More Troops To Be Deployed To Southern US Border; Will Build 160 Miles Of Fencing

[Swordsmyth]

More US troops will be deployed to the Southern border to "construct or upgrade" 160 miles of fending, as well as provide medical care to thousands of migrants arriving from Central America, reports NPR, citing military sources.

The Pentagon will foot the bill out of its discretionary funding for the deployment and fence construction along the California and Arizona borders with Mexico.

The request for more troops to shore up the US-Mexico border was made by the Department of Homeland Security - which will add to the deployment of some 2,300 active duty troops on the border as well as 2,100 National Guard troops. Those deployed will include aviation units and combat engineers.

The original active-duty deployment announced in November was slated to be completed at the end of January, with Guard troops scheduled to remain until September.
According to a senior military official, the new request could include thousands of additional troops, while the installation of new fencing could take months.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...-miles-fencing

[Swordsmyth]

President Trump said Friday that he is considering calling a national emergency to build a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border.
“We can call a national emergency because of the security of our country, absolutely. We can do it. I haven’t done it, I may do it. I may do it, but we can call a national emergency and build it quickly, it’s another way of doing it,” he said at a press conference Friday.


“If we can do it through a negotiated process, we’re giving that a shot,” he added.
Trump's comments from the White House Rose Garden came shortly after he held a closed-door White House meeting with congressional leaders on the 14th day of a partial government shutdown.
Trump also threatened to keep 25 percent of the government shut down for years until he gets his desired funding to build the border wall.

More at: https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ld-border-wall

[PAF]

[devil21]

It's a good thing this isn't starting to look like the imposition of martial law police state.



Oh wait, yeah it is starting to look like that.

[Swordsmyth]

It's a good thing this isn't starting to look like the imposition of martial law police state.



Oh wait, yeah it is starting to look like that.

It's a good thing it isn't starting to look like an invasion.


Oh wait, yeah it is starting to look like that.

[James_Madison_Lives]

Razor wire is easy to cut.

[devil21]

It's a good thing it isn't starting to look like an invasion.

Oh wait, yeah it is starting to look like that.

What are your thoughts on REX 84? You don't think this scenario is looking remarkably like REX 84, not unlike how 9/11 looked remarkably like Operation Northwoods?? Can you tell me your understanding of what REX 84 is/was?

[Pauls' Revere]

@realDonaldTrump Declare National Emergency for protection at Southern Border before Democrats stop you.

hehehe

[Dr.3D]

Razor wire is easy to cut.

Maybe they need to charge it with high voltage.

[PAF]

After the Southern wall (affecting $1 Billion per day in commerce trade and tourism, etc.), next phase is building a US/Canada wall, then the Atlantic/Pacific oceans like Israel has (Gaza Sea Barrier).

Domestic TSA is now in progress, along with Biometrics.

At what point will Americans feel safer during the implosion of the [Bill of Rights] country?

Will there be a “gofundme” for those efforts as well?

[Anti Federalist]

It's a good thing this isn't starting to look like the imposition of martial law police state.

Oh wait, yeah it is starting to look like that.

That's already happened, years ago.

So, either this is legitimate response to an invading army or a ruse to cage us all in.

If the former, good.

If the latter, then maybe we'll finally put all the guns and ammo we've bought to their proper use.

[PAF]

That's already happened, years ago.

So, either this is legitimate response to an invading army or a ruse to cage us all in.

If the former, good.

If the latter, then maybe we'll finally put all the guns and ammo we've bought to their proper use.

Interestingly enough, Americans always have such short memories and always, always look to government “solutions” to government induced problems, everything throughout history has buyers-remorse built in.

There will be no uprising. They can’t miss what they don’t know. That’s the beauty of it all.

[RJB]

After the Southern wall (affecting $1 Billion per day in commerce trade and tourism, etc.), next phase is building a US/Canada wall, then the Atlantic/Pacific oceans like Israel has (Gaza Sea Barrier).

How is a border wall going to be a detriment to business? Have you seen the highways that go between Mexico and the US? Do most business men sneak their goods across the borders? Why would a business man carry his burden on his back through the desert rather than drive it in a truck on a public road?

