Originally posted by crashcourse
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects
Collapse
X
-
I am not aware of Congressionally appropriated funds for the border wall in the amount he is wanting. The latest budget gave him far less. Are you saying a previous budget specifically gave him $5 billion (or more) to build a wall? There has been talk of the 2006 Secure Fence Act, but that was never fully funded by Congress.
Trump may not be "stripping Americans of their fundamental rights" but he is the first to work around the pursestring authority of Congress in such a way and it is a bad precedent.
Hopefully, we will roll back the National Emergencies Act after he vetoes this block by Congress.
"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is sometimes hard to verify their authenticity." -Abraham Lincoln
- Top
Comment
-
Originally posted by AlabamAlum View Post
I am not aware of Congressionally appropriated funds for the border wall in the amount he is wanting. The latest budget gave him far less. Are you saying a previous budget specifically gave him $5 billion (or more) to build a wall? There has been talk of the 2006 Secure Fence Act, but that was never fully funded by Congress.
Trump may not be "stripping Americans of their fundamental rights" but he is the first to work around the pursestring authority of Congress in such a way and it is a bad precedent.
Hopefully, we will roll back the National Emergencies Act after he vetoes this block by Congress.
But that is not the funding I was referring to, and I can see how it was worded was confusing. Trump is using the power that congress gave him to transfer already appropriated funding. He is not creating new laws or changing existing ones, he is not appropriating funds, he is not trying to change the constitution or the bill of rights. The National Emergencies Act actually gives him the authority to do what he is doing, and far more. There is a lot in there that scares the shit out of me that a president could have that much authority, but this isn't any of that.
I would fully support rolling it back, but until it is, he would be foolish not to use it as it legally allows him to.
- Top
Comment
-
Republicans who are known to be voting YES on the bill
Lisa Murkowski (AK)
Marco Rubio (FL)
Jerry Moran (KS)
Rand Paul (KY)
Susan Collins (ME)
Roger Wicker (MS)
Roy Blunt (MO)
Rob Portman (OH)
Pat Oomey (PA)
Lamar Alexander (TN)
Mike Lee (UT)
Mitt Romney (UT)
Thom Tillis has flip-flopped back to supporting Trump. NC Republicans apparently threatened him quite a bit with supporting a primary challenger if he dared defy the President. Possibly running Mark Meadows himself.
I guarantee there's at least another dozen or so Republicans that feel Trump's actions are unconstitutional (Ted Cruz, Ben Sasse, Jon Cornyn, Martha McSally, Cory Gardner, etc.) but are too scared of making him angry. Could have had a veto-proof majority otherwise.
- Top
Comment
-
Thom Tillis, Cory Gardner, and Martha McSally are three out of four Republicans believed to most endangered in 2020 (Susan Collins is the 4th). The first three were scared enough of Trump supporting a primary challenger to fall in line. Susan Collins has more freedom because the WH probably knows that if they replace her with a sycophantic, far right Trump supporter, they will lose that seat in the general.
- Top
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kapture1 View Post
The Secure Fence Act required that it be funded but never was.
But that is not the funding I was referring to, and I can see how it was worded was confusing. Trump is using the power that congress gave him to transfer already appropriated funding. He is not creating new laws or changing existing ones, he is not appropriating funds, he is not trying to change the constitution or the bill of rights. The National Emergencies Act actually gives him the authority to do what he is doing, and far more. There is a lot in there that scares the shit out of me that a president could have that much authority, but this isn't any of that.
I would fully support rolling it back, but until it is, he would be foolish not to use it as it legally allows him to.
And it scares me. He is directly working around a Congessional vote and is about to have another vote blocking it that he has to veto. The Act needs to be changed. It works around Congess to fund pet projects without consent. And I think that most non zealots look at it that way. YMMV."The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is sometimes hard to verify their authenticity." -Abraham Lincoln
- Top
Comment
-
Originally posted by AlabamAlum View Post
What funds were appropriated? Specifically, when, how much, and tied to what?
And it scares me. He is directly working around a Congessional vote and is about to have another vote blocking it that he has to veto. The Act needs to be changed. It works around Congess to fund pet projects without consent. And I think that most non zealots look at it that way. YMMV.
the money is being diverted to the counterdrug account from appropriated military funds via the general transfer authority of the defense secretary, a power that congress granted. As a matter of constitutional law, Congress has given the executive branch the authority to redirect funds, the appropriations committees cannot veto any particular exercise of that power.
- Top
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kapture1 View Post
well what some see as a vanity wall or pet project, It 100% is actually securing our southern border of the United States. It is why I voted for him, as our southern border remains unprotected. It is an utter failure of congress as the reason we have a crisis on that border, and it has been a crisis for decades. I say he should have done this on day one, but do appreciate that he gave congress a chance to do their jobs, which of course they failed. Just because congress failed their duty to the American people doesn't make it any less a crisis.
the money is being diverted to the counterdrug account from appropriated military funds via the general transfer authority of the defense secretary, a power that congress granted. As a matter of constitutional law, Congress has given the executive branch the authority to redirect funds, the appropriations committees cannot veto any particular exercise of that power."The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is sometimes hard to verify their authenticity." -Abraham Lincoln
- Top
Comment
-
well sure, one is for the protection of our nation and her citizens, and the other is for the aid and comfort of foreign nationals here illegally.
but there is the rub, what is the difference between the polling numbers of those that support increased border security VS those that support the continued flow of illegals into this country, and treating them better than our own veterans and homeless population? In that theoretical, 0bama and the dems would have suffered GREATLY at the ballot box. I just don't see the overwhelming disapproval with border security.
It wouldn't have just been me that lost my mind, and they would have felt it.Last edited by Kapture1; March 14, 2019, 03:05 PM.
- Top
Comment
Comment