Trump inclined to declare national emergency if talks continue to stall - Twitter hides this as "sensitive material"

This could get interesting.  And Twitter strikes again with trying to control information.

Twitter hides the video because "This media may contain sensitive material".

18c5256ff8b7a07e507d9c00b71b97c91ba86d436865a4f9577a6b7c0aaa60bd.png.a9ecdab1e3a262d61fb79ade2d1894a2.png

Twitter... really?  < sigh >

d14aa9d401f087d64c833186e439e179401f2d345f7537ce0ae9a209c621ceeb.thumb.jpg.07deda106f3b2cd02556d813ca968a5e.jpg

 

Here is the "sensitive  material" un-hidden on Twitter, it's a quick video of Trump talking  (quick, hide the kids...)

28563371e08961fa79436ba8f113320536fa2f4c5d4ed60832c259d4e0ea8e06.png.0a10dab73209c1abb91749b15334434f.png

And, here is CNN covering this "sensitive material"    (yes, I'm actually quoting CNN here, pigs can fly on occasion).

Trump inclined to declare national emergency if talks continue to stall

(CNN)  President Donald Trump is inclined to declare a national emergency to secure military funding for his long-promised southern border wall if talks between administration officials and top lawmakers from both parties continue to stall, a White House official told CNN on Saturday.

While not the administration's preferred plan, the use of emergency powers to fund the wall "provides a way out" amid a series of contentious meetings and disagreements among Department of Homeland Security officials and Democratic lawmakers over basic facts related to border security, the official said.
 
"We can only stay like this for so long," said the official, who attended both meetings with congressional officials at the White House led by Trump this week, explaining that factual disputes have hung up discussions.
 
As the partial government shutdown enters a third week over the funding dispute, Trump has publicly said he would reject any plan that includes less than $5.6 billion for a border wall. The President acknowledged the possibility of using emergency powers to fund the wall during remarks in the Rose Garden on Friday, saying "we can call a national emergency because of the security of our country."
 
"I haven't done it. I may do it," Trump said. "We can call a national emergency and build it very quickly." ...
 
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a trigger warning. There are lots of them on Twitter. I think it's an algorithm that puts them over some material.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of these days, Mainstream and Big Socials (like Twitter and Facebook) may actually allow unfiltered news to be reported, without Trump Derangement Syndrome interfering.

 

938a1ecead814da64f5b118f67a42cfd09c5d6e9a971a2d6ee4b1ffbb7f6e252.png

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, JunoTen said:

It's a trigger warning. There are lots of them on Twitter. I think it's an algorithm that puts them over some material.

Yes.  Twitter uses an algorithm to hide conservative content, while allowing liberal content to run rampant.

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, over on ZeroHedge...

Key Democrat Admits Trump Has Authority To Declare National Emergency To Build Wall

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. "There is a provision in the law that says the president can declare an emergency. It’s been done a number of times, but primarily it’s been done to build facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq. In this case, I think the president would be wide open to a court challenge saying, where is the emergency? You have to establish that in order to do this. Beyond that, this would be a terrible use of Department of Defense dollars."

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those not aware, there are several National Emergency Executive Orders that are currently in effect in the U.S. 

Executive Order 13848: Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election.  September 12, 2018.  National Emergency declared.  

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/09/14/2018-20203/imposing-certain-sanctions-in-the-event-of-foreign-interference-in-a-united-states-election

Executive Order 13849:  Authorizing the Implementation of Certain Sanctions in the Countering of America's Adversaries Sanctions Act.  September 20, 2018.  National Emergency declared.  References the National Emergencies declared in Executive Orders 13660, 13694, and 13757.  

Executive Order 13814:  Amending Executive Order 13223.  October 20, 2017.  Executive Order 13223 declared a National Emergency in response to 9/11.  

Section 1. Amendment to Executive Order 13223. Section 1 of Executive Order 13223 is amended by adding at the end: “The authorities available for use during a national emergency under sections 688 and 690 of title 10, United States Code, are also invoked and made available, according to their terms, to the Secretary concerned, subject in the case of the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, to the direction of the Secretary of Defense.”  