[PAF]

How is a border wall going to be a detriment to business? Have you seen the highways that go between Mexico and the US? Do most business men sneak their goods across the borders? Why would a business man carry his burden on his back through the desert rather than drive it in a truck on a public road?

This is only but one video describing the effects of only a portion of the wall. Studies have shown that it affects $1 Billion PER DAY in commerce trade and tourism. I have a thread concerning this but the selfishness of some believe that sacrificing Private Property Rights, bankrupting businesses and destroying entire communities for the “Fed” to take control is ok. At this stage, once “property rights”, essential to liberty and freedom, are stripped away, kiss the country totally goodbye.

I spoke with farmers and Amish folks here in my area, the mere mention of Eminent Domain is a topic best not raised.

[Swordsmyth]

What are your thoughts on REX 84? You don't think this scenario is looking remarkably like REX 84, not unlike how 9/11 looked remarkably like Operation Northwoods?? Can you tell me your understanding of what REX 84 is/was?

I can't stop REX 84 from happening if that is what is happening, I can only respond in the best way to minimize the damage and then try to undo any damage.
Refusing to respond in a way that minimizes the damage and thereby allowing even more damage isn't a solution just because it may cause a different outcome than what the manipulator intends.

[PAF]

Here is another video showing the devastation the wall creates. The wall is not a solution, it a political bandaid approach that gives control to the Fed while stripping Property Rights away.



One farmer told me: “they have no intention of eliminating welfare or addressing the real problem, and now the government wants to take our land?!!! What’s left for them to take?!!!”

[devil21]

I can't stop REX 84 from happening if that is what is happening, I can only respond in the best way to minimize the damage and then try to undo any damage.
Refusing to respond in a way that minimizes the damage and thereby allowing even more damage isn't a solution just because it may cause a different outcome than what the manipulator intends.

That's why I asked what your understanding of REX 84 is/was and you didn't answer that. Seems to me that your answer is to do exactly what the manipulator intended to do, aka accept the solution offered to the problem that was created.

[Swordsmyth]

That's why I asked what your understanding of REX 84 is/was and you didn't answer that. Seems to me that your answer is to do exactly what the manipulator intended to do, aka accept the solution offered to the problem that was created.

You have told me exactly what it was before, it is a plan to institute martial law in response to an invasion.

Not stopping the invasion isn't a solution, what is your solution to stop the invasion?

[RJB]

Although I was being a bit of a smart ass in my first post, this video has changed my outlook. When I thought of the border issue, I have thought of nice neighborhoods in So Cal that have turned to $#@!holes in just a few decades.

Years ago, I canoed the Rio Grande in Big Bend NP. Camped on the Mexican side. Ate at the restaurants on either side and didn't spend anytime considering the border.

Yeah, a wall following the Rio Grande is a strange idea. I am going to look into this and will withdraw from the conversation because I don't like to talk while I am considering things. Thanks for a different perspective.

This is only but one video describing the effects of only a portion of the wall. Studies have shown that it affects $1 Billion PER DAY in commerce trade and tourism. I have a thread concerning this but the selfishness of some believe that sacrificing Private Property Rights, bankrupting businesses and destroying entire communities for the “Fed” to take control is ok. At this stage, once “property rights”, essential to liberty and freedom, are stripped away, kiss the country totally goodbye.

I spoke with farmers and Amish folks here in my area, the mere mention of Eminent Domain is a topic best not raised.

[devil21]

You have told me exactly what it was before, it is a plan to institute martial law in response to an invasion.

Not stopping the invasion isn't a solution, what is your solution to stop the invasion?

Don't worry about my solution. I'm not the one posting threads of military installing razor wire like it's Gaza and saying that it'll lead to more freedom. I'm trying to comprehend what's going on in your brain. So a crisis is created and advocating for doing exactly what the creators intended is your solution? When has that ever ended well for anyone except the creators?

I spoke with farmers and Amish folks here in my area, the mere mention of Eminent Domain is a topic best not raised.

The legal reality is that people don't own the property they think they own. Various legal tricks like signing Deed of Trust or Recording with local governments get them to unknowingly cede legal ownership (and thus full control) over to government entities. This is why Eminent Domain claims always win in court. Trump said plainly that "we'll just take it" (the land). He knows the legal reality.

