"National Emergency" it is!

[_Kevin Graham]

Ajax erroneously believes democrats only started just now being against the wall, ignoring the fact that most democrats, Pelosi included, voted against the fence in 2006.

In reality, six Republicans broke ranks with Trump today when they voted in favor of the bill proposed by Democrats and against the one that would include wall funding.

So whose idea is truly the radical one?

[_EAllusion]

I was wondering how that worked, given that Obama was President 10 years ago and presidents don’t “vote” on bills.

My guess is he's citing a social media meme that has aged a little. Then he'll dismissively call some legitimate news story "fake news" in the near future without a hint of self-awareness.

[_Kevin Graham]

I was wondering how that worked, given that Obama was President 10 years ago and presidents don’t “vote” on bills.

My guess is he's citing a social media meme that has aged a little. Then he'll dismissively call some legitimate news story "fake news" in the near future without a hint of self-awareness.

I'm betting he just derails the subject and starts talking about how much bogus disability claims from brown people are preventing him from being a successful glasses salesman.

[_Res Ipsa]

Yes, even with the radical conservatives on the bench, you'd think that this is such an obvious no-brainer that even they couldn't be this stupid.

Stupidity has nothing to do with it. It’s a difficult question. The Court could easily decline to intervene on separation of powers grounds. If I recall correctly, the statute delegates to the President the power to declare an emergency, but doesn’t define what an emergency is. Therefore, Congress gave the president to define what constitutes an emergency. Moreover, Congress included a provision to override a declaration if it disagrees with the President. Therefore, this is a question to be resolved between the Congress and the President, with no role for the Court.

Well, easily might be a little exaggeration. But a Conservative court could make it work.

[_EAllusion]

Yes, even with the radical conservatives on the bench, you'd think that this is such an obvious no-brainer that even they couldn't be this stupid.

Stupidity has nothing to do with it. It’s a difficult question. The Court could easily decline to intervene on separation of powers grounds. If I recall correctly, the statute delegates to the President the power to declare an emergency, but doesn’t define what an emergency is. Therefore, Congress gave the president to define what constitutes an emergency. Moreover, Congress included a provision to override a declaration if it disagrees with the President. Therefore, this is a question to be resolved between the Congress and the President, with no role for the Court.

Well, easily might be a little exaggeration. But a Conservative court could make it work.

The problem I see with this argument the statue is written to limit circumstances in which it can be invoked to when there is an ongoing national emergency that requires military intervention. But if the President can simply use the military and its budget for any construction project the President wants by calling it a security emergency, then it becomes circular, and the statue could've simply said the President gets to use said funds how s/he sees fit. The language spelling out limitations becomes pointless. You have to ignore what the law intends and suppose the people who passed it are morons for having included that language. That's enough of a loophole for a motivated court, but it doesn't at all seem like the right call.

[_EAllusion]

I think there’s a decent chance the Supreme Court rules against Trump. Most of the Court will be bothered by the prospect of a president making an end-run around Congress any time he doesn’t get his way. A conservative judicial philosophy doesn’t always align with immediate Conservative goals.

In cases with this type of partisan profile, it's easier to predict court voting behavior based on partisan break-down, especially as the GOP has gotten more efficient at nominating justices to the bench with a GOP operative profile. I'm being somewhat cynical in my guess, but it doesn't take a lot to get to 5 in a question like this. "Decent" is a vague term, but to put a number on it, I'd say better than 20% chance.

[_Kevin Graham]

I know he has authority to "declare" emergencies. I just don't see a legal loophole that would get around the Constitution. Where is he allowed to spend any sum of taxpayer money not appropriated by Congress?

[_Res Ipsa]

I know he has authority to "declare" emergencies. I just don't see a legal loophole that would get around the Constitution. Where is he allowed to spend any sum of taxpayer money not appropriated by Congress?

Congress gave him the authority. What the specific statutes do is allow him to take money allocated to construction projects and reallocate it to other projects.

[_Res Ipsa]

The problem I see with this argument the statue is written to limit circumstances in which it can be invoked to when there is an ongoing national emergency that requires military intervention. But if the President can simply use the military and its budget for any construction project the President wants by calling it a security emergency, then it becomes circular, and the statue could've simply said the President gets to use said funds how s/he sees fit. The language spelling out limitations becomes pointless. You have to ignore what the law intends and suppose the people who passed it are morons for having included that language. That's enough of a loophole for a motivated court, but it doesn't at all seem like the right call.

Well, let’s game it out. The blanket emergency statute has no relevant limitations. There are two specific statutes that potentially apply. One requires that the national emergency require use of the armed forces. The other requires only that the National Emergency “May require” use of the Armed Forces.

Isn’t Trump’s argument that the National Emergency is illegal border crossings and that he has already had to involve the armed forces? And that building the wall is National Defense? With a few exceptions, the Court has been deferential to the President when it comes to emergency powers. And it’s not hard to distinguish building a fortification on the border from seizing an industry.

Dammit, now I’m talking myself out of my position...

[_moksha]

Too bad Trump does not believe in global warming. He could have held America hostage to demand billions for really big fans - the best fans - fans that all rotate right and provide the needed chilling effect. Best of all, the fans could be powered by coal from West Virginia, and Valkenvania, New Jersey.

Maybe even have some streamers that read, "Trump is the best President ...EVER!" Of course, we can always print that on bumper stickers for the wall, but they would have to be facing the American side. Mexicans can't read American. #MAGA