Executive Order 13818:  Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corrution.  December 21, 2017.  National Emergency declared.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Yes.  Twitter uses an algorithm to hide conservative content, while allowing liberal content to run rampant.

Conservatives don't need trigger warnings.  Unfortunately, that appears to be biting us in the rear. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does a national emergency declaration actually entail?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marina Schwarz said:

What does a national emergency declaration actually entail?

Good question.  There is debate about how much power the U.S. President is granted under a National Emergency.  But it can be significant.  I've actually read quite a bit on this topic, but unfortunately I haven't bothered to bookmark or save most of the stuff I've read.

But here is one related example I saved, just because it simply cannot be misunderstood. 

DvxOqccU8AInjkU.jpeg

 

Also changes to the the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice went into effect a few days ago, on January 1st, 2019:

d065357a830175d98184184d7093c5916b0a3275db4e211ff3d28aa1643cbc6b.jpg

9d1174ab432b6e4803e3821c0cd1a4857afe9c95be7f977ea5a6af8c590e72ee.png

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

What does a national emergency declaration actually entail?

Attached is a sunmary from 2007, prepared for members on committees of Congress.  It has since been updated, but I don't have the current documents.  Excerpt:

National Emergency Powers

Summary

The President of the United States has available certain powers that may be exercised in the event that the nation is threatened by crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances (other than natural disasters, war, or near-war situations). Such powers may be stated explicitly or implied by the Constitution, assumed by the Chief Executive to be permissible constitutionally, or inferred from or specified by statute.

Through legislation, Congress has made a great many delegations of authority in this regard over the past 200 years.

There are, however, limits and restraints upon the President in his exercise of emergency powers. With the exception of the habeas corpus clause, the Constitution makes no allowance for the suspension of any of its provisions during a national emergency. Disputes over the constitutionality or legality of the exercise of emergency powers are judicially reviewable. Indeed, both the judiciary and Congress, as co-equal branches, can restrain the executive regarding emergency powers. So can public opinion. Furthermore, since 1976, the President has been subject to certain procedural formalities in utilizing some statutorily delegated emergency authority. The National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651) eliminated or modified some statutory grants of emergency authority; required the President to declare formally the existence of a national emergency and to specify what statutory authority, activated by the declaration, would be used; and provided Congress a means to countermand the President’s declaration and the activated authority being sought. The development of this regulatory statute and subsequent declarations of national emergency are reviewed in this report, which is updated as events require.

 

=============================

https://legaldictionary.net/emergency-power/

EMERGENCY POWER

The President of the United States possesses certain powers to act in emergency situations. Though such “emergency power” is not specifically expressed in the Constitution, the Executive Branch is designed to be able to act quickly in times of war or national emergency. Because emergency power is not specifically stated in the Constitution, its scope is somewhat limited, typically extending only to situations that compromise or threaten the safety or well-being of the public. To explore this concept, consider the following emergency power definition.

Definition of Emergency Power

Noun

  1. Power granted to or used by a public authority to meet emergency needs, such as in case of war or disaster.

Emergency Power Granted by the U.S. Constitution

The U.S. Constitution grants to various branches of the federal governmentspecific authority or powers, referred to as “express powers.” Because it is impossible to predict every situation that may come up requiring action by the government, it has been held that the Constitution “implies” certain powers, including the presidential power to act without approval of Congress in the event of certain emergencies. It is believed that the framers of the Constitution intended this type of action, as the Executive Branch of the government was designed to be able to act much more quickly than Congress.

Presidential Use of Emergency Power

Throughout U.S. history, the Presidential use of emergency powers has justified a wide variety of emergency orders. Such Presidential use of emergency power has stepped in to avert or act in the face of everything from war to natural disasters, and even to avoid wide scale financial ruin. ...