[Swordsmyth]

Don't worry about my solution. I'm not the one posting threads of military installing razor wire like it's Gaza and saying that it'll lead to more freedom. I'm trying to comprehend what's going on in your brain. So a crisis is created and advocating for doing exactly what the creators intended is your solution? When has that ever ended well for anyone except the creators?

I don't advocate for exactly what the creators intend but your solution (or your lack of one) does matter, the manipulators have set up a situation where we can be destroyed or do something that is at least similar to what they want, accepting destruction to spite them is a bad idea.

What is your solution to stop the invasion while not doing what the manipulators want?

[Swordsmyth]

Although I was being a bit of a smart ass in my first post, this video has changed my outlook. When I thought of the border issue, I have thought of nice neighborhoods in So Cal that have turned to $#@!holes in just a few decades.

Years ago, I canoed the Rio Grande in Big Bend NP. Camped on the Mexican side. Ate at the restaurants on either side and didn't spend anytime considering the border.

Yeah, a wall following the Rio Grande is a strange idea. I am going to look into this and will withdraw from the conversation because I don't like to talk while I am considering things. Thanks for a different perspective.

We need the military or a vastly expanded Border Patrol patrolling the border, that is a much better idea than the wall.

But even the wall is better than letting the invasion continue unabated.

[PAF]

The legal reality is that people don't own the property they think they own. Various legal tricks like signing Deed of Trust or Recording with local governments get them to unknowingly cede legal ownership (and thus full control) over to government entities. This is why Eminent Domain claims always win in court. Trump said plainly that "we'll just take it" (the land). He knows the legal reality.

TPTB have the perfect guy for the job, he is expert and has utilized Eminent Domain - he is a real-estate magnate, indeed.

“Don’t Mess With Texas”: Once that hurdle is overcome, the rest of the country will be a breeze.

[enhanced_deficit]

Wall purists will find reasons to attack MAGA but reality is steele/metal is stronger than concrete, is see-through and can be easily moved/rewired according to needs of future/future court rulings etc unlike some big blocks of concrete that will be more costly to build.


The "Steel Slats" just got 10 feet higher

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTHA264e5Ow

Plus, Dems are not willing to pay for concerete wall and they prefer cheaper wires and fences based solutions. MAGA is technically not folding, just being practical.

Pelosi has a message for Trump: 'Nothing for the wall'

[PAF]

Plus, Dems are not willing to pay for concerete wall and they prefer cheaper wires and fences based solutions. MAGA is technically not folding, just being practical.

It is political theater. Make no mistake, it was Democrats who wanted that wall years ago that Texans fought against.

How does government succeed with its plans? Have “opposition” do it the next time around. Works like a charm, every time.

[Pauls' Revere]

From Drudge.

https://www.lmtonline.com/news/artic...s-13510922.php

[Swordsmyth]

Democratic Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), chair of the House Armed Services Committee, admitted that President Trump has the authority to declare a national emergency and have the military build a wall along the US-Mexico border.
ABC's "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos asked Smith "Does President Trump have the ability, have the authority to declare a national emergency and have the military build his wall?"
"Well, unfortunately, the short answer is yes," replied Smith.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...ncy-build-wall

[dude58677]

I say keep the shutdown going permanently. The illegals will have no incentive to come here and we have limited government.

[Swordsmyth]

The U.S. Army will be the primary contractor building the southern border wall, the White House announced on Monday.
“If the president declares a national emergency, the Army Corps of Engineers will kick into high gear,” said a White House official. “They’re already handing out contracts, and that would speed up a lot.”
The White House Office of Management and Budget sent a letter to Democratic House committee chairs on Sunday, informing them that the Customs and Border Protection agency is coordinating with the army to fulfill President Trump’s goal of securing the border with a steel wall.


