Trump may have just tanked the entire defense of his ‘national emergency’ with this one sentence

When they say rambling, they mean rambling. Trump's 'declaration' was babbling bloviation. It was hard to listen to and infuriating to READ. 

He's his own worst enemy.

Love the bit's where he tells Acosta and other reporters to shut up and sit down.

That he only takes info from DHS if he agrees with it, lol..........

You may have missed it then, when Acosta told the President that the crisis wasn't real, Trump told him to go tell the gold star mothers, who were sitting there, that.  The activist pretending to be a reporter then sat down with his tail between his legs.

The whole press conference was a disaster, for Trump. A BIG FAIL...

You may have missed it then, when Acosta told the President that the crisis wasn't real, Trump told him to go tell the gold star mothers, who were sitting there, that.  The activist pretending to be a reporter then sat down with his tail between his legs.

Everyone missed that since it didn't happen that way Vic.

BTFW, they're called 'Angel moms'.

Trump attacks Gold Star parents. 

Can't you ever admit to the simple truth?

"President Donald Trump, during a heated exchange with CNN's Jim Acosta over critics' claims that he'd manufactured a national emergency at the nation's border, told the CNN correspondent he'd "ask the angel moms" attending his Rose Garden event if they think he made up his claims."

newsmax

So there it is....Acosta being handed his rotten ass

[deleted]

Can't you ever admit to the simple truth?

Can't YOU? You said:

You may have missed it then, when Acosta told the President that the crisis wasn't real, Trump told him to go tell the gold star mothers, who were sitting there, that.  The activist pretending to be a reporter then sat down with his tail between his legs.

So now you quote a truncated snippet and think that you've made a point. You haven't. You see, I've actually READ the transcript. 

Let's look at what was ACTUALLY said:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I wonder if you could comment on this disconnect that we seem to have in this country, where you are presenting information about what’s happening at the border — calling it an “invasion,” talking about women with duct tape over their mouths, and so on — and yet there’s a lot of reporting out there, there’s a lot of crime data out there, there’s a lot of Department of Homeland Security data out there that shows border crossings at a near-record low —
THE PRESIDENT: That’s because of us. But it’s still —
Q — that shows undocumented immigrants committing crime at lower levels —
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me. It’s still massive numbers of crossings.
Q — that shows undocumented criminals — or undocumented immigrants committing crime at lower levels than native-born Americans. What do you say — THE PRESIDENT: You don’t really believe that stat, do you? Do you really believe that stat?
Q What do you — well, let me ask you this —
THE PRESIDENT: Take a look at our federal prisons.
Q I believe in facts and statistics and data, but —
THE PRESIDENT: Okay? Any more? Quick, let’s go.
Q Let me just ask you this: What do you say to your critics who say that you are creating a national emergency, that you’re concocting a national emergency here in order to get your wall because you couldn’t get it through other ways?
THE PRESIDENT: I ask the Angel Moms: What do you think? Do you think I’m creating something?
Ask these incredible women, who lost their daughters and their sons. Okay?
THE PRESIDENT: Because your question is a very political question because you have an agenda. You’re CNN. You’re fake news. You have an agenda. The numbers that you gave are wrong.
Take a look at our federal prison population. See how many of them, percentage-wise, are illegal aliens. Just see. Go ahead and see. It’s a fake question.

So Costa asked him about data and statistics and Trump asks if Costa believes them.

Then Costa asks about critics saying Trump is creating a National Emergency to get his wall and Trump says ask the ANGEL moms. [Note, he deflected.]

Then Trump devolves into calling the question fake news and states that the number Costa gave are wrong. 

Trump denies the data from his own fucking government. The follow up question was about what stats he uses: 

THE PRESIDENT: Let me tell you, you have stats that are far worse than the ones that I use. But I use many stats, but I also use Homeland Security.

Still deflecting. 

So there it is....Acosta being handed his rotten ass

Trump didn't hand anyone their ass, he just showed his own. 

Does President Donald Trump properly care about the innocents injured and killed individuals across this country, or is this just about deaths which matter to a trumpian conservative agenda. I saw that "moment" in real time, and it was Trump grandstanding -and doing so in the manner grandstanders do in the heat of an argument- he called out or she volunteered herself in her poster image of a loss one for this moment.

However, let me be clear, her loss of a love one is sad - but no sadder than all the losses pervasive across this country from every form of murder which occurs! She was a "handy convenience" for Trump to "reach over and grab."

Mr. Acosta asked the right question in a partisan setting he could not possible win; thus, he was overwhelmed.

and doing so in the manner grandstanders do in the heat of an argument-

He did so in the manner that progressives usually do - with an emotional argument, with victims present.