 

=====================

And unbridled hysteria from the Trump Derangement Syndrome poster child, the Washington Post, published today:

Trump’s ‘emergency powers’ threat reveals the GOP’s dismal state

 

==========================

And finally, frothing-at-the-mouth Trump Derangement Syndrome in ZOMG ELEVENTY PANIC full meltdown mode, courtesy of The Atlantic

What the President Could Do If He Declares a State of Emergency

From seizing control of the internet to declaring martial law, President Trump may legally do all kinds of extraordinary things.

... Unknown to most Americans, a parallel legal regime allows the president to sidestep many of the constraints that normally apply. The moment the president declares a “national emergency”—a decision that is entirely within his discretion—more than 100 special provisions become available to him. While many of these tee up reasonable responses to genuine emergencies, some appear dangerously suited to a leader bent on amassing or retaining power. For instance, the president can, with the flick of his pen, activate laws allowing him to shut down many kinds of electronic communications inside the United States or freeze Americans’ bank accounts. Other powers are available even without a declaration of emergency, including laws that allow the president to deploy troops inside the country to subdue domestic unrest.

 

98-505.pdf

 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

10 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

The President acknowledged the possibility of using emergency powers to fund the wall during remarks in the Rose Garden on Friday, saying "we can call a national emergency because of the security of our country."

"I haven't done it. I may do it," Trump said. "We can call a national emergency and build it very quickly." ...

It seems to be that President Trump can exercise his prerogative as to what can be a national emergency.

Congress can no longer terminate the act by concurrent resolution as, instead, it requires a joint resolution to pass.  Democrats appear certain to challenge Trump and he might end up like Humpty Dumpty. 

Edited by Red
Fix bad mistake!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Yes.  Twitter uses an algorithm to hide conservative content, while allowing liberal content to run rampant.

There is obviously an anti-conservative bias on Twitter. However that's their right since it's a private company. I wish that they were honest enough to say it though, but they won't.

But it doesn't mean that every weird thing that happens on Twitter is part of the conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we'll see the 9th Circus in full judicial fits to stop Trump.  But, I think a fast track to the Supreme Court with testimony from the Border Patrol and DHS on terrorists trying to enter, the amount of drugs coming in which is pretty easy to show, the deaths from drug deaths and gangs, plus violent criminal activity by illegals, might convince the Supreme Court that this is a National Security issue.  For me, I think it is.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this address was to be given by Obama instead of Trump, I am quite sure the TV broadcasters would be falling all over themselves, eager to televise the Address to the Nation.

In this case, the TV networks can't decide whether or not they will give coverage to Trump's Address to the Nation.  Trump Derangement Syndrome...

Trump To Deliver Emergency Primetime Address About Border Wall Amid Shutdown

With the federal government shutdown in its 17th day and rapidly approaching the longest shutdown on record (21 days), President Donald Trump said he would address the nation "on the Humanitarian and National Security crisis on our Southern Border" on Tuesday night at 9:00 P.M. Eastern

I am pleased to inform you that I will Address the Nation on the Humanitarian and National Security crisis on our Southern Border. Tuesday night at 9:00 P.M. Eastern.

 

Ahead of Trump's tweet, The New York Times reported that the White House had officially made the request to the networks to interrupt their primetime schedules, however according to Times reporter Michael Grynbaum, at least two of the networks are hesitant, because of “skepticism about handing over airwaves for political statement."

ABC, CBS, NBC & Fox broadcast have all received White House request for airtime at 9pm Eastern on Tuesday,” Grynbaum reported. “No word yet if any network will agree.”

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JoMack said:

Well, we'll see the 9th Circus in full judicial fits to stop Trump.  But, I think a fast track to the Supreme Court with testimony from the Border Patrol and DHS on terrorists trying to enter, That will be a hard one to gain traction - no supporting evidence  Moreover, it will be difficult to show that building a bigger and better wall will produce the results intended  the amount of drugs coming in which is pretty easy to show,  True, but how have the quantities changed such that it is now an "emergency'? the deaths from drug deaths and gangs, plus violent criminal activity by illegals, might convince the Supreme Court that this is a National Security issue.  For me, I think it is.