“In concert with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CBP has increased its capacity to execute these funds,” said a letter from the White House budget office to Democratic House committee chairs.
“The Administration’s full request would fund construction of a total of approximately 234 miles of new physical barrier and fully fund the top 10 priorities in CBP’s Border Security Improvement Plan.”
The letter goes on to request funds for several other areas pertaining to border security, including more border patrol personnel, humanitarian supplies, and technology resources.
“These upfront investments in physical barriers and technology, as well as legislation to close loopholes in our immigration system, will reduce illegal immigration, the flow of illicit drugs entering our country and reduce the long term costs for border and immigration enforcement
activities,” the letter concluded.

More at: https://www.infowars.com/white-house...n-border-wall/

[Swordsmyth]

If President Donald Trump uses the U.S. military to build the border wall along the United States’ international with Mexico by declaring a national emergency, won’t liberals simply run to a Federal judge whom they believe to be left-wing within the Ninth Circuit and block Trump? Can Congress vote to overturn Trump’s declaration of an emergency?
No. If the federal courts actually follow the law, President Trump cannot be prevented from “reprogramming” funds appropriated for the U.S. Department of Defense and actually using the military (such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) to build the border wall.


As noted in the first installment on this topic, Congress has given a president the power to declare a national emergency by 50 U.S.C. 1621 and 50 U.S.C. 1622. A declaration of an emergency allows the President to reprogram funds in the military budget. See 33 U.S. Code § 2293 “Reprogramming during national emergencies.”
Trump could reprogram funds from other parts of the Department of Defense budget — including from other DoD construction projects such as on bases, military housing, etc. — and engage in construction in areas of need for the national defense. The statute says that explicitly (although statutes are never easy reading).
But Democrats are threatening and commentators are warning that such an action would be challenged in court and in Congress immediately. Can such a plan be blocked?
First, 50 U.S.C. §1622 allows the Congress to over-turn a president’s declaration of an emergency. If both the Senate and the House each pass s resolution terminating the President’s declaration of an emergency, than the emergency status terminates under 50 U.S.C. §1622. But clearly the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate would not join the Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives. Unless a significant number of Republican Senators vote against a border wall built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or contractors with military funds, Congress could not block Trump’s efforts.
(Note, although I argue in the next section that this power has been invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court, if a court disagrees on that, a legislative veto power should block a lawsuit. Where Congress has provided a specific method for challenging a declaration of an emergency, the federal courts would normally hold that that method becomes the exclusive remedy. A lawsuit would be blocked by the fact that Congress provided a non-litigation remedy.)


Second, however, the Congressional veto process described above has been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, in INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), finding a legislative veto of Executive Branch action unconstitutional. Congress passed many laws which specifically enabled Congress to veto regulations or actions under that law. The U.S. Supreme Court found a legislative veto violates the structure or architecture of the Constitutional system.
Laws go to the President for signature or veto. Congress cannot reach over and pull a law back. Congress must pass a new law and present it to the President for signature if dissatisfied with how the law is working out. The U.S. Supreme Court had no hesitation finding that the Congress had over-reached, based only on the implied architecture of the Constitution.
In Chadha, 50 U.S.C. 1622 was one of the laws explicitly discussed. The dissenting opinion specifically warned that the Chadha decision invalidated Congress’s ability to overturn a presidential declaration of a national emergency.
Therefore, Congress cannot overturn a declaration by President Trump that the open border is a national emergency. Even if the U.S. Senate were to side with the Democrats, Chadha explicitly ruled the Congressional veto (termination) of a presidential declaration to be an unconstitutional distortion of the familiar “Schoolhouse Rock” means by which laws are passed and signed by presidents. Once a law is signed, there is no “claw back” right by Congress.
Third, of course, critics are discussing whether Trump’s actions would be constitutional. Here, however, Congress passed a specific statute, in fact a series of statutes. So there is no question about the President’s power to do what the Congressional statute has explicitly empowered him to do.


