Why Trump will win the wall fight

(edited)

This is an issue that more and more people are finally starting to talk about: Congress wants to control who is appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court so that the court can do Congress' job, and divert responsibility from Congress itself in the process.  Unfortunately, it puts an inordinate amount of power in the Executive Branch (President) and, contrary to the wailing and proclamations otherwise by members of Congress, less power in the hands of Congress where it belongs.

Why Trump will win the wall fight

 

Edited by Dan Warnick
  • Like 6
  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

This is an issue that more and more people are finally starting to talk about: Congress wants to control who is appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court so that the court can do Congress' job, and divert responsibility from Congress itself in the process.  Unfortunately, it puts in inordinate amount of power in the Executive Branch (President) and, contrary to the wailing and proclamations otherwise by members of Congress, less power in the hands of Congress where it belongs.

Why Trump will win the wall fight

 

I agree with you that the SCOTUS is,  and has,  been making "power grabs" for decades,  but i disagree with your conclusion that the SCOTUS "power grabs" will translate into more power to the Presidency...

What the SCOTUS has done has "INCREASED THE POWER OF THE SCOTUS" and weakened the 'balance of power" in our government...

SCOTUS power grabs must be stopped..

The days of JUDICIAL ACTIVISM must come to an end...

 

As for the WALL,  i want it to be built,  but by both signing the "bill",  and issuing the "Emergency Order",  Trump has taken "one step forward,  and then 6 steps back".....

I am concerned that what is in the "bill" will prevent Trump from making headway on building the wall...

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Illurion said:

I agree with you that the SCOTUS is,  and has,  been making "power grabs" for decades,  but i disagree with your conclusion that the SCOTUS "power grabs" will translate into more power to the Presidency...

It was not my point that the Court is making power grabs; it is my point that Congress is shirking their duty and putting it on the Court to legislate, which is bass-ackwards in the extreme.  This is why appointees to the Court are so hotly contested these days, and it shouldn't be that way by design.

Did you read the article?  Just wondering..

  • Like 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

It was not my point that the Court is making power grabs; it is my point that Congress is shirking their duty and putting it on the Court to legislate, which is bass-ackwards in the extreme.  This is why appointees to the Court are so hotly contested these days, and it shouldn't be that way by design.

Did you read the article?  Just wondering..

yes,  i read the article,  but i do not agree with what is says.   I believe that Roberts will side with the dems on the SCOTUS and vote against the emergency.   I also believe that the many poison pills in the bill that Trump signed will prevent him from building the wall... ie:  the bill gives individual towns VETO power over walls to be built there,  it forbids walls on federal lands even under an emergency,  and requires that Mexico sign off on any walls to be built...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 2/17/2019 at 6:57 AM, Dan Warnick said:

It was not my point that the Court is making power grabs; it is my point that Congress is shirking their duty and putting it on the Court to legislate, which is bass-ackwards in the extreme.  This is why appointees to the Court are so hotly contested these days, and it shouldn't be that way by design.

Did you read the article?  Just wondering..

As far as congress not doing their job,  frankly,  i came to the opinion long ago that Congress "DELIBERATELY"  makes each new law as VAGUE as possible for the express purpose of letting the COURTS decide who the actual winner will be...   

That way,  Congress can accept all the bribes that they can from both sides of an issue,  and then "blame the courts" for whatever turns out to be the end definition of the issue...

In the mean time,  SCOTUS was ever so happy to take on the added authority...........  UNCHALLENGED.......

Edited by Illurion
  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump as Hercules Cleaning Out the Augean Stables

Also,

1 hour ago, Illurion said:

As for the WALL,  i want it to be built,  but by both signing the "bill",  and issuing the "Emergency Order",  Trump has taken "one step forward,  and then 6 steps back".....

I am concerned that what is in the "bill" will prevent Trump from making headway on building the wall...

Copied from another part of the internet:

These phrases below imply that Trump plans on following his constitutional rights no matter what he signed in the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019” (the “Act”), which authorizes appropriations to fund the operation of a number of agencies in the Federal Government through September 30, 2019.

“My Administration will treat each of these provisions consistent with the President’s constitutional authorities with respect to foreign relations.”

And

“my Administration will continue the practice of treating provisions like these as advisory and non-binding.”

And

“My Administration will make appropriate efforts to notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, but it will not treat spending decisions as dependent on the approval of congressional committees.”