Legal arguments are going to be based on evidence.  Paramount will be what is now so different?  Especially given there were higher numbers of "apprehensions/inadmissible" in the past.  Legal minds will need to be satisfied that this is an emergent issue, and it appears prima facie not to be.

I have tried to think of how Trump could present a compelling case, but none rely on evidence or reason.  For example, nowadays drugs can be - and are for that matter - very easily "droned" over a very high fence, and across great distances.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Clowns at CNN weigh in.

Broadcast networks deliberating whether to air Trump's prime time immigration address

 
There has been a recent debate in journalism circles about whether networks should air Trump's words in real-time. Several media critics, for instance, told CNN last week that networks should not rush to air Trump's remarks made during pool sprays and briefings, given how much misinformation he spreads.
"Some advice -- demand to see the text in advance and if it is not truthful either don't air it or fact check it live on lower third," tweeted Joe Lockhart, the former White House press secretary under President Bill Clinton. "And cut away if he goes off text and starts lying."
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Red said:

Legal arguments are going to be based on evidence.  Paramount will be what is now so different?  Especially given there were higher numbers of "apprehensions/inadmissible" in the past.  Legal minds will need to be satisfied that this is an emergent issue, and it appears prima facie not to be.

I have tried to think of how Trump could present a compelling case, but none rely on evidence or reason.  For example, nowadays drugs can be - and are for that matter - very easily "droned" over a very high fence, and across great distances.

 

What is now different is that a US President is in the Whitehouse who cares about securing our border and he doesn’t care about ad-hominem attacks on his character from people who refuse to answer basic questions.  Chief among those questions is why a virtual border, if it’s truly as effective as a real border wall, fencing and other fortifications for which 5 billion dollars has been requested, is any less offensive or humanitarian or whatever virtue signaling terms are used to denounce it.

With respect, you know nothing about the emergent status on our southern border in the US or the ripple effect into our interior.  I live here and I do.  It’s an all day crap show.  As already noted the flow of drugs, thugs and disease is overwhelming.  We won’t get into cost but suffice it to say we could build the wall many times over for what illegal immigration is costing the US Tax Payer each year.  But, PC junkies, the want to make D voters out of these immigrants and our unquenchable desire for cheap labor has kept previous presidents, R and D and congresses from doing what should have been done long ago.  We want immigrants.  Legal immigrants and many more will be admitted business as usual with a wall in place.

Drones.  You don’t understand how DTO’s work.  When every load is a potential bust and investigative lead for LE you move thousands of pounds at a time out of necessity.  Time and risk are money.  The Cartels aren’t moving small weight they are moving hundreds, thousands, metric tons at a time.  An army of drones to move that would be conspicuous to say the least and done individually, maybe 20-30lbs at a time, is just not practical.

Legal minds that put aside judicial activism and stick to their lane as it pertains to the defined powers of our 3 branches of government in our constitution and the associated laws on our books will easily be persuaded that the president does in fact have the authority to do what he’s suggested.

  • Like 3
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TXPower said:

What is now different is that a US President is in the Whitehouse who cares about securing our border and he doesn’t care about ad-hominem attacks on his character from people who refuse to answer basic questions.  That is not an argument. Chief among those questions is why a virtual border, if it’s truly as effective as a real border wall, fencing and other fortifications for which 5 billion dollars has been requested, is any less offensive or humanitarian or whatever virtue signaling terms are used to denounce it.  There is already a "real" border divide which has had billions spent on it.  What will make a bigger wall a better deterrent?  People will always find ways to overcome walls.