Some even point to a rather famous Constitutional landmark case — Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) — in which the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly ruled that President Dwight D. Eisenhower did not have the power to temporarily nationalize the U.S. steel industry to avert a strike for national defense. However, Youngstown was not that simple. Youngstown analyzed the inherent powers of Commander in Chief as modified by Congressional agreement by statute.
The U.S. Supreme Court explicitly analyzed that the President’s powers are at their greatest (zenith) when he acts not only by his inherent powers as President but also by the agreement of a statute passed by Congress. In Youngstown, Eisenhower did not have any statute supporting his action and the Court reasoned that he was actually acting in conflict with relevant statutes.
Here, the Congress has already enacted and President George W. Bush signed into law, the Secure Fence Act of 2006. It is already the law of the land that a border wall shall be built along the United States’ Southern border. Neither Congress nor any private plaintiff can challenge the official determination that a border wall or barrier shall built. That is the law. That is the official determination of both the U.S. Congress and the Commander in Chief.
The Secure Fence Act of 2006 was never implemented (other than a few miles) because Congress did not appropriate the funds to pay for it. There are two steps: Authorization and Appropriation of funds. The decision to build a border wall is final. The only question is applying funds to make it happen.
Building of a border wall under the 2006 Act was also not completed because the Swamp and Deep State sabotaged it. Using classic bureaucratic games, the bureaucracy and open borders legislators followed “designed to fail” steps that ground the construction to a halt.
Note that in spite of the word “fence” in the title, the law does not actually mandate a “fence” in particular. The wording of the Act is not about a “fence” but about any kind of barrier customized to the particular terrain in each location to the extent necessary to “the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.” That is “all.” As in “all.”
So the Secure Fence Act of 2006 requires building “whatever it takes” — not a “fence” per se. The Act does require specific enhanced barriers and lights, cameras, and sensors, in some named locations.
Fourth, could liberals run to the courts to block Trump from using the military to build a border wall? No. Only those with “standing” can bring a lawsuit. How is anyone harmed?
The federal courts have been waging Jihad against citizens bringing lawsuits for decades. The federal courts have been raising the bar higher and higher to make it nearly impossible for anyone to challenge the actions of government agencies or public officials. Specifically a complaint that is shared generally by much of the population cannot establish standing.
Contrary to strongly-held popular belief, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly ruled that taxpayers do not have standing to challenge government spending, revenue, or action merely because they are taxpayers. See, Daimlerchrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 126 S.Ct. 1854, 164 L.Ed.2d 589, 547 U.S. 332 (2006). So the Left cannot block Trump’s plans by suing as taxpayers. (The only exceptions involve use of funds to establish a religion or local government taxpayers.)
Similarly, Members of Congress do not have standing either. Certainly individual Members of Congress do not. See Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997).
To bring a lawsuit, one must show that they are tangibly harmed, personally, not just in disagreement with a policy. If Trump uses some of the $700 billion in the omnibus bill to build a border wall, everyone will be more safe. How is anyone harmed?
Fifth, can private landowners, some of whom will be liberals, go to court and stop the use of private land as an easement taken by eminent domain? No.
There is absolutely no defense available to taking land by eminent domain. How much compensation is owed for taking an easement as a strip of land could take years to fight out in court. But the actual right to use the land cannot be contested. The government can take an easement immediately and then fight later over how much money should be paid to the landowner. Remember that this was the legal holding of the over-the-top, controversial U.S. Supreme Court precedent Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, 545 U.S. 469, 125 S. Ct. 2655; 162 L. Ed. 2d 439 (2005). (Kelo ruled that it is not even necessary to show a “public purpose” for eminent domain, which goes too far.)
Legal challenges will not stop construction, even it takes years to reach agreement on the compensation payable to landowners. To finance payment of compensation, Trump should consider offering a land swap of federally-owned tracts of land or selling such public lands.
Sixth, opponents of Trump’s agenda will try to find individual landowners along the border, who might be liberal, to object in general to the reprogramming of military funds to build the border wall. But those landowners should not be considered to have standing, for several reasons:
(A) It would be speculation as to whether the government will take any action at their particular section of the border. How would a landowner know that his or her part of the border is a stretch where the planners believe an actual wall is truly needed, as opposed to other natural or physical barriers? It would be — under standard doctrines of standing — insufficient to speculate that that particular landowner’s land is going to be affected at all.