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Trump as Hercules Cleaning Out the Augean Stables

Also,

Copied from another part of the internet:

These phrases below imply that Trump plans on following his constitutional rights no matter what he signed in the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019” (the “Act”), which authorizes appropriations to fund the operation of a number of agencies in the Federal Government through September 30, 2019.

“My Administration will treat each of these provisions consistent with the President’s constitutional authorities with respect to foreign relations.”

And

“my Administration will continue the practice of treating provisions like these as advisory and non-binding.”

And

“My Administration will make appropriate efforts to notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, but it will not treat spending decisions as dependent on the approval of congressional committees.”

 

 

i HAVE NOT SEEN THESE MENTIONED ANYWHERE ELSE.

Is there an article that shows more about them ?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

This is an issue that more and more people are finally starting to talk about: Congress wants to control who is appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court so that the court can do Congress' job, and divert responsibility from Congress itself in the process.  Unfortunately, it puts in inordinate amount of power in the Executive Branch (President) and, contrary to the wailing and proclamations otherwise by members of Congress, less power in the hands of Congress where it belongs.

Why Trump will win the wall fight

 

Dan, you are too right on this.  I and others, probably you, have oft commented on the real responsibility surrounding the illegal immigration issue resting with Congress.

Congress is derelict in its enumerated power and responsibility to pass legislation which is common sense and beneficial to our Great Country.

The illegal immigration issue could quickly and effectively be remedied in large part through the passing of a National Employment Verification law.  One which requires immediate and legitimate proof of citizenship of resident status, allowing the employer to hire legally and legal workers to find gainful employment.

This won’t happen of course as you know because the Republicans want cheap labor and the resulting cheap goods and services.  No Republican President or Congress has yet had the courage to push through such an act because they don’t want us spoiled Americans to have to pay more for the things we want and need.  Nor come to the reality that wage labor jobs are not below us.  I wish we would do so.  I ran the dumb-end of a shovel more than I care to remember when I was young and know for sure based on my interactions with the millennials, they damn sure could benefit from the same.

And the Democrats, well, they need the illegal immigrant issue to co-opt and make their own to virtue signal to their regressive-socialist throng.  And of course, to become loyal D voters when some sort of compromise toward citizenship is worked out.

 

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, TXPower said:

Dan, you are too right on this.  I and others, probably you, have oft commented on the real responsibility surrounding the illegal immigration issue resting with Congress.

Congress is derelict in its enumerated power and responsibility to pass legislation which is common sense and beneficial to our Great Country.

The illegal immigration issue could quickly and effectively be remedied in large part through the passing of a National Employment Verification law.  One which requires immediate and legitimate proof of citizenship of resident status, allowing the employer to hire legally and legal workers to find gainful employment.

This won’t happen of course as you know because the Republicans want cheap labor and the resulting cheap goods and services.  No Republican President or Congress has yet had the courage to push through such an act because they don’t want us spoiled Americans to have to pay more for the things we want and need.  Nor come to the reality that wage labor jobs are not below us.  I wish we would do so.  I ran the dumb-end of a shovel more than I care to remember when I was young and know for sure based on my interactions with the millennials, they damn sure could benefit from the same.

And the Democrats, well, they need the illegal immigrant issue to co-opt and make their own to virtue signal to their regressive-socialist throng.  And of course, to become loyal D voters when some sort of compromise toward citizenship is worked out.

 

Yes, and they (Congress) also have the responsibility to provide, within the laws they enact, specific rules as to how the Executive Branch can and will enforce those laws.  In other words, the President, acting within the laws that Congress has enacted, and within his or her authority under those laws and under his or her sworn duty to enforce the laws of the United States, can only enforce laws to the degree and extent the laws themselves allow.  When laws are loosely written and enacted the door to the abuse of the same is left wide open for/to political whim.

Whatever either party's motivations on the legal/illegal immigration issue, the laws should be clear and Just, and the only time the President would need to be challenged via suit within the legal system would be if he or she did not enforce the laws or attempted enforcement by non-legal means.

In all these matters and many more, the Congress writes vague laws that can be interpreted either way, and thereby leave the courts to rule.  This means the law has no more power than the power of suggestion, which, logically, makes Congress impotent and as such immaterial.  It also allows mere departments within the Federal Government to ride rough-shod over the human rights of the immigrants and the legal rights of American citizens and those legally processing to become legal citizens.

Edited by Dan Warnick
  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Yes, and they (Congress) also have the responsibility to provide, within the laws they enact, specific rules as to how the Executive Branch can and will enforce those laws.  In other words, the President, acting within the laws that Congress has enacted, and within his or her authority under those laws and under his or her sworn duty to enforce the laws of the United States, can only enforce laws to the degree and extent the laws themselves allow.  When laws are loosely written and enacted the door to the abuse of the same is left wide open for/to political whim.

Whatever either party's motivations on the legal/illegal immigration issue, the laws should be clear and Just, and the only time the President would need to be challenged via suit within the legal system would be if he or she did not enforce the laws or attempted enforcement by non-legal means.

In all these matters and many more, the Congress writes vague laws that can be interpreted either way, and thereby leave the courts to rule.  This means the law has no more power than the power of suggestion, which, logically, makes Congress impotent and as such immaterial.  It also allows mere departments within the Federal Government to ride rough-shod over the human rights of the immigrants and the legal rights of American citizens and those legally processing to become legal citizens.

Dan, we agree on most points, I however have less faith in the executive and judiciaries commitment to limit themselves or each other.  I think Congress could write each and every law as specific as can be but the imperial presidency and activist judiciary will still do what they please.

What we need is to once again engage classical education of our children in school where they learn to think logically, to debate, to explore and above all, leave our schools with a strong understanding of our nations founding principles, the beliefs, contributions and warnings of our founders and reverence for the limiting power our constitution has placed on our three branches of government.  Only then will respect for the rule of law and separation of powers become relevant again.  

We have spent the last 40 years treating our primary and secondary schools as a damn social indoctrination experiment, encouraging students to feel their way through life instead of providing classical education which leads to real enlightenment.  The chickens have come home to roost.

  • Like 5
  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TXPower said:

Dan, we agree on most points, I however have less faith in the executive and judiciaries commitment to limit themselves or each other.  I think Congress could write each and every law as specific as can be but the imperial presidency and activist judiciary will still do what they please.

My friend, that is my point, and the point of the article I linked to, exactly.  The balance of power is perilous and fragile in the best of times.  If Congress does not take its responsibilities seriously, and defend them at every turn, the other branches are left to run amok.  Of course, under the form of government and the constitution drafted by the founders of our great republic, the other branches have the same responsibilities and must take the defense thereof equally seriously.

The children are the future, and I sincerely hope they figure out what a load of crap the current education system, if you can call it that, has fed them for the first 1/3, give or take, of their precious lives.  AND, our generation is responsible for allowing it to happen; putting largely blind faith in the system to continue teaching as we were used to.  Now we bitch?  I know, I know, you and I and many others take an active part in our children's education but, since most other parents are not doing the same, I fear, we fight an uphill battle at best, and a losing battle at worst.  They just keep going along like we aren't even there.  That's got to stop and the only way to reverse course, IMHO, is to take back control of the purse strings.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TXPower said:

What we need is to once again engage classical education of our children in school where they learn to think logically, to debate, to explore

I'll be darn, I am in 100% agreement on this. Then we silly voters wouldn't put in the folks we have, behaving the way we do. The great risk to the US system of government is the voters. As it should be. Best of have voters capable of thinking.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I read the article, and the oped suggest the opposite of SCOTUS power grab, rather a punt and Congress should force it. I don't know how you avoid the basic in the constitution issue for funding. The just making shit up, not a crises issue, isn't really a SCOTUS thing, more the next election or impeachment thing, and impeachment is effectively a waste of time, intentionally so, with the 2/3rds conviction requirement. 

The system was intentionally set up to avoid Congress, or the POTUS, of SCOTUS, from consolidating power. That's kind of a good thing. When your guy is in charge, it's a pain. But it's a blessing when it's not. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Foote said:

And I read the article, and the oped suggest the opposite of SCOTUS power grab, rather a punt and Congress should force it. I don't know how you avoid the basic in the constitution issue for funding. The just making shit up, not a crises issue, isn't really a SCOTUS thing, more the next election or impeachment thing, and impeachment is effectively a waste of time, intentionally so, with the 2/3rds conviction requirement. 

The system was intentionally set up to avoid Congress, or the POTUS, of SCOTUS, from consolidating power. That's kind of a good thing. When your guy is in charge, it's a pain. But it's a blessing when it's not. 