With respect, you know nothing about the emergent status on our southern border in the US or the ripple effect into our interior.  That is not an argument. I live here and I do.  It’s an all day crap show.  As already noted the flow of drugs, thugs and disease is overwhelming.  I do not disagree, but what makes it an "emergent" issue, and therefore an emergency?  We won’t get into cost but suffice it to say we could build the wall many times over for what illegal immigration is costing the US Tax Payer each year.  But, PC junkies, the want to make D voters out of these immigrants and our unquenchable desire for cheap labor has kept previous presidents, R and D and congresses from doing what should have been done long ago.  We want immigrants.  Legal immigrants and many more will be admitted business as usual with a wall in place.  These are not points that are likely to be considered.

Drones.  You don’t understand how DTO’s work.  When every load is a potential bust and investigative lead for LE you move thousands of pounds at a time out of necessity.  Time and risk are money.  The Cartels aren’t moving small weight they are moving hundreds, thousands, metric tons at a time.  Let's assume you are right - then those volumes/weights require a visible road network unless they are going under a fence/wall, which they can easily do. An army of drones to move that would be conspicuous to say the least and done individually, maybe 20-30lbs at a time, is just not practical.  Can be done at night using GPS coordinates and nobody would be the wiser given the few thousands of miles of border crossings to choose from.  Significantly harder to catch a drone at 50mph than a person.  But these are not likely to be arguments that make what is happening now any different to what has happened for a very long time, and that's the crux of an "emergency".

Legal minds that put aside judicial activism and stick to their lane as it pertains to the defined powers of our 3 branches of government in our constitution and the associated laws on our books will easily be persuaded that the president does in fact have the authority to do what he’s suggested.  Well, the point is that the judiciary would be reviewing the evidence, and the arguments, and these have nothing to do with the President's prerogative to invoke a national emergency.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we wait for Trump's Address tomorrow night, there seems to be an uptick in U.S. military aircraft activity. 

From elsewhere on the internet:

0cfb52d734dd757f9b07663c6f178861bf6f1568b8ad5ebc3a6736db8be79545.png

Busy night

3 AWACS + the usual assortment of other electronic counter warfare and surveillance planes + a 752 SAM and a Doomsday plane.

The critical parts of the US government would seem to be airborne at the moment.

 

 

442e96340fa3eac027864e2e15954bede88f2c2a7486ebb65603b388fd7933f6.thumb.png.e5770f423177f760fb2532a8be13ec28.png

and a B-52 in the list but not showing up on the map

 

10d736222a2de4e63b18a5fab27bb5c0d9d59f7db5e707d8ba585d78fa7c6441.thumb.png.293e0c501366aa1f657244a0c23f4dbb.png

Just outside Wichita, KS. Time in image is UTC.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right, it’s not an argument.  It’s the answer to your question.  Nothing has changed, the situation which has been and remains an emergency is now under the purview of a president who will address it, albeit differently from his predecessors.

As to there already being a real border divide, again, you know nothing.  Have you been to our southern border?  If not, then you are unqualified to make that judgement.  You are wrong.  I haven’t been to Australia thus I won’t comment about things there I know nothing more about beyond that which I can bring to a computer screen with my fingertips.  Instructive, perhaps but not quite experiential or the rest of the story.  Our border is very porous, thus exposing Americans to all types of dangers, you insisting otherwise does not make it so.  That is an argument completely salient to our discussion here and will be considered and play into what the courts may decide.  

You are right about one thing.  Drones will likely not enter the conversation upon judicial review, but then, I already told you that.  That portion of your post was, as you love to tell others, a non sequitur.

And yes the president’s prerogatives have everything to do with it because he has been vested authority to make decisions on such things.  It’s silly judicial activism that has usurped it.

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly relevant to Trump's Address tomorrow:

President's power to construct things during a national emergency

10 U.S. Code § 2808 - Construction authority in the event of a declaration of war or national emergency

(a) In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that requires use of the armed forces, the Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces. Such projects may be undertaken only within the total amount of funds that have been appropriated for military construction, including funds appropriated for family housing, that have not been obligated.

(b) When a decision is made to undertake military construction projects authorized by this section, the Secretary of Defense shall notify, in an electronic medium pursuant to section 480 of this title, the appropriate committees of Congress of the decision and of the estimated cost of the construction projects, including the cost of any real estate action pertaining to those construction projects.