Mr. Acosta asked the right question in a partisan setting he could not possible win; thus, he was overwhelmed.

Acosta made a long ideological speech before asking his ridiculous question. The only reason the President calls on him is to show the nation how biased the media has become. If I was President I would never call on him and I woundn't allow any of my spokesmen to call on him. CNN would have to replace him.

I saw that "moment" in real time, and it was Trump grandstanding -and doing so in the manner grandstanders do in the heat of an argument- he called out or she volunteered herself in her poster image of a loss one for this moment.

The only 'argument' was based on Trump fabrication vs. the data based facts supplied by Trump's own government Agencies. Trump was challenged to cite what he based his decisions on and his answer was the DHS and Angel Moms. The Angel moms were Trump's props. 

Thank you; those Angel Moms and others were used by a "master" manipulator. What's worse is those families should have known it, the media knew it, and so did the watching public, including the conservatives in the audience!

I won't dare touch President Trump's motivation for calling on a reporter since it is not easy to know it from a great distance. The question was and is a direct question fit for the level of discourse taking place in a press conference. The President deferred to grieving moms, who would have been better served by letting their silence speak on their behalf. Actually, Angel Moms, had no place to speak at an impromptu news conference.

To be fair, Acosta walked into the "buzz-saw" of wounded souls strategically setting in the audience. He could not win, though I commend him for asking the question! Now, Jim Acosta is being "dutifully" lambasted by conservative media with the usual "Trump owned Acosta" childishness we have come to know so well in these modern times.

What is worse is you, Vic Eldred, taking the opportunity to argue over grieving moms and not over the fact that something significant just happened in CONSERVATIVE politics.

What is worse is you, Vic Eldred, taking the opportunity to argue over grieving moms and not over the fact that something significant just happened in CONSERVATIVE politics.

Something significant HAS happened in Conservative politics. Unfortunately, Conservatives don't know what that is. They don't know what they inherited some time between 2012 and 2016, but Donald Trump knew.

They don't know what they inherited somewhere between 2012 and 2016, but Donald Trump knew.

WTF does what JUST HAPPENED have to do with what you allege Conservatives 'inherited' between 2012 and 2016? 

Are you defining what CB is referring to?

Let's get it from your 'lips' Vic Eldred:

1. Are you one of a few (or many) conservatives deserting limited government constitutional powers for a pursuit in gaming the system?
2. Any concerns about a virtual imperial presidency?

I think my position is clear, but ok, Just for you:   I am always on the side of the Constitution. I am also in favor of the President testing the system if he believes he has the right to declare an emergency in regards to all that is going on along the southern border. I will stand by the decision of the SCOTUS. 

In addition I respect the role of congress in standing for what they believe are the powers given to them under Article 1 of the Constitution and all those who desire a legal remedy (the ACLU, CA government officials etc). I think the Courts will deliberate and come to a just finding. After a long legal fight, I expect the President will lose the legal battle and win the political one ("the dems obstructed me"). In the meantime I can only hope that the Cruz idea of confiscating El Chapo's wealth for the building of a wall turns into a dream come true.

So you see, my CONSERVATIVE views on the Constitution are very much intact.


Concerns about an imperial Presidency?

NONE

Why deflect?

I quoted YOU and replied to YOU. Got an answer to my question Vic? 

In the meantime I can only hope that the Cruz idea of confiscating El Chapo's wealth for the building of a wall turns into a dream come true.

That 'dream' you want to come true violates 28 U.S.C. §524(c). 

28 U.S.C. §524(c). 

You mean this part ? 

Availability of appropriations

(a) Appropriations for the Department of Justice are available to the Attorney General for payment of—

(c)
(1) There is established in the United States Treasury a special fund to be known as the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund (hereafter in this subsection referred to as the “Fund”) which shall be available to the Attorney General without fiscal year limitation

(ii) payments to reimburse any Federal agency participating in the Fund for investigative costs leading to seizures;
(iii) payments for contracting for the services of experts and consultants needed by the Department of Justice to assist in carrying out duties related to asset seizure and forfeiture; and
(iv) payments made pursuant to guidelines promulgated by the Attorney General if such payments are necessary and directly related to seizure and forfeiture program expenses for—

Still trying to find where it says.....YOU CAN NOT USE IT ELSEWHERE !

SCOTUS and "Imperial presidency"? It is telling how the times can factor into the opinion-forming process. I will have to let that alone for now, as I do not know your POV of an opposing party control of government.

However, it is TELLING that President Trump and some conservatives are right now "sweet" on the Courts! Seems it was just a matter of days ago that courts to the conservative mind were "unelected activist judges."

Still trying to find where it says.....YOU CAN NOT USE IT ELSEWHERE !

Try looking under section E for what it CAN be used for. 

You're welcome. 

There is soooo much more in 28 U.S.C. §524(c) than what you picked out.

Love ALL the parts about "At the Discretion of the Attorney General" !

There is soooo much more in 28 U.S.C. §524(c) than what you picked out.

Yes there is, unfortunately for Trump, NONE of it has to do with BUILDING a fucking thing. In fact, neither the Defense or Homeland Security Agencies are mentioned...as authorized recipients. 

Love ALL the parts about "At the Discretion of the Attorney General" !

Yes and EACH of those sections SPECIFICALLY enumerate exactly kind of payments can be made and to whom. 

No money in there for Trump's WALL, NADA. 

He's never going to learn that words matter.  He's too used to lying and babbling.

He is a fucking disgrace

That is putting it mildly. 

It doesn't matter what he says here.  The facts are that Congress gave the President BROAD powers to declare a National Emergency.  Also, they cannot vote to end the National Emergency until 6 months after the declaration, then have to wait another 6 months before being able to vote to end the National Emergency a second time.

Here's the link to the PDF of the National Emergency Act of 1976:

govinfo

Fine...just remember. The right opened a can of worms.

A mass shooting is all it needs to declare semiautomatic weapons a national crisis.

And you'll have not one foot to stand on.

the difference the supreme will not over turn his declaration.

What lead you to that conclusion? 

The president can declare a national emergency he can't change a law pretty easy.

WTF does that have to do with your claim about the SCOTUS? 

A mass shooting is all it needs to declare semiautomatic weapons a national crisis.

Not really. Firearms are a Constitutional right to citizens. National security is a Constitutional responsibility of the federal government.

Supreme court would slap down anything democrats try to bring up as a national emergency concerning a Constitutional right.

Trump will win this on, too.

It happened AGAIN a few hours ago outside of Chicago.  4 cops shot, I dead, and the shooter was taken into custody.

It's easy to understand unless you are willfully ignorant.

Oh I fully understand that you're deflecting instead of answering my questions MUVA. 

Trump will win this on, too.

I think you are setting yourself up for disappointment. I doubt the SCOTUS will be very eager to give the executive branch an end run around congress when it comes to congress' primary duty. That whole power of the purse thing. If the SCOTUS were to uphold this then a Democrat could just as easily declare Climate Change to be a national emergency and use ED to purchase and shut down power plants and replace them with solar and wind farms. 

Any court upholding this would be making a HUGE mistake.

The president can declare a national emergency he can't change a law pretty easy.

He also can't change the Constitution, Article one of the Constitution gives Congress, not the president the power of the purse, it is up to Congress to decide how money is spent and, Congress, in spite of what you might think, hasn't told Trump he can spend money on a freaking wall, they haven't told him that he can take money from anywhere else and, use it for his wall. This goes against the Constitution and, as I've said before, if Trump is allowed to do this, it will make the Constitution no better than toilet paper.

It's a declaration of emergency that will be challenged in court just a gun ban the difference the supreme will not over turn his declaration.

What makes you think an assault rifle ban would be overturned? We had the Brady bill for a decade and it wasn't ruled unconstitutional, it just wasn't reauthorized due to the gun lobby padding Republican campaign coffers.

[deleted]

[Deleted]

[Deleted]

[Deleted]

[Deleted]

Folks, all conversation on this thread is at an end, as an impasse has been called.

Ticketed for violation of impasse rule?  Just wtf does that mean.  You know, never mind.  Not that anyone will care, but I am deactivating my account.  This ticket was the proverbial straw.  Ciao and gl NT members.  Some of you I will miss terribly.  

I have asked Perrie to review the way the latest Impasse rule is written.

Folks, all conversation on this thread is at an end, as an impasse has been called.

I had to see the tickets and then your notice...I was just tooling along replying to comments posed to me.

Understood.

Also, they cannot vote to end the National Emergency until 6 months after the declaration, then have to wait another 6 months before being able to vote to end the National Emergency a second time.

False. 

From YOUR link:

Not later than six months after a national emergency is declared, and not later than the end of each six-month period thereafter that such emergency continues, each House of Congress shall meet to consider a vote on a concurrent resolution to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated.

In short, they can vote on it the DAY it is declared if they so choose and thereafter just about any time they want...

READ MORE CAREFULLY. 

LMFAO! Yep, they could, but Trump has to sign it, if it were to pass. We know that won't happen. The only chance to kill it is in the courts. It will at least be tied up for several months and be a cornerstone campaign item for both parties. What I find hilarious, provided it does pass the courts, is that now the next Democrat to be President could declare a healthcare emergency on an aging populations and poof we have a new single payer system. Bravo GOP! Bravo!

We know that won't happen.

Did you note the veto proof vote on the bill Trump just signed. Who woulda thunk that would happen? Even the GOP has issues with their Constitutional powers being usurped. 

I didn't see the vote and the talking bots on the radio didn't think 2/3rds in both houses would fly. I'm optimistic though, that it will be tied up for so long and prove so unpopular nothing of any measure would get done. 

I also find it hilarious that The Big Deal Maker got less than he was originally offered. HAHAHAHAHA! He can't deal himself a ham sandwich from Congress!

I didn't see the vote and the talking bots on the radio didn't think 2/3rds in both houses would fly.

Well the talking bots were WRONG. 83-16 in the Senate. 

I'm optimistic though, that it will be tied up for so long and prove so unpopular nothing of any measure would get done.

Multiple states have standing, as does the House so it's a toss up which Circuit will file the first injunction. 

I also find it hilarious that The Big Deal Maker got less than he was originally offered. HAHAHAHAHA! He can't deal himself a ham sandwich from Congress!

Oh but Trump is thumping his chest and calling it a 'bigly' win. 

Coulter is doing a number on Twitter today. 

... the goal of a national emergency is for Trump to scam the stupidest people in his base for 2 more years.

The goal is to get Trump's stupidest votes to say "HE'S FIGHTING!" No he's not. If he signs this bill, it's over.

There ARE no emergency powers to build the if Trump signs this bill. It's like signing a confession - then immediately appealing it.

Throw a rock and you'll hit someone with more common sense than the people Trump surrounded himself with.

Yep, they could, but Trump has to sign it, if it were to pass. We know that won't happen.

And then each house will have to vote to override the veto, which means the GOP will have to either vote to cede part of congress' greatest power to the executive, or block a GOP president on his primary issue. If they do the former then every president going forward will be free to take the exact same route, and there is hardly a chance any future congress would block them, the precedent has been set. I just find the position dip shit has put his own party in to be hilarious. 

The only chance to kill it is in the courts.

I hope they do, this is a dangerous precedent. I really do not like the idea of presidents being able to just go around congress on matters of spending if they don't like the legislative outcome. 

What I find hilarious, provided it does pass the courts, is that now the next Democrat to be President could declare a healthcare emergency on an aging populations and poof we have a new single payer system. Bravo GOP! Bravo!

It is hilarious in a sad, things have just gotten so stupid that all you can do is laugh, kinda way.

Much as I may disagree with her, she is not a complete idiot. 

Throw a rock and you'll hit someone with more common sense than the people Trump surrounded himself with.

Says more about Trump than anyone else lol.

I find myself in agreement with Ann Coulter.  A most uncomfortable sensation.

I know, I feel the same way....too scary that for once she actually makes sense

Funny, you are ignoring a huge part of the law.  It is only a temporary measure, but only as long as a President puts it on the Registry and if Congress continues to agree with it.  We have well over 30 continuing National Emergencies already.

abcnews.go

Remember, the President has to cite the specific law that he is declaring a National Emergency for and stating which provisions allow him to act in such a way.

Oh, and here are the two sections of US Code title 10 that Trump invoked:

law.cornell

law.cornell

law.cornell

So the Secretary of Defense can call up Ready Reserve troops. That ought to go over big. 

law.cornell

So the Secretary of Defense can do MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, which is defined as:

(a)The term “military construction” as used in this chapter or any other provision of law includes any construction, development, conversion, or extension of any kind carried out with respect to a military installation , whether to satisfy temporary or permanent requirements, or any acquisition of land or construction of a defense access road (as described insection 210 of title 23). (b)A military construction project includes all military construction work, or any contribution authorized by this chapter, necessary to produce a complete and usable facility or a complete and usable improvement to an existing facility (or to produce such portion of a complete and usable facility or improvement as is specifically authorized by law). (c)In this chapter and chapter 173 of this title:

So while Trump can call a fence a WALL, he cannot call a WALL a MILITARY INSTALLATION. 

And since I'm one to support MY claims, here is the LEGAL definition of MILITARY INSTALLATION. 

(1)Military installationThe term “military installation”—

(A)means any land or interest in land owned by the United States and administered by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a military department, except land under the jurisdiction of the Assistant Secretary of the Army having responsibility for civil works;

(B)includes all public lands withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under public land laws and reserved for use by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a military department; and

(C)does not include any land described in subparagraph (A) or (B) that is subject to an approved recommendation for closure under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101–510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).

