Trump to declare National Emergency -- getting some of that wall

[cow451]

**

Good point

 

[Arcangl86]

I Will point out yet again, only one more time before I know you not just being obstinate...

The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to suppress, constituted authorities that are unable to enforce, fail, refuse, opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

Just by refusing to enforce, failing to enforce, or obstructing the enforcement of American law is grounds. So is conspiracy to do so. No actual, physical action is required. Just by not enforcing immigration laws and by obstructing them Trump has legal grounds already passed by congress.

AND

He can march in troops, arrest or "suppress" the offenders. In order to use the military to enforce those laws.

AND

He can detain or jail the offenders without representation, due-process, or miranda rights as an enemy combatant/domestic terrorist, and judge them outside of civil authorities in a military tribunal where the entire oversight is the executive branch. Being the DOD, DHS, and the Commander in Chief.

Thanks Obama, A police state, just what we always wanted in America....

Remember, this authority is already passed by congress. It is enacted.


Trump to declare National Emergency -- getting some of that wall

What law are you quoting? I can't find that anywhere.

 

[wing2000]

Chris Wallace: "National Emergencies have been declared 59 times since 1976 when the law was passed...the National Emergencies Act...can you point to a single incident - even one - where the President ask Congress for money, the Congress refused to give him that money and the President then invoked National Emergency powers to get the money?"

[Stephen Miller could not answer the question]

@ 5:35

 

[stevil]

""

Excerpts from inauguration above.

“” – President Donald J. Trump

“” – Donald Trump

""

Pres. DJT SOTU

Is Trump going to publish these gems in a little red book, that USA folk can carry around with them?

 

[LostMarbels]

What law are you quoting? I can't find that anywhere.

Link to the act in this thread. Follow the ensuing conversation after and everything is explained.
Trump to declare National Emergency -- getting some of that wall

Is Trump going to publish these gems in a little red book, that USA folk can carry around with them?

Obama didn't. Why would Trump?

 

[Arcangl86]

Link to the act in this thread. Follow the ensuing conversation after and everything is explained.
Trump to declare National Emergency -- getting some of that wall



Obama didn't. Why would Trump?

So I found the law you were quoting. Of course you were incorrectly quoting the law to try to make your point. And even if you were quoting it correctly, it would have been against the Constitution for the federal government to arrest state officials for simply not enforcing federal law.

 

[Nithavela]

Is Trump going to publish these gems in a little red book, that USA folk can carry around with them?

That's what the art of the deal is and the bible are for. Maybe they can bring them out in a combined edition.

 

[stevil]

At this point, building the wall is just so he can say he did. He doesn't actually care to look at what might be a good compromise that brings both sides together while also dealing with the issue of border security.

He campaigned on an overly simplistic solution, rather than a policy.

He's not looking to improve border security, he's not looking to reduce the amount of drugs coming into the country. These things could be debated and bipartisan agreement could be achieved. They could be great wins for him and his presidency.

Instead he campaigned on a wall. It made a great, simple sound bite. Was easy to understand by his voters, generated great chants at his rallies.

So it leads to a conflict. Repubs want WALL!, Dems want NO wall!
There can be no compromise.

IF Trump campained on Border security, the Dems can't come back and say they want NO Border security.

So Trump's simplistic campaign, based on a solution (without a specific problem) was just a rookie painting himself into a no win corner. Creating conflict and polarisation.
It worked to get him the presidency because many USA folk are terrified of a great many things. Terrified of Mexicans taking "their" jobs, terrified of immigrants coming in and getting public handouts, terrified of Muslim terrorists, terrified of govt taking their guns.

Fear, fear, fear compels these people to get off their bums and into the voting booth.

But then, once Trump is the president, he really struggles to justify his simple solutions. Repeal and Replace ObamaCare was a disaster. The republicans had 8 years to think of an alternative, but when they got into power they had no clue what they wanted. They had all the power but wouldn't agree amongst themselves on a solution. All they knew was that they wanted to REPEAL this thing that had the word "OBAMA" in it.

They are always mischaracterising the Dems
No one wants to take all their guns
No one wants open borders
No one wants a socialist state

Trump and his batch of Republicans take it all the extreme, and leave themselves in a spot where compromise and bipartisanship is an almost impossible thing.


The problem is, people now think the Dems are doing to the Republicans, what the Republicans did to Obama.
The Republicans blocked Obama on everything, no matter how reasonable it may have been.
The Dems (and the courts) are blocking Trump not for the sake of it, but because Trump's plans are so very extreme. Muslim ban, wall between USA and Mexico, putting the ex-head of Exon as the head of Environmental protection, putting a person who has never been to public school and never had her kids in public school and a promoter of private schools as the head of public schools, putting a person who has opposed the world bank for 25 years as leader of the world bank. Denying Global Warming, publicly making fun of it, calling people names, creating and supporting conspiracy theories. Constant lying, continuing with lies even though they have been publicly debunked, It is a very crazy place this Trump administration.

 

[LostMarbels]

it would have been against the Constitution for the federal government to arrest state officials for simply not enforcing federal law.

No, your kidding. Really?

 

[NotreDame]

I Will point out yet again, only one more time before I know you not just being obstinate...

The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to suppress, constituted authorities that are unable to enforce, fail, refuse, opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

Just by refusing to enforce, failing to enforce, or obstructing the enforcement of American law is grounds. So is conspiracy to do so. No actual, physical action is required. Just by not enforcing immigration laws and by obstructing them Trump has legal grounds already passed by congress.

AND

He can march in troops, arrest or "suppress" the offenders. In order to use the military to enforce those laws.

AND

He can detain or jail the offenders without representation, due-process, or miranda rights as an enemy combatant/domestic terrorist, and judge them outside of civil authorities in a military tribunal where the entire oversight is the executive branch. Being the DOD, DHS, and the Commander in Chief.

Thanks Obama, A police state, just what we always wanted in America....

Remember, this authority is already passed by congress. It is enacted.


Trump to declare National Emergency -- getting some of that wall

There must be “insurrection” and/or “domestic violence” to justify the “armed forces” under the statute you cite, and either one or both must meet the conditions under paragraph 2. All of which are absent.

Just by not enforcing immigration laws and by obstructing them Trump has legal grounds already passed by congress.

The immigration laws are being enforced.

 

[NotreDame]

What law are you quoting? I can't find that anywhere.

Lost Marbels quoted to a law requiring “insurrection” and/or “domestic violence” or a conspiracy to commit either, that essentially threatens to hinder or does hinder the execution of law and order.

 

[Arcangl86]

Lost Marbels quoted to a law requiring “insurrection” and/or “domestic violence” or a conspiracy to commit either, that essentially threatens to hinder or does hinder the execution of law and order.

Yeah I had to look up what he was quoting, because it sounded like the Insurrection act, but he somehow read language into it that implied states not themselves enforcing federal law was enough reason for it to be applied.

 

[cow451]

Look on the bright side. Maybe he can declare SNL a threat to the nation and arrest Alec Baldwin.

 

[LoAmmi]

Look on the bright side. Maybe he can declare SNL a threat to the nation and arrest Alec Baldwin.

and we'd get to watch Republican lawmakers come up with excuse after excuse to tell us why it's justified.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Chris Wallace: "National Emergencies have been declared 59 times since 1976 when the law was passed...the National Emergencies Act...can you point to a single incident - even one - where the President ask Congress for money, the Congress refused to give him that money and the President then invoked National Emergency powers to get the money?"

[Stephen Miller could not answer the question]

@ 5:35

Well, anyone who knows anything about Donald knows that he always considers it an emergency when he doesn't get money.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Look on the bright side. Maybe he can declare SNL a threat to the nation and arrest Alec Baldwin.

He's already demanded "retribution." Perhaps some of his "second amendment people" will oblige him?

 

[LostMarbels]

There must be “insurrection” and/or “domestic violence” to justify the “armed forces” under the statute you cite, and either one or both must meet the conditions under paragraph 2. All of which are absent.

And
Dictionary result for and
/and,(ə)n/
conjunction

1. 1.
   used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences, that are to be taken jointly.

or
conjunction (1)
\ ər, ˈȯr , Southern also ˈär\
Definition of or
(Entry 1 of 8)

1—used as a function word to indicate an alternative



And. Or. Not and/or. Conspiracy. Read the document.

 

[LostMarbels]

Did any of you notice that little clause (A) (1) (a) that states: any other condition the President Determines?

How about part 3 concerning the other conditions the President determines: In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

So if the president determines there is a threat, The state shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

 

[cow451]

Did any of you notice that little clause (A) (1) (a) that states: any other condition the President Determines?

How about part 3 concerning the other conditions the President determines: In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

So if the president determines there is a threat, The state shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

If you are correct that law begs to be rewritten so no future President will need to be called “an idiot” by some has-been pundit.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

That is dangerous. Hitler declared a state of emergency when he came to power, That allowed him do do as he pleased and carry out all his atrocities.

Then the ones who are afraid of Trump better leave the country now while they have the chance.