===============================

President's power and procedure to declare national emergency via EO

50 U.S.C. § 1621 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 50. War and National Defense § 1621. Declaration of national emergency by President;  publication in Federal Register;  effect on other laws;  superseding legislation

(a)  With respect to Acts of Congress authorizing the exercise, during the period of a national emergency, of any special or extraordinary power, the President is authorized to declare such national emergency.  Such proclamation shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.

(b)  Any provisions of law conferring powers and authorities to be exercised during a national emergency shall be effective and remain in effect (1) only when the President (in accordance with subsection (a) of this section), specifically declares a national emergency, and (2) only in accordance with this chapter.  No law enacted after September 14, 1976, shall supersede this subchapter unless it does so in specific terms, referring to this subchapter, and declaring that the new law supersedes the provisions of this subchapter.

 

ccd009bf3a9ec9508eefc0594157698f86a6d3e4c8b12cf090a10dee3084aff1.jpg

69bbcd16d69d309270f0b337d80d700abdfb6ec644c6fb48ba19021f4b44033d.png

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Possibly relevant to Trump's Address tomorrow:

President's power to construct things during a national emergency

10 U.S. Code § 2808 - Construction authority in the event of a declaration of war or national emergency

(a) In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that requires use of the armed forces, the Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces. Such projects may be undertaken only within the total amount of funds that have been appropriated for military construction, including funds appropriated for family housing, that have not been obligated.

The armed forces are not required at the border.  A preference to use them does not constitute a "requirement".  

Further, note the restriction on funding should the courts see a requirement which has not in the past been necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TXPower said:

Your right, it’s not an argument.  It’s the answer to your question.  Nothing has changed, which means it cannot be an emergency... the situation which has been and remains an emergency  problematic is now under the purview of a president who will address it, albeit differently from his predecessors. You believe something that has been happening at a worse level in the past is now an emergency, and your evidence is the President?

As to there already being a real border divide, again, you know nothing.  Have you been to our southern border?  If not, then you are unqualified to make that judgement.  You are wrong.  Keep your uninformed opinions to yourself.  I haven’t been to Australia thus I won’t comment about things there I know nothing more about beyond that which I can bring to a computer screen with my fingertips.  Instructive, perhaps but not quite experiential or the rest of the story.  Our border is very porous, thus exposing Americans to all types of dangers, you insisting otherwise does not make it so.  Never ever made that claim, so stick to what you know.That is an argument completely salient to our discussion here and will be considered and play into what the courts may decide.  That is exceptionally unlikely as the merits will relate to what makes the decision an emergency.  Apart from your personal opinions, what are you offering?

You are right about one thing.  Drones will likely not enter the conversation upon judicial review, but then, I already told you that.  That portion of your post was, as you love to tell others, a non sequitur.  Good try, but no cigar.  If the issue of "smuggling" arose and required a wall - inter alia the Trump position - then drones and tunnels would be natural counters.  Nothing prevents raising the issue of what the wall is supposed to achieve, but a wise tactic is to not raise an issue where the counter knocks you out.

And yes the president’s prerogatives have everything to do with it because he has been vested authority to make decisions on such things.  It’s silly judicial activism that has usurped it. I think the US Constitution is sound and its separation of powers is a bulwark to freedoms. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Red said:

 

Only one part of your red-pen response is worth answering.  The US Constitution is sufficient in it’s seperation of powers.  What is not sufficient is the restraint of leftists who wear black robes and apply the bloated concept of judicial review to impose their will and pretend it to be law.

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TXPower said:

Only one part of your red-pen response is worth answering.  The US Constitution is sufficient in it’s seperation of powers.  What is not sufficient is the restraint of leftists who wear black robes and apply the bloated concept of judicial review to impose their will and pretend it to be law.

I fully appreciate that you cannot present a cogent argument, but remain unsure why you believe the judiciary will not apply the law.  Again, you just throw your opinions around without any supporting evidence.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites