” DESTROYED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:

ALL OF THEM.

** ** **

NUMBER OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS ENDING THE ANCHOR BABY SCAM — AS TRUMP PROMISES WHENEVER AN ELECTION IS COMING:

ZERO.

** ** **

NUMBER OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED BY TRUMP RESCINDING OBAMA’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIEN “DREAMERS”:

ZERO.

** ** **

NUMBER OF ILLEGAL ALIENS WHOSE PRESENCE HAS BEEN EXCUSED BY TRUMP:

11 TO 50 MILLION (depending on whether you believe the propaganda or the facts).

** ** **

NUMBER OF EXTENSIONS OF THE E-VERIFY SYSTEM TO PREVENT ILLEGALS FROM BEING HIRED OVER AMERICANS:

ZERO.

** ** **

NUMBER OF H1-B FOREIGN WORKERS IN THIS COUNTRY WHEN TRUMP TOOK OFFICE:

APPROXIMATELY 1 MILLION.

** ** **

NUMBER OF H1-B FOREIGN WORKERS IN THIS COUNTRY TODAY:

APPROXIMATELY 1 MILLION.

** ** **

NUMBER OF ASYLUM LOOPHOLES CLOSED:

ZERO.

** ** **

NUMBER OF TOP-LEVEL ADMINISTRATION JOBS OFFERED TO IMMIGRATION CONTROLLERS WHO ARE NOT NAMED “STEPHEN MILLER”:

ZERO.

** ** **

NUMBER OF TOP-LEVEL ADMINISTRATION JOBS OFFERED TO MEMBERS OF THE KOCH BROTHERS’ OPEN BORDERS NETWORK:

FIVE THAT I KNOW OF.

** ** **

NUMBER OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL TRYING DESPERATELY TO IMPLEMENT TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION AGENDA WHOM TRUMP MOCKED AND FORCED OUT OF OFFICE:

ONE.

** ** **

Apart from immigration, probably the single most important campaign promise Trump made was to end the carried interest loophole. Most Republicans would break out into a cold sweat if asked to raise taxes on George Soros. FINALLY, we had a Republican (or Democrat) who wasn’t beholden to Wall Street!

During the campaign, Trump said this tax scam allowed hedge fund managers to “get away with murder” and vowed to eliminate it. Americans who hadn’t voted for 30 years said: How do I register to vote?

Let’s take out the slide rule!

** ** **

NUMBER OF CARRIED INTEREST LOOPHOLES ELIMINATED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP:

ZERO.

** ** **

TOTAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS IN 2016 GIVEN BY GOLDMAN SACHS TO HILLARY CLINTON:

$388,000.

** ** **

TOTAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS GIVEN BY GOLDMAN SACHS TO TRUMP:

$5,607 (or 70 times less than Goldman gave to Hillary).

** ** **

NUMBER OF GOLDMAN SACHS EMPLOYEES PUT IN TOP ADMINISTRATION POSITIONS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP:

7 — or “more than Presidents Bush and Obama combined.”

(For someone unable to fulfill the most basic of his immigration promises, Trump has been amazingly competent in accomplishing the things Wall Street wanted, but no one else did.)

** ** **

NUMBER OF ACTIONS TAKEN TO DEFEND THE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS OF TRUMP’S BIGGEST SUPPORTERS BEING DEPLATFORMED AND CENSORED, SUCH AS MILO YIANOPOLOS, GAVIN MCINNES, LAURA LOOMER, AND ALEX JONES:

ZERO.

** ** **

PERCENTAGE OF THE BASE THAT TRUMP CAN AFFORD TO LOSE IN 2020, AFTER MILLIONS OF OLDER, WHITER AMERICANS HAVE DIED OFF, AND MILLIONS OF IMMIGRANTS HAVE TURNED 18 AND BEGUN VOTING:

ZERO.

On Drudge now:

Border agency says ZERO new walls have gone up!

Significant political rebuke. What next, strong words of disapproval from NY media corporations?

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.

[Zippyjuan]

12 Senators os 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 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 "conservative" GOP-Likud alliance seems to be losing ground in the bigger scheme even if it may not get wiped out from political scene in 2020.

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!

They have fixes up some older sections of the existing 650 miles of wall- that (the upgrade) was authorized when Obama was president. But no brand new wall. Except for the demo sections which have since been torn down (they weren't actually part of the wall but were near it anyways). Those cost $half a million each to build.

[Zippyjuan]

The veto is now official. Trump's first veto. Though they probably won't be able to get enough votes, the House is scheduled to vote to try to override on March 26th. It is probably up to the courts now. That could tie it up for a while.

His acting Secretary of Defense could also decide not to let Trump have the funds already allocated for other purposes.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/polit...ing/index.html

While testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Shanahan said that "military construction on the border will not come at the expense of our people, our readiness or our modernization."

But that did little to reassure some senators, who pressed the acting secretary for details about whether the Department of Defense will cancel certain military construction projects that have already been authorized in order to free up money for the wall.

Shanahan and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford told lawmakers that they agree the situation on the southern border is not a "military threat."

On declaring his "emergency":

“I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn’t need to do this. But I’d rather do it much faster,” he said.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/curre...onal-emergency

[Cleaner44]

I think this is it.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...T-2019-APP.pdf

Thanks for that.

A quick glace under Dept of Homeland Security and Department of Defense shows some discretionary funds. I would guess that Trump is claiming to use his discretion in allocating some of those funds for border barriers.

Does anyone know if this is his position?

[Swordsmyth]

Thanks for that.

A quick glace under Dept of Homeland Security and Department of Defense shows some discretionary funds. I would guess that Trump is claiming to use his discretion in allocating some of those funds for border barriers.

Does anyone know if this is his position?

There are also these:

33 U.S.C. § 2293

Secretary of the Army may terminate or defer any Army civil works project and apply the resources, including funds, personnel, and equipment, of the Army’s civil works program to authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense, without regard to any other provision of law (1986)


19 U.S.C. § 1318

Secretary of the Treasury may eliminate, consolidate, or relocate any office or port of entry of the Customs Service; modify hours of service, alter services rendered at any location, or reduce the number of employees at any location; or take any other action that may be necessary to respond directly to the national emergency or specific threat

[Zippyjuan]

Thanks for that.

A quick glace under Dept of Homeland Security and Department of Defense shows some discretionary funds. I would guess that Trump is claiming to use his discretion in allocating some of those funds for border barriers.

Does anyone know if this is his position?

The funds he is supposedly targeting were authorized to interdict drugs coming into the country. He is taking money from stopping drugs because he does not have enough money to stop drugs from coming into the country. He also wants to take money used for securing the country (Homeland Security budget) to secure the country.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/here...come-from.html

official explained that the money will be pulled from the following areas:

$1.375 billion from the Homeland Security appropriations bill
$600 million from the Treasury Department’s drug forfeiture fund
$2.5 billion from the Department of Defense’s drug interdiction program
$3.6 billion from the Department of Defense’s military construction account

And in his recent budget proposal, he want Congress to pay back those funds he is going to steal.

[Swordsmyth]

The funds he is supposedly targeting were authorized to interdict drugs coming into the country. He is taking money from stopping drugs because he does not have enough money to stop drugs from coming into the country. He also wants to take money used for securing the country (Homeland Security budget) to secure the country.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/here...come-from.html

It sounds like he is using the funds for the purpose they were intended to be used for, he is just using them more effectively.

And in his recent budget proposal, he want Congress to pay back those funds he is going to steal.

It's not stealing.

[acptulsa]

It's not stealing.

Then why is he trying to get Congress to replace it all?

[Cleaner44]

There are also these:

33 U.S.C. § 2293

Secretary of the Army may terminate or defer any Army civil works project and apply the resources, including funds, personnel, and equipment, of the Army’s civil works program to authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense, without regard to any other provision of law (1986)


19 U.S.C. § 1318

Secretary of the Treasury may eliminate, consolidate, or relocate any office or port of entry of the Customs Service; modify hours of service, alter services rendered at any location, or reduce the number of employees at any location; or take any other action that may be necessary to respond directly to the national emergency or specific threat

I suspect he will win the legal battle. So much of this is about interpretation. I think any lawyer could easily make the case that securing the border would increase Homeland Security, strengthen the national defense and assist in preventing the movement of drugs into our nation. Doesn't seem like a tough argument to make in my opinion.

[Swordsmyth]

Then why is he trying to get Congress to replace it all?

Because it is taking, it's just not stealing.

[Swordsmyth]

I suspect he will win the legal battle. So much of this is about interpretation. I think any lawyer could easily make the case that securing the border would increase Homeland Security, strengthen the national defense and assist in preventing the movement of drugs into our nation. Doesn't seem like a tough argument to make in my opinion.

It's a cake walk but leftist judges don't care about facts and Roberts may sell us out.

I don't think Roberts will dare vote against Trump on this though.

[TheCount]

33 U.S.C. § 2293

Secretary of the Army may terminate or defer any Army civil works project and apply the resources, including funds, personnel, and equipment, of the Army’s civil works program to authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense, without regard to any other provision of law (1986)

Swordsmyth of the present, please let me introduce you to the Swordsmyth from two months ago. Do you remember him? He's the one who said that it would not be the Army, or Army funds, used for the wall because the Constitution clearly states that Army appropriations can be for a period of no more than two years: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...onal-Overreach

Changed your mind about this for a second time, I guess?

Second, this authority allows the SA to reallocate money between projects, but does not authorize him to embark on entirely new projects. Here's the key part:

apply the resources, including funds, personnel, and equipment, of the Army’s civil works program to authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects

What authority has authorized new wall construction? It's not in the NDAA, nor the DoD budget, nor the omnibus.

19 U.S.C. § 1318

Secretary of the Treasury may eliminate, consolidate, or relocate any office or port of entry of the Customs Service; modify hours of service, alter services rendered at any location, or reduce the number of employees at any location; or take any other action that may be necessary to respond directly to the national emergency or specific threat

Oopsie, you left off the first part of the first sentence. By accident, right? It couldn't possibly have been important. Let's take a look:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law

Rut roh... that's a problem.

31 U.S. Code § 1341

(1)An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government may not—

(A)make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation;

[Superfluous Man]

33 U.S.C. § 2293

Secretary of the Army may terminate or defer any Army civil works project and apply the resources, including funds, personnel, and equipment, of the Army’s civil works program to authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense, without regard to any other provision of law (1986)


19 U.S.C. § 1318

Secretary of the Treasury may eliminate, consolidate, or relocate any office or port of entry of the Customs Service; modify hours of service, alter services rendered at any location, or reduce the number of employees at any location; or take any other action that may be necessary to respond directly to the national emergency or specific threat

These codes don't appropriate any funds.

[Superfluous Man]

Thanks for that.

A quick glace under Dept of Homeland Security and Department of Defense shows some discretionary funds. I would guess that Trump is claiming to use his discretion in allocating some of those funds for border barriers.

Does anyone know if this is his position?

No, that's not his position.

The reason he refused to sign budgets Congress passed and we had a government shutdown was because, as he himself fully understood and admitted, there were zero dollars in those budgets appropriated to anything that he could use to fund building his wall.

The reason he declared a national emergency is in order to re-appropriate funds away from what they were appropriated for.

The entire point of Trump's emergency declaration is to violate the constitutional requirement that he spend no funds except as appropriated by Congress. That's the entire point of it.

[Swordsmyth]

Swordsmyth of the present, please let me introduce you to the Swordsmyth from two months ago. Do you remember him? He's the one who said that it would not be the Army, or Army funds, used for the wall because the Constitution clearly states that Army appropriations can be for a period of no more than two years: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...onal-Overreach

Changed your mind about this for a second time, I guess?

This appropriation was given to the army in a budget that was for less than two years.

Second, this authority allows the SA to reallocate money between projects, but does not authorize him to embark on entirely new projects. Here's the key part:

What authority has authorized new wall construction? It's not in the NDAA, nor the DoD budget, nor the omnibus.

Congress authorized the wall, they even provided some funds for it.
It was authorized in the Secure Fence act.

Oopsie, you left off the first part of the first sentence. By accident, right? It couldn't possibly have been important. Let's take a look:


Rut roh... that's a problem.

Do you know what "Notwithstanding" means?

Definition of notwithstanding

(Entry 1 of 3)


: despite


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...otwithstanding
Definition of despite

(Entry 1 of 3)


: in spite of
played despite an injury

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/despite

[Swordsmyth]

These codes don't appropriate any funds.

33 U.S.C. § 2293

Secretary of the Army may terminate or defer any Army civil works project and apply the resources, including funds, personnel, and equipment, of the Army’s civil works program to authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense, without regard to any other provision of law (1986)

19 U.S.C. § 1318

Secretary of the Treasury may eliminate, consolidate, or relocate any office or port of entry of the Customs Service; modify hours of service, alter services rendered at any location, or reduce the number of employees at any location; or take any other action that may be necessary to respond directly to the national emergency or specific threat

Is allocating funds an action?

[TheCount]

Congress authorized the wall, they even provided some funds for it.
It was authorized in the Secure Fence act.

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

Do you know what "Notwithstanding" means?

Dictionary definitions and legal practice are not equivalent.

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?

[Superfluous Man]

33 U.S.C. § 2293

Secretary of the Army may terminate or defer any Army civil works project and apply the resources, including funds, personnel, and equipment, of the Army’s civil works program to authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense, without regard to any other provision of law (1986)

19 U.S.C. § 1318

Secretary of the Treasury may eliminate, consolidate, or relocate any office or port of entry of the Customs Service; modify hours of service, alter services rendered at any location, or reduce the number of employees at any location; or take any other action that may be necessary to respond directly to the national emergency or specific threat

Is allocating funds an action?

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.

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. Whatever alterations the Secretary can make to how any funds are spent pursuant to this law can only be within the limitations of how funds are appropriated by law. Without funds appropriated for him to spend on something, he can't spend them on it.

[Swordsmyth]

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

Public Law No: 109-367 (10/26/2006)

(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=...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/...rder-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.