Yes, elections have consequences.........

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Illurion said:

i HAVE NOT SEEN THESE MENTIONED ANYWHERE ELSE.

Is there an article that shows more about them ?

You are surprised that the exceedingly biased and frothingly hostile Mainstream media refuses to report on this?

Official White House releases, you can Google some more:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-by-the-president-23/

 

STATEMENTS & RELEASES

Statement by the President

Issued on: December 31, 2018



Today, I have signed into law S. 2736, the “Asia Reassurance Initiative Act of 2018” (the “Act”).  Several provisions of the Act, including sections 101, 102, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 208, 209, 210, 211, 213, 216, 306, 307, 406, and 410, purport to dictate the policy of the United States in external military and foreign affairs, or to require the executive branch to undertake certain diplomatic initiatives with international partners.  My Administration will treat these provisions consistent with the President’s exclusive constitutional authorities as Commander in Chief and as the sole representative of the United States in foreign affairs.  Other provisions of the bill, including sections 201 and 213, purport to restrict the President’s authority to control the personnel and materiel the President believes are necessary or advisable for the successful conduct of military operations.  While I share the objectives of the Congress with respect to maintaining the strength and security of the United States, my Administration will treat these provisions consistent with the President’s constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.  Finally, a number of provisions in the bill, including sections 210 and 214, purport to mandate or regulate submission to the Congress or publication of information protected by executive privilege.  My Administration will treat these provisions consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to withhold information, the disclosure of which could impair national security, foreign relations, or the performance of the President’s constitutional duties.

DONALD J. TRUMP

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

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-by-the-president-28/

 

STATEMENTS & RELEASES

Statement by the President

Issued on: February 15, 2019



Today, I have signed into law H.J. Res. 31, the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019” (the “Act”), which authorizes appropriations to fund the operation of a number of agencies in the Federal Government through September 30, 2019.

Certain provisions of the Act (such as Division F, under the heading “Contribution for International Peacekeeping Activities”) would require advance notice to the Congress before the President may direct certain military actions or provide certain forms of military assistance.  In signing the Act, I reiterate the well-established understanding of the executive branch that these types of provisions encompass only military actions for which providing advance notice is feasible and consistent with the President’s constitutional authority and duty as Commander in Chief to ensure national security.  In addition, Division C, section 527, and Division A, section 516, both restrict the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States.  I will treat these, and similar provisions, consistent with the President’s constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.

Numerous provisions could, in certain circumstances, interfere with the exercise of the President’s constitutional authorities to negotiate international agreements (such as Division C, sections 509, 518, and 530; and Division F, sections 7010(c) and 7013(a)), to articulate the position of the United States in international fora (such as Division F, sections 7025(c), 7029(a), (b)(1), 7031(d)(2), 7042(h)(1), 7043(g)(1), 7047(b)(3), 7054(b), and 7060(c)(2)(D), (3)), to receive ambassadors (such as Division F, section 7031(c)), and to recognize foreign governments (such as Division F, section 7047(b)(2)(A)).  My Administration will treat each of these provisions consistent with the President’s constitutional authorities with respect to foreign relations.

Division C, section 537, provides that the Department of Justice may not use any funds to prevent implementation of medical marijuana laws by various States and territories.  I will treat this provision consistent with the President’s constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.

Certain provisions within Division D, title II, under the heading “Office of Management and Budget — Salaries and Expenses” impose restrictions on supervision by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of work performed by executive departments and agencies, including provisos that no funds made available to OMB “may be expended for the altering of the annual work plan developed by the Corps of Engineers for submission to the Committees on Appropriations”; that “none of the funds provided in this or prior Acts shall be used, directly or indirectly, by the Office of Management and Budget, for evaluating or determining if water resource project or study reports submitted by the Chief of Engineers acting through the Secretary of the Army are in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and requirements relevant to the Civil Works water resource planning process”; and that “none of the funds appropriated in this Act for the Office of Management and Budget may be used for the purpose of reviewing any agricultural marketing orders or any activities or regulations under the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).”  The President has well-established authority to supervise and oversee the executive branch and to rely on subordinates, including aides within the Executive Office of the President, to assist in supervising the executive branch.  Legislation that significantly impedes the President’s ability to supervise the executive branch or obtain the assistance of aides in this function violates the separation of powers by undermining the President’s ability to fulfill his constitutional responsibilities, including the responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.  My Administration will, therefore, construe these restrictions in Division C, title II consistent with these Presidential duties.