(B) There is a concept called “exhaustion of administrative remedies.” If an individual landowner doesn’t want a border fence along their particular stretch of the border, they would first have to tell the government that they object. The courts would traditionally wait until the government can try to find agreement with the landowner before allowing a lawsuit. A lawsuit would be invalid as not yet being “ripe.” Traditionally the courts would require a plaintiff to actually talk to the government agency first to see if their stretch of land is actually going to be affected or not, whether a compromise can be worked out, etc. Those are the currently-existing standard rules that always govern. (In fact, on policy, one could argue if a landowner doesn’t want a wall along their property, fine. Let all the trespassers funnel through that person’s land, trampling the ground, leaving trash everywhere, and frightening their family in their home at all hours. If they don’t want a border wall on their property, fine. Check back with us later and tell us how that worked out for you.)
Seventh, open border advocates of course will also find some would-be gate-crashers from another country to say that they want to break the law and cross the border in the unmanned frontier and the border wall will stop them from breaking the law. That should be laughed out of court, because one does not have a “right” to break the law. Similarly, they will try to find immigrants in the U.S. who want to bring family members into the U.S.A. But they have legal avenues for doing that, by sponsoring their family members to come in legally. Those ideas may impress an individual federal trial judge for a short time, but it should not survive on appeal.
(Note: Trump does need to get changes in the law through Congress or perhaps just issue clarifying regulations from DHS that a foreigner can apply for asylum at a U.S. consulate without entering the United States.)
As an attorney in Virginia for 21 years, who has worked for both Judicial Watch and more recently Freedom Watch created by Larry Klayman, I often have to explain the concept of “standing” to clients who want to bring “good government” lawsuits or hold the government accountable to its rules.
When Sheriff Joe Arpaio sued to challenge Barack Obama’s amnesty by executive order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that Arpaio did not have standing, even though illegal immigration cost him actual money in (then) running the jails of Maricopa County. I worked on that legal case, from helping write the original complaint (with an eye toward establishing standing from word one) to legal memoranda in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, filed by Larry Klayman, to the appeal by Larry Klayman to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Arpaio’s legal pleadings established standing as strong as one could imagine, an iron lock on showing standing.
Didn’t matter. The courts completely contradicted other precedents, as powerfully demonstrated by the dissenting opinion of the Honorable Janice Rogers Brown, an African-American appeals judge with more intellect and intellectual integrity in her little finger than the U.S. Congress combined.
In deadly seriousness and a straight face, I honestly have to explain the law of standing in federal courts as follows: If you want to encourage the expansion of government and government intervention in the economy or society or prevent the streamlining of government, you have standing. If you want to hold government accountable to staying within its rules or you want to block left-wing policies, you don’t have standing. it’s pretty much that simple. Are you a liberal? You have standing. Are you a conservative? You don’t have standing. Having studied hundreds of precedents on standing, I must say that with absolutely no humor, exaggeration or hyperbole. I could not truthfully say anything different.
However, the federal courts have established some very strong precedents ruling that almost no one has standing to challenge anything that the government wants to do — unless the government action directly harms the plaintiff personally and individually.
Therefore, it will be extremely awkward for the federal courts to ignore and contradict their past precedents and claim that anyone has standing to object to the building of a border wall by the U.S military.
Finally, President Trump’s Administration under incoming Attorney General William Barr has got to stop this foolishness with lawsuits brought before a cherry-picked judge in the Ninth Circuit whom the plaintiffs believe will be unusually sympathetic to them and hostile to Trump’s policies.
The Department of Justice under Bill Barr must always file a motion for a change of venue to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Readers will be familiar with changes of venue requests in famous criminal cases. But this is different. This is not about whether a criminal defendant can get a fair trial due to pre-trial publicity.
A change of venue in a civil dispute is based upon other considerations: Where are all the witnesses? Where are the records and evidence kept? Where was the decision made? Where are the decision-makers to be affected by the lawsuit located? Those venue rules strongly if not conclusively favor moving any such lawsuit to the District of Columbia, where the decisions were made, where the officials and witnesses reside, and where all the evidence is located.
Again, those are the standard, currently-existing, non-controversial rules. None of these lawsuits should be tolerated out in the Ninth Circuit on the Left Coast. There is no valid reason to have such lawsuits spread around the country instead of being held in Washington, D.C., where the action is — and where the action took place.


More at: https://bigleaguepolitics.com/obama-...-still-active/