The US border is Administered by Secretary of Homeland Security, NOT the Secretary of Defense. 

HOWEVER, it looks like Trump intends to violate the Posse Comitatus Act since he included this little tidbit in his declaration:

if necessary, the transfer and acceptance of jurisdiction over border lands.

Frankly, I think Trump made a mistake in his order.  He should have cited this part of Title 10 as well:

law.cornell

(4)

The establishment (including an unspecified minor military construction project ) and operation of bases of operations or training facilities for the purpose of facilitating counterdrug activities or activities to counter transnational organized crime of the Department of Defense or any Federal, State, local, or tribal law enforcement agency within or outside the United States.

law.cornell

(3)The term “small scale construction” means construction at a cost not to exceed $750,000 for any project.

Trump has NO intention of being limited by how much MORE taxpayer funds he can spend on his vanity project. 

Dulay,

You forget, the border wall can be broken down into smaller projects, thereby bypassing the definition.

tom'

YOU forget that it's 25 MILLION per mile for the FENCE. Do the math. How many 'smaller projects' would have to be cited and authorized by the Secretary of Defense for every mile of Trump's WALL?

Remember, EACH project has to be documented individually and the costs have to be accounted for. 

Oh and BTW, that STILL doesn't address the FACT that unless and until the Secretary of DHS transfers jurisdiction over border lands to the Secretary of Defense, NONE of those 'smaller projects' can occur. 

Nor does it address the Posse Comitatus Act. 

The Posse Comitatus Act prevents the military from acting as a police force, it doesn't even apply to building barriers of any type.

And, you are trying to make something more complicated that it really is.  The paperwork is already required, all they have to do is place a manager over each "mini" project and set up a team to manage that project.  And, you now have split the project into multiple mini projects, the only thing is to name them at that point.  And, the Secretary of Homeland Security only has to sign paperwork to transfer the jurisdiction for the actual construction site while keeping the jurisdiction over the rest.  It would be the BLM and other departments that would have to hand over jurisdiction for their lands that we would have to worry about.  Remember, Border Patrol cannot access some lands for patrols due to other bureaus and departments controlling that land and refusing them access.

The Posse Comitatus Act prevents the military from acting as a police force, it doesn't even apply to building barriers of any type.

Actually, it prevents the military from 'executing the law' and the military may not be used to enforce domestic policy. 

You seem to be implicating that you think that the Military will be doing the building on the border. That's delusional. 

And, you are trying to make something more complicated that it really is. The paperwork is already required, all they have to do is place a manager over each "mini" project and set up a team to manage that project. And, you now have split the project into multiple mini projects, the only thing is to name them at that point. 

Oh is that ALL? Did you do the math tom? How many construction managers and crews is that tom?

And, the Secretary of Homeland Security only has to sign paperwork to transfer the jurisdiction for the actual construction site while keeping the jurisdiction over the rest.

What statute allows the Secretary of DHS to abdicate her responsibility tom? 

It would be the BLM and other departments that would have to hand over jurisdiction for their lands that we would have to worry about.

Most of the vast majority of the border of Texas is PRIVATELY owned tom. The BLM has jack shit to do with it. 

Remember, Border Patrol cannot access some lands for patrols due to other bureaus and departments controlling that land and refusing them access.

Do tell. Link? 

tom'

YOU forget that it's 25 MILLION per mile for the FENCE. Do the math. How many 'smaller projects' would have to be cited and authorized by the Secretary of Defense for every mile of Trump's WALL?

Remember, EACH project has to be documented individually and the costs have to be accounted for. 

Oh and BTW, that STILL doesn't address the FACT that unless and until the Secretary of DHS transfers jurisdiction over border lands to the Secretary of Defense, NONE of those 'smaller projects' can occur. 

Nor does it address the Posse Comitatus Act

BTW-- here's an interesting fact that may not be widely known-- about those who have the best kniowledge about the actual situation on the border.

Yes-- those who live there--and the Congresspersons who represent them:

Every Single Member Of Congress On The Border, Democrat Or Republican, They Don't Support The Wall

It doesn't matter what he says here.

I think a panel of judges will disagree.

Any judge stepping in will be violating the separation of powers.  Congress and the President are the only branches capable of deciding what is and what isn't a National Emergency.  The courts have no horse in this race and if they step in at all, those judges that do should be immediately impeached. 

Any judge stepping in will be violating the separation of powers.  Congress and the President are the only branches capable of deciding what is and what isn't a National Emergency.  The courts have no horse in this race and if they step in at all, those judges that do should be immediately impeached. 

Exactly HOW is Congress supposed to address the abuse of power other than taking Trump to court tom? 

BTW, ANYONE who is harmed by an action of the government has standing to bring suit in court. 

I can't WAIT for the trial discovery to be released. 

Any judge stepping in will be violating the separation of powers.  Congress and the President are the only branches capable of deciding what is and what isn't a National Emergency.

Even my 9 year old daughter knows there are three branches of government, all meant to provide checks and balances on each other. The Legislative, Executive and...? Come on Tom, I know you know it.... and? That's right! The judicial! So if a judge steps in, what is he actually doing instead of the erroneous claim you just made about violating a separation of powers? That's right, exercising their constitutional mandate of providing legal oversight on Presidential or legislative actions.

They have a couple of paths.  They can file a concurrent resolution.  The other is impeachment.  There is no abuse of power at all in regards to this anyways.  And, Congress cannot be harmed in this due to having given the President these powers and of which has been used over 50 times with 31 still ongoing.  And, since Congress gave these powers to the President along with the power to stop the President through both the Concurrent Resolutions and impeachment, the third branch has no say except as a mediator should both parties agree to do so.

The judge cannot step in otherwise he is absconding powers delegated to the Congress and/or the President.  The Judiciary is not there to decide who is right, only who has the powers assigned to them in a case of Constitutional authority.  The Constitution grants the Congress and the Presidency the rights to declare National Emergencies.  The Congress even granted the President authority to use some Congressional powers by creation the National Emergency Act of 1976 and over 50 National Emergencies have been declared since that time period and 31 of those are still active.  If your 9 year old is so smart, where does it give the courts the authority to just override powers granted to another branch for no reason other than someone complained?

They have a couple of paths. 

One of which is to file suit. 

There is no abuse of power at all in regards to this anyways. And, Congress cannot be harmed in this due to having given the President these powers and of which has been used over 50 times with 31 still ongoing.

The Congress didn't codify the National Emergencies Act solely of the purpose of redistributions of funds that have already been appropriated by Congress. 

And, since Congress gave these powers to the President along with the power to stop the President through both the Concurrent Resolutions and impeachment, the third branch has no say except as a mediator should both parties agree to do so.

Again, the Congress and a plethora of other Americans could be harmed by Trump's 'I'm on my way to Mar o Lago Emergency'. They have standing to file suit. That isn't 'mediation', it's litigation. 

Congress does not have the ability to file suit until they have filed the concurrent resolution.  Other cases have been thrown out because the party bringing the suit failed to use other means available to them first before filing the suit.  So, right now, Congress has no standing.

Other cases have been thrown out because the party bringing the suit failed to use other means available to them first before filing the suit. 

I find it interesting that you think that how other cases have faired should MATTER. The right brings suit against settled law ad nauseam and is cheered. 

So, right now, Congress has no standing.

The concurrent resolution will be filed as early as Tuesday. 

Please cite examples of settled law being constantly placed under suit?  There is no such thing as settled law, or there would be no cries of protecting Roe vs Wade when states use modern science to create a bill to protect a fetus with a heartbeat, since the science suggests that as soon as it has a heartbeat it can feel pain.

And, for Congress to have standing; BOTH the House and Senate have to pass it.

Any judge stepping in will be violating the separation of powers.

How so? A judge will only be stepping in because a suit has been filed, which several have and others are underway. 

Congress and the President are the only branches capable of deciding what is and what isn't a National Emergency.

But the judicial branch is well within is rights to determine if the executive has overstepped its bounds when a suit is filed.

The courts have no horse in this race and if they step in at all

Considering Trump has/is being sued, yes they do. Hence why everyone (except you apparently) is saying this will come down to a SCOTUS decision.

those judges that do should be immediately impeached. 

For doing what the judiciary is supposed to do?

Congress does not have the ability to file suit

But states do, cities do, and individuals/organizations do. Again, suits have already been filed and more are being filed. This is already going to the courts.

Please cite examples of settled law being constantly placed under suit?  There is no such thing as settled law, or there would be no cries of protecting Roe vs Wade

You answered your own question. I'd add Obergefell, Brown, Lawrence and Loving.  

when states use modern science to create a bill to protect a fetus with a heartbeat, since the science suggests that as soon as it has a heartbeat it can feel pain.

Your promulgating junk science. 

scienceprogress

And, for Congress to have standing; BOTH the House and Senate have to pass it.

Nope. In FACT, if they DON"T pass the CR, Congress has MORE standing, not less. 

Fetal pain is the new silent scream

Nope, both Houses have to pass it and then the President veto it for them to have standing.  That is because a concurrent resolution has to be agreed to by both Houses, otherwise, there is no harm being done to Congress.  Congress gave the President this power and if they didn't want a President to use it; they should have not given him the power in the first place.

So, you are saying that Embryology doesn't know what occurs when in the development of the nervous system?  Remember, nerves include pain receptors.

embryology.med.unsw.au

Nope, both Houses have to pass it and then the President veto it for them to have standing. 

Link? Prove it. 

I don't think you READ your link:

One is scarcely justified in classifying the early sensory func· tions as touch or pain. Strictly speaking, the fetus experiences no sensation whatsoever; it simply responds automatically, reflexly, in the early part of prenatal life. It is true that the neurons are activated by external environmental changes and may be considered exteroceptive, but there is nothing about their structure and nothing about the response itself which would indicate that some subserve pain and others touch or cutaneous pressure. It is the opinion of some investigators that both pain and touch are differentiated in late fetal life. Very little difference could be observed in cat fetuses between responses elicited by coarse but innocuous stimuli and ones which produced demonstrable trauma until after the 45th day of gestation. Even at full term, pain, touch and pressure are not well differentiated Raney and carmichaels have dealt with the question of localization to tactual stimuli in relation to the genesis of space perception in the rat. They found greater specificity of response as the time of birth approached.

Not meant to be...silent scream was a pro lifer hoax that pro lifers clung to until the idiot who made the video finally admitted it was a hoax.

No one can tell with certainty when a fetus feels pain, so it is another thing pro lifers cling to WITHOUT ANY FACTS TO BACK IT UP, same as they did with the silent scream video.

Dude, jellyfish "feel" pain, but they have nothing even remotely close a functional brain as it applies to humans. So great, in the first trimester a fetus has the same pain receptors as a jellyfish. You are trying to make it sound as if there is a conscious being that would be experiencing that pain, which of course couldn't be farther from the truth. Just because nerve endings are able to do what they are supposed to do does not mean that "anyone" is listening. 

I can tell! The nerves will do what they are supposed to do from the moment they are generated. However, that does not mean that there is a conscious being receiving that info from the nerves. Kinda like how when my wife had a c-section, I am certain the nerves in her lower half were screaming pain, but thanks to the anesthetics, no one was listening, so they may as well not have been doing anything at all. Same thing with a fetus. If the nerves are screaming pain but there is no one there to listen, what does it matter? 

 Congress could reverse it if they wish:

It would be straightforward for Congress to reverse a declaration of national emergency. The National Emergencies Act gives legislators authority to reject a presidential declaration of national emergency through  simple legislation  that would require majorities in the House and Senate. President Trump would presumably veto such action. Legislators would have the opportunity to override a presidential veto with a two-thirds majority vote. That of course would be no easy task in the current Congress.

Because of the way the National Emergencies Act was drafted, Congress is better positioned to take action than the courts — assuming enough members are moved to act. If Congress does nothing, then the law could become a vehicle for presidential abuse, especially because the act’s language seems to grant the president broad discretion that could insulate an emergency declaration from legal challenge.

All eyes should be on Congress.

(LINK)

Oh tom...

 “I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster.”

 He just handed Pelosi the loaded gun to shoot down financing for the wall.

God that guy is stupid. The situation is such an emergency that a GOP controlled congress didn't give him money for it, he shot the Democrats down when they offered him $25 billion in exchange for DACA protections, a bipartisan congress wouldn't fund it, he waited 2 years to declare an emergency, and then on television admits that it actually isn't an emergency but that he wants to build it faster rather than more slowly so that's why he declared an emergency.

A lot of times I am not actually entirely sure he even knows what words are coming out of his mouth. 

A lot of times I am not actually entirely sure he even knows what words are coming out of his mouth. 

I challenge you to go and read the transcript of the 'declaration'. I needed a glass of wine to get through it and that was at about 2PM, not my usual cocktail hour...

It's glaringly obvious that he is unencumbered by facts or reality. 

I challenge you to go and read the transcript of the 'declaration'. 

Oh fuck no, I stopped reading anything he actually says during the election campaign. I just start getting too pissed off with how stupid he sounds. Its like reading something a brain damaged 5 year old would write. That is why I stopped listening to anything he says also, aside from the fact that his voice is annoying as fuck, he just sounds like a total dip shit. All I do these days is read a summary of what he has said, written by someone who actually passed 3rd grade English.

I needed a glass of wine to get through it and that was at about 2PM, not my usual cocktail hour...

Lemme guess, it was a lot of babbling, talking about how awesome he is followed by some completely baseless "facts", more self-compliments, blaming democrats for stuff, more compliments, and then saying he is declaring an emergency followed by him trying to suck his own pecker? 

It's glaringly obvious that he is unencumbered by facts or reality.

At this point I am positive he has lost touch with reality and truly believes that reality is whatever he says it is. 

It was painful to watch this news conference.  Without a teleprompter our POTUS is a blathering idiot.

This faux emergency cannot stand, the precedent would be devastating to our "co-equal" branches of government. 

Bottom line, a bipartisan committee put this together...President was slapped down, hard!  

 Without a teleprompter our POTUS is a blathering idiot.

He sounds like a total fucking moron even with a teleprompter. 

I find his speech writers attempt to provide a Presidential sounding script.  His spontaneous orations are a disjointed mess.

Watching the exchange today regarding border facts presented by government agencies that are at odds with the Presidents facts was stunningly embarrassing. 

A FB friend of mine posted this........This guy hits the nail on the head!

Best description of the moron in the White House yet, and from a Brit!

“Stolen from a friend. The best description of Trump I have ever read, from a Brit.

Someone on Quora asked "Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?" Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England wrote this magnificent response.

A few things spring to mind.

Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.

For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace - all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.

So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing - not once, ever.

I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility - for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.

But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is - his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.

And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults - he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.

Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.

Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.

And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.

Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.

He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.

He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.

That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.

There are unspoken rules to this stuff - the Queensberry rules of basic decency - and he breaks them all. He punches downwards - which a gentleman should, would, could never do - and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless - and he kicks them when they are down.

So the fact that a significant minority - perhaps a third - of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think 'Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
* Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
* You don't need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.

After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.

God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.

He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.

In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws - he would make a Trump.

And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish:

'My God… what… have… I… created?

If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set."

That was so good I read it twice.

Spot on!  My dear neighbor, from the UK, and I have had this same conversation.  His lack of humor (humour) is certainly offputting for many Brits.

Between our POTUS and BREXIT...we've never run out of "did you hear?" or "did you read?" topics to discuss.

If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set."

[deleted..]

[Deleted]

“All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures.” Julius Caesar.

"Trump may have just tanked the entire defense of his ‘national emergency’ with this one sentence "

"I could do the wall over a longer period of time,” he said. “I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster.”
"Legal experts immediately pointed out that this claim undercuts the basis for Trump’s emergency declaration."

Nah !

Before "States of Emergencies" are claimed, things can have gone on for a long time already . "States of Emergency" can go on forever too !

msn

" President Bill Clinton declared terrorism a national emergency precisely 24 years ago"

How long has the border problem been an issue now ?

It's Time for a "State of Emergency" on this unsolved "PROBLEM" !

Before "States of Emergencies" are claimed, things can have gone on for a long time already .

What lead you to that unsubstantiated conclusion? 

In FACT, things going on for a long time would infer that they aren't a National Emergency. 

It was in the comment you responded to !

Really? Please quote it in your next reply to highlight it for me...

If it is such a crisis then why did trump go to florida, shouldn't he stay in the situation room and manage said crisis

It seems to me that, if this is such an emergency, funds for the wall should be diverted from nonessential travel by Trump and his family.

But we know it's not that much of an emergency.

It infers nothing was done about it

Which AGAIN infers that it isn't a National Emergency. 

Ironically, y'all have decried the fact that Democrats voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006 but wouldn't vote for Trump's wall. I'm pretty sure that the 2006 legislation did SOMETHING about border security and future legislation did so too...

[deleted !]

In FACT, things going on for a long time would infer that they aren't a National Emergency. 

Yes-- by definition, an "emergency" is something that requires immediate action"

I've never considered it to be a crisis. I have more important things to worry about than cheap labor crossing the border.

More to the point, Trump's National Security leaders JUST testified at a Congressional hearing late last month and NOT ONE of them said a fucking word about a 'National Security Emergency' on the border. 

In fact, here is the sum total of the 'Threat Assessment' on Mexico and Central America in NSA Director Coats statement:

We assess that Mexico, under new leadership, will pursue cooperation with the United States as it tries to reduce violence and address socioeconomic issues, but authorities still do not have the capability to fully address the production, flow, and trafficking of the drug cartels.

High crime rates and weak job markets will continue to spur US-bound migrants from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.

So here are some more 'words of wisdom' from Trump's declaration:

"In fact, the primary fight was on the wall. Everything else, we have so much, as I said, I don’t know what to do with it we have so much money. But on the wall, they skimped."

So Trump admits that he has so much money for border security that he doesn't know what to do with it yet he insists that he has to take DOD construction funds to build his WALL...

Perhaps someone can explain to me why he thinks its okay to take money appropriated to the DOD for a different purpose BUTT he can't take money appropriated to the DHS for a different purpose?