Several provisions (such as Division F, section 7041(b)(3)) mandate or regulate the submission of certain executive branch information to the Congress.  I will treat these provisions in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to withhold information that could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the executive branch, or the performance of the President’s constitutional duties.  In particular, Division D, section 713, prohibits the use of appropriations to pay the salary of any Federal officer or employee who interferes with or prohibits certain official communications between Federal employees and Members of Congress or of any Federal officer or employee who takes adverse action against an officer or employee because of such communications.  I will construe these provisions not to apply to circumstances that would detract from my authority to supervise, control, and correct communications by Federal officers and employees with the Congress related to their official duties, including in cases where such communications would be unlawful or could reveal confidential information protected by executive privilege.

Certain provisions (such as Division F, section 7064; and Division G, section 418) prohibit the use of funds to deny an Inspector General access to agency records or documents.  I will construe these, and similar provisions, consistent with my authority to control the dissemination of information protected by executive privilege.

Certain provisions prohibit the use of funds to recommend certain legislation to the Congress (Division B, section 715), or require recommendations of certain legislation to the Congress (Division A, section 537).  Because the Constitution gives the President the authority to recommend “such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient”, my Administration will continue the practice of treating provisions like these as advisory and non-binding.

Numerous provisions purport, in certain circumstances, to condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees (Division B, sections 702, 706, and 716(a), (b); Division E, sections 403 and 409; Division G, sections 188, 405, and 406).  These are impermissible forms of congressional aggrandizement in the execution of the laws other than by the enactment of statutes.  My Administration will make appropriate efforts to notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, but it will not treat spending decisions as dependent on the approval of congressional committees.

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

My friend, that is my point, and the point of the article I linked to, exactly.  The balance of power is perilous and fragile in the best of times.  If Congress does not take its responsibilities seriously, and defend them at every turn, the other branches are left to run amok.  Of course, under the form of government and the constitution drafted by the founders of our great republic, the other branches have the same responsibilities and must take the defense thereof equally seriously.

The children are the future, and I sincerely hope they figure out what a load of crap the current education system, if you can call it that, has fed them for the first 1/3, give or take, of their precious lives.  AND, our generation is responsible for allowing it to happen; putting largely blind faith in the system to continue teaching as we were used to.  Now we bitch?  I know, I know, you and I and many others take an active part in our children's education but, since most other parents are not doing the same, I fear, we fight an uphill battle at best, and a losing battle at worst.  They just keep going along like we aren't even there.  That's got to stop and the only way to reverse course, IMHO, is to take back control of the purse strings.

It is truly a tragedy that we continue to financially support schools, colleges and universities that promote socialism, LGBT extremism, ignoring the Constitution of the USA , persecute Christian groups while Christians founded many of the guilty universities. 

  • Like 4
  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

STATEMENTS & RELEASES

Statement by the President

Issued on: February 15, 2019

You gotta love the facts.  :) 

  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Dan Warnick said:

You gotta love the facts.  :) 

Mainstream Media apparently  hates  facts.

  • Like 4
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever happened to those people INSIDE the Trump administration that were going to relieve him of office?  Hmmm, maybe they got lost.  Maybe, just maybe, they were made up by the media?  Naw...well, maybe.  Personally, I think it was Kelly-Ann, but maybe it was Trump himself.  Yah, that's it.  He knew if he didn't step in that he would do more of the things he's doing.  I'll bet he has a direct line to the WAPO to report his own behavior, like playing golf on his new video setup whilst tweeting on the toilet.  Despicable I tell you, despicable!

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

You gotta love the facts.  :) 

"Something BIG is coming."

Enjoy the show.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

"Something BIG is coming."

Enjoy the show.

Been hearing that for quite awhile.  PM me if something has changed.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“West Virginia paid for a CEO to go on a trade delegation “ 

“Steven B Hendrick CEO of Mid Atlantic Tech Reasearch & Innoveation center ( Matric)

asked China  Energy officials to specifically target sone of their investment toward his company natural gas storage hub..... 

 

 

https://www.propublica.org/article/west-virginia-company-interests

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Mainstream Media apparently  hates  facts.

Just like the POTUS.  Remember we already went through this and we agreed he lies (you just think his lies are good for the country).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites