Senate Rejects Trump’s Border Emergency Declaration, Setting Up First Veto

  
Via:  atheist  •  one week ago  •  127 comments

Senate Rejects Trump’s Border Emergency Declaration, Setting Up First Veto
The 59-41 vote on the House-passed measures set up the first veto of Mr. Trump’s presidency.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday easily voted to overturn President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the southwestern border, delivering a bipartisan rebuke to what lawmakers in both parties deemed executive overreach by a president determined to build his border wall over Congress’s objections.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    one week ago

At least two Rs who voted against are already or soon will have strong challengers for 2020 in states that trending purple (AZ) and already blue (CO):   McSally and Gardner, no went with Scumbag.  Those challengers were already promising to make this issue a major attack point if either of them voted no.  McSally already lost one race because of her refusal to stand up to Scumbag.  Collins may not run but either way she's done for with regard to getting another senate term.   Scumbag put intense and malignant pressure on Rs before the vote and he's almost certain to ratchet his garbage mouth up several notches now on those who defied him.  

2020 is going to be fun.  

 
 
 
WallyW
1.1  WallyW  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1    one week ago

Looks like Republicans who side with the Democrats need to be voted out.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  WallyW @1.1    one week ago

Looks like Republicans who side with the Democrats need to be voted out.

You mean republicans who side with their constituents?  There American people are vastly opposed to Trump's stupid wall.

 
 
 
WallyW
1.1.2  WallyW  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.1    one week ago

Got a source or link, Ozzy?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.3  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.1    6 days ago

Well to be fair it's mostly those that are seeking the destruction of American culture as we know it that are against the wall.

 
 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.3    6 days ago
Well to be fair it's mostly those that are seeking the destruction of American culture as we know it that are against the wall.

Since America is a land of immigrants, except for Native Americans, I would simply LOVE to hear how you came up with that opinion....

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.3    6 days ago

Please define "American Culture"

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.7  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.5    6 days ago

That's a false cliche!  BTW, my son is more Native American than Fauxchanontas and he's not a fucking immigrant.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.8  Ozzwald  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.7    5 days ago
That's a false cliche!

So you're saying that Europeans did not settle in America, we were here before the Native Americans?  You're disputing written history?

BTW, my son is more Native American than Fauxchanontas and he's not a fucking immigrant.

Prove it.  Post his DNA results.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.1.9  Kavika   replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.7    5 days ago

If you son is American Indian that would make you or your wife AI or both of you. The other possibility is that he is adopted. 

If you, or your wife, or both of you are AI  than you should know your own tribe/language/culture/history and that of your son. 

If he is adopted you should also know his background as to tribe. 

BTW, Indians don't usually use the word Fauxchanontas, you should understand, possibly being AI, that it's demeaning and insulting to most Indians. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.1.10  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.4    5 days ago

All them posts in blue look real pretty until one realizes that there is absolutely no corroborating documentation to back them up. You are fond of disputing others who do not, in your opinion anyway, back themselves up with documentation. Well here is your chance to do the same. Time to put up or shut up...

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.11  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Kavika @1.1.9    5 days ago

Didn't say my son was Native American.  He is however American.  

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.12  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.8    5 days ago

That's not what I saying. You're welcome to reread my comment but you're not welcome to misinterpret it.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.13  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.6    5 days ago

You and I do not "define" American culture.  If you are unable to describe it then I suppose that would help explain a large part of the issue.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.1.14  Kavika   replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.11    5 days ago
Didn't say my son was Native American.  He is however America.

Good to know that he's American, but you did say that he is more Native American than Warren who has a tiny bit of AI blood. So that would seem to me that you're saying that he is AI...

BTW, my son is more Native American than Fauxchanontas and he's not a fucking immigrant.

That is your comment....

 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.1.15  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.13    5 days ago
You and I do not "define" American culture.

sure we do...  easily.      ( requires two words only.  )

liberty and security.

your welcome :)

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.16  Freedom Warrior  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.1.15    5 days ago

That's fine but I expect you will find plenty of members here willing to argue with you.

I'd prefer to honor it by describing the lives of those that were sacrificed to preserve it.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.17  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Kavika @1.1.14    5 days ago

Seem to me that you're saying that he is AI.

Given this quote, "Didn't say my son was Native American" it actually means that I am not saying that.  

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.1.18  1stwarrior  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.11    5 days ago

Not wanting to argue with you, but, this is EXACTLY what you said - "BTW, my son is more Native American than Fauxchanontas and he's not a fucking immigrant."  

Those specific words, in that one sentence, states that your son IS "Native American", and as a "Native American", yes, he is not an immigrant.

Now, if you wish, you may want to reread your comment and you actually may want to reinterpret it.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.19  Freedom Warrior  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.18    5 days ago

As I pointed out previously, he is NOT Native American despite the fact he is more so than EW.  

Which they should be be able to properly interpret if they were not blinded by a need to create a insectional identity argument.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.20  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  WallyW @1.1    5 days ago
Looks like Republicans who side with the Democrats need to be voted out.

The will be and replaced by Dems.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.21  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.19    5 days ago
As I pointed out previously, he is NOT Native American despite the fact he is more so than EW.

And that would be utterly false since she does have small amounts of native American DNA.  And, unless you are native American you certainly got here by way of immigrants.  

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.22  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.1.21    5 days ago

The notion that she is Native American is utterly false as she has proven it to be.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.23  Ozzwald  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.22    5 days ago

The notion that she is Native American is utterly false as she has proven it to be.

Are you ignorant of the FACT that her DNA showed a small amount of Native American (or American Indian)?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.23    4 days ago
Are you ignorant of the FACT that her DNA showed a small amount of Native American (or American Indian)

Would you consider a white man with 1/1024th of black blood in him to therefore BE black?

LMFAO!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.25  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.24    3 days ago
Would you consider a white man with 1/1024th of black blood in him to therefore BE black?

I would consider him to be PART AFRICAN AMERICAN.  Wouldn't you???

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.25    3 days ago

Hell NO.

That is rather silly.

When it is such a low percentage, NO.

Going by your definition of "part", that makes virtually no one white, black, or other.

Gee. I wonder how they'll portion out the reparations?

LOL!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.27  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.26    3 days ago
When it is such a low percentage, NO.

Then show me the LAW that says how large a percentage is required.

Here's mine:  

In the United States, the “one-drop rule” — also known as hypodescent — dates to a 1662 Virginia law on the treatment of mixed-race individuals. The legal notion of hypodescent has been upheld as recently as 1985, when a Louisiana court ruled that a woman with a black great-great-great-great-grandmother could not identify herself as “white” on her passport.

‘One-drop rule’ persists

One-drop rule

The One Drop Rule: How Black Is "Black?"

The "One Drop Rule" has been upheld as recently as 1985, so unless you can provide a newer law that actually states the necessary percentage, you lose.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.27    3 days ago
The "One Drop Rule" has been upheld as recently as 1985, so unless you can provide a newer law that actually states the necessary percentage, you lose.

One-drop rule
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The one-drop rule is a social and legal principle of racial classification that was historically prominent in the United States in the 20th century. It asserted that any person with even one ancestor of sub-Saharan African ancestry ("one drop" of black blood)[1][2] is considered black (Negro in historical terms).
This concept became codified into the law of some states in the early 20th century. It was associated with the principle of "invisible blackness" that developed after the long history of racial interaction in the South, as well as the hardening of slavery as a racial caste. It is an example of hypodescent, the automatic assignment of children of a mixed union between different socioeconomic or ethnic groups to the group with the lower status, regardless of proportion of ancestry in different groups.[3]
The legal concept of the "one-drop rule" does not exist outside the United States.[4] It is defunct in law in the United States and was never codified into federal law.

There ya go!

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.29  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.28    3 days ago
It is defunct in law in the United States and was never codified into federal law. There ya go!

Yep, there ya go, wikipedia, no federal law.

You can also search for "Black Codes" on Wikipedia and read about the 9 states that define Negro "rights" in the post Civil war era.

And this is an interesting case in LA which in 1983 changed it's 1/32 rule to "traceable amounts"

https://www.nytimes.com/1983/07/06/us/louisiana-repeals-black-blood-law.html

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.30  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.29    3 days ago

Which, if ever appealed to SCOTUS, would be found to be wrong.

Sorry, no matter what anyone says, someone who is 99% black is still black, no matter what the other 1% or less is.

Do you think white people who have 1/1024th of black blood should be classified as black?

That is silly.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.31  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.30    3 days ago

It is silly. 

Unfortunately, the race obsession of many Democrats means our government discriminates on the basis of race. So race classifications straight out of the Jim Crow era have huge legal and financial ramifications.

It's no surprise that lying about the applicants race was one of the tools used in the college admissions fraud ring just exposed by the FBI.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.32  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.29    3 days ago

Racial Integrity Act  (of Virginia )

arrow-bubble.pngTitle: Application for Marriage  License

Application for Marriage
License

Another law passed in 1924 defined a colored person as having one-sixteenth or more "negro blood" (the same as in 1910) and an Indian as having the same proportion of "Indian blood" (a broadening of the 1910 definition). The Racial Integrity Act went a step further and attempted a first for Virginia: defining a white person. According to the proposed law, to be white a person must have "no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian"—in other words, the standard already being applied by Walter Plecker. However, people who had less than one sixty-fourth part Indian and no African American heritage would still be considered white. This exception catered to those elite Virginians who counted themselves as descendants of Pocahontas and John Rolfe.

This legislation was also stuck down by Loving v. Virginia in 1967 which effectively ended the ban on multiracial marriages in 16 states.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.33  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.28    3 days ago

There ya go!

Failure to provide any updated law that refutes my statement, YOU LOSE!

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.34  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.33    3 days ago

There is no federal law regarding that. Did you believe there was?

Do you think a white person with 1/1024th black blood in them should be classified as black?

What did you "win"?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.35  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.34    3 days ago
There is no federal law regarding that. Did you believe there was?

Apparently you did since you claimed that it should not legally make a difference if someone has minority blood.

Do you think a white person with 1/1024th black blood in them should be classified as black?

Already answered this...  Nobody is claiming that, however that person can claim partial heritage based on the 1/1024th amount of minority blood.  As I showed, "Single Drop" has been upheld as recently as 1985.

What did you "win"?

The argument, over someone who was blatantly trying to perpetrate a falsehood by claiming it as fact. (that would be you by the way)

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.36  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.35    3 days ago

Single drop has not been upheld by a federal court since at LEAST the 1980's.

Let's stay current, shall we?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.37  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.36    2 days ago

Let's stay current, shall we?

Then you need to provide more up to date case law in this area.  Trouble is that you have NOTHING, so you substantiate your claims with NOTHING.  

Single drop was upheld in 1985, YOU provide a more up to date legal case that over rides the 1985 one.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.38  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.37    2 days ago

Not by any federal court. I am sure your extensive research told you THAT, huh?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.39  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.38    2 days ago
Not by any federal court. I am sure your extensive research told you THAT, huh?

Yup, which means you have nothing but "your opinion", which will not hold up legally speaking.  Like I said you have nothing.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.40  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.39    2 days ago
'Like I said you have nothing.'

She never does.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.41  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.39    2 days ago
Yup, which means you have nothing but "your opinion", which will not hold up legally speaking. Like I said you have nothing.

Well, since I have claimed that there is no federal law governing how much blood it takes to qualify as a minority, I suppose that is all I need.

Now, if you want to espouse your pet theory about "one drop rule" being current and applicable today, have loads of fun peddling that bullshit to someone who might care.

it sure ain't me!

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.42  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.40    2 days ago

Oh, Tessy. Tessy, Tessy.

Still having trouble with defining males and females?

Need help?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.43  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.41    22 hours ago
Now, if you want to espouse your pet theory about "one drop rule" being current and applicable today, have loads of fun peddling that bullshit to someone who might care.

Prove it is not.  I have shown that it was upheld in 1985, if you can't show anything overriding it after that date, you still HAVE NOTHING.

 
 
 
cjcold
1.1.44  cjcold  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.19    21 hours ago

Seen a few attempts to derail a thread before but this one is blatant.

I've seen training videos from the Heartland Institute that teach one how to derail conversations.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.45  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.43    20 hours ago

You are fucking joking, right?

No federal court has upheld one-drop ever to my knowledge, and certainly not in the last 50 years.

Unless you can prove otherwise, you are simply barking up the wrong tree.

What is the fascination the one drop rule holds for you, anyways?

Aren't you ashamed that Democrats even started that bullshit?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.46  Freedom Warrior  replied to  cjcold @1.1.44    10 hours ago

Perhaps your time would be better spent researching the topics.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.47  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.45    an hour ago
You are fucking joking, right?

LOL...  Go away Texan, you got nothing...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1    one week ago
llins may not run but either way she's done for with regard to getting another senate term

Where do you get this from? She's one of the top 15 most popular members of the Senate in their home states. Her approval rating in January was 53%. 

what an irrational thing to say.   

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.1  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2    one week ago
She's one of the top 15 most popular members of the Senate in their home states. Her approval rating in January was 53%. 

But her 38% disapproval is among the highest.  She's been cutting the baby in half too long and getting away with it but her betrayal of women on the Kavanaugh vote will come back to haunt her.  I'd be surprised if she even runs for another Senate term in 2020. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.1    one week ago

The doddering traitor to women old bitch needs to go.

 
 
 
WallyW
1.2.3  WallyW  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.2    one week ago

How is she a "traitor to women"?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.2.4  1stwarrior  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.1    one week ago

betrayal of women on the Kavanaugh vote

WTF does that mean?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.2.5  1stwarrior  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.2    5 days ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.2.6  1stwarrior  replied to  1stwarrior @1.2.4    5 days ago

Hey Tessy - here's ANOTHER one you haven't answered.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  1stwarrior @1.2.4    4 days ago

What does it mean?

It means she showed a modicum of integrity in her vote on Kavanaugh, and some on the left won't have THAT.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.7    2 days ago

Integrity and the gop?

jrSmiley_40_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.2.9  KDMichigan  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.2    2 days ago
The doddering traitor to women old bitch needs to go.

She went. We neglected to elect that Hillaryious Bitch Clinton.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.3  1stwarrior  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1    5 days ago

You're serious???  There are 250 Republicans in Congress.  197 in the House and 53 in the Senate.  2 of them, in the Senate, didn't go with Trump's vote.  And you actually think that 3% of Repubs not voting with the Party-line is gonna break the bowl?????

BTW - Trump veto'd the bill - guess who got what he wanted, eh?

 
 
 
pat wilson
1.3.1  pat wilson  replied to  1stwarrior @1.3    5 days ago
2 of them, in the Senate, didn't go with Trump's vote. 
12 of them, in the Senate, didn't go with trump's vote.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.3.2  1stwarrior  replied to  pat wilson @1.3.1    5 days ago

Atheist just highlighted 2 Repub Senators - that's what I was addressing.

Still kinda doubt that 22% of Senate Repubs voting in opposition is gonna tear the political world apart.

Just wish the Dems/Libs would quit trying to turn the U. S. into a 3rd world country where they can be the supreme leaders.  Getting old - really old.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.3.3  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  pat wilson @1.3.1    5 days ago
12 of them, in the Senate, didn't go with trump's vote.

2, 12---numbers don't matter.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.3.4  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  1stwarrior @1.3.2    5 days ago
Atheist just highlighted 2 Repub Senators - that's what I was addressing.

Yeah, uh-huh.   In fact,  I used the words "at least" to describe the political fix that more Republican senators facing re-election in 2020 will be in as long as they knuckle under to Scumbag.  

 
 
 
Krishna
2  Krishna    one week ago

59-41. Wow! That's not even close.

(And perhaps what's even more significant is the large number of Republicans who have decided to oppose Trump's attempted unconstitutional power-grab!!!)

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1  WallyW  replied to  Krishna @2    one week ago

What's unconstitutional about it?

He'll veto it anyway, and find the money somewhere else

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  WallyW @2.1    one week ago
He'll veto it anyway, and find the money somewhere else

Yup, taking money away from our vets.  You must be so proud of him.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.2  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  WallyW @2.1    one week ago
and find the money somewhere else

There is no way his $8.6B for the "wall" in his budget proposal is even going to make it for a vote once the Dems replace it with their own budget.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.1.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.1    one week ago

Please tell us how he is taking money from our vets. I am a 20 year combat disabled and I'd be interested to hear your explanation.

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1.4  Ronin2  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @2.1.2    one week ago

That Dem budget needs to pass the Republican held Senate, and Trump then has to sign it. As the Republicans quickly found out when they only held the House and the Dems the Senate and WH; fat chance.

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1.5  WallyW  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.1    one week ago

Yup, taking money away from our vets.

You have a link or source to support that Ozzy

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.1.6  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  WallyW @2.1.5    one week ago

I'm betting heavily that you will see blatant deflection or out and out dead silence...jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
ArkansasHermit-too
2.1.7  ArkansasHermit-too  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.3    6 days ago
Please tell us how he is taking money from our vets.

If the courts allow Trumps bogus "National Emergency" declaration to stand then he has to steal his 8 billion dollars from somewhere, since Congress didn't authorize the amount per their Constitutional duty.

Follow the money: How President Trump's national emergency will pay for a border wall

The national emergency and other measures will free up $8 billion – far more than the $5.7 billion he initially demanded – to free up funding for 234 miles of bollard wall, the White House said. It's a move that is almost guaranteed to draw the White House into a lengthy legal battle over the president's ability to use the tool for that purpose.

So where will the White House find that money?

Military construction

Trump will attempt to access $3.6 billion in military construction money. Unlike other portions of the plan, the president must declare a national emergency to access this account, which has long been rumored to be under consideration. The money is used for military bases and other projects. President George W. Bush tapped into this same account after he declared a national emergency following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

White House officials said they did not yet know which military constructions might be cancelled or delayed by the move.
 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.1.8  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  ArkansasHermit-too @2.1.7    6 days ago

Sorry, but your rambling answer failed to explain how money will be taken away from vets. Military retirement pay and veteran's benefits are not tied into military construction funding.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  ArkansasHermit-too @2.1.7    6 days ago

Thanks for the truth/facts as usual AH!

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.1.10  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.9    6 days ago

He did not answer the question. He just quoted it and deflected to military construction. His facts had nothing to do with the question I asked Ozzwald.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.11  Ozzwald  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.3    6 days ago
Please tell us how he is taking money from our vets. I am a 20 year combat disabled and I'd be interested to hear your explanation.

If Trump declares an emergency, here’s where the money to build a border wall might come from

Here’s where the money for Trump’s border wall will come from

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.1.12  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.11    6 days ago

As I stated above, military retirement and VA benefits are not tied into DOD military construction budgeting. As for veteran's benefits, i.e. VA, that is a whole separate entity from DOD. So there again you have not answered properly answered the question yet.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.13  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.12    6 days ago

Do you use any services on military installations?

If so, be prepared for crumbling infrastructure. I can think of one right now that IMO is an emergency but if trmp gets his way, those stairs aren't going to get fixed and some young airman is going to break her/his leg.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.1.14  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.13    5 days ago

The answer to your question is no I do not. The closest military installation to me is over a hour's drive away. Not worth it to me in gas. I buy what I need locally and at Wal-Mart which is decidedly cheaper than on base. My local health care provider handles all my medical needs under Medicare and Tri Care.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.1.15  1stwarrior  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.13    5 days ago

Be prepared???  When I was on Active Duty with the USMC in the '60's, it was already crumbling.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.1.16  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.13    5 days ago
those stairs aren't going to get fixed and some young airman is going to break her/his leg.

That Airman is more likely to be assualted by an illegal alien.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.1.17  1stwarrior  replied to  ArkansasHermit-too @2.1.7    5 days ago

And, did you know that military construction money over $1M is NOT in the DoD budget?????

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.18  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.3    5 days ago
Please tell us how he is taking money from our vets. I am a 20 year combat disabled and I'd be interested to hear your explanation.

Scumbag hasn't specified where he'll steal the money to use on the wall and for good reason--to keep people like you who might be affected in the dark.  

 
 
 
cjcold
2.1.19  cjcold  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.8    21 hours ago
how money will be taken away from vets

Sub standard housing and pollution rivaling a superfund site.

VA funding which is abysmal.

Seems safely housing troops takes a distant second to funding new weapons systems (and walls).

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.2  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Krishna @2    one week ago

Much closer to a potential  veto override than anyone thought a few days ago. 

 
 
 
WallyW
2.2.1  WallyW  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @2.2    one week ago
No it's not. Where did you come up with that fiction.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @2.2    6 days ago

Don't they need 2/3 for an over ride?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.2.3  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.2    5 days ago

Yes.  So 67 votes and they're just 8 votes shy right now.  Twenty-two R senators are up for re-election in 2020.  

 
 
 
Ender
3  Ender    one week ago

Not enough to over turn a veto. Bring on the lawsuits.

 
 
 
WallyW
3.1  WallyW  replied to  Ender @3    one week ago
Bring on the lawsuits.

For what purpose?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  WallyW @3.1    one week ago

For what purpose?

Are you for the Government taking away private property against the owners will?

 
 
 
WallyW
3.1.2  WallyW  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.1    one week ago

It's called eminent domain.

Of course, if it's for the common good.

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.1    6 days ago

If this was for a high speed rail, a solar panel or wind farm, or something else that was an equally useless waste of tax payer money the left would be cheering it on. Private property be damned.

This is about securing the US border. Something the left is now against since Trump is in office; but was damn silent on when Obama was in charge and he expanded the border fence, and called up the National Guard as well to help process illegals at detention centers. Kids being separated from parents and put in cages, ignored while Obama was in charge- but soon as it is under Trump- strike the left outrage.

Want to claim that Trump's fence is a waste of money?  Fine.  Want to know what else is a waste of damn money? Continuing to ignore a growing problem at the southern border and allowing illegals into this country that the US taxpayer has to support.  Where the hell are we going to get all of the money to support all of these people? The majority of which don't speak English; don't have any skills to add to the labor force; looking to form community bastions to be with their own kind; and aren't looking to assimilate.

We also have a problem with people overstaying their work, education, travel, and other VISA's.  But a very loud and growing portion of Dems and their sheeple want to do away with ICE.  How are you going to get rid of them?

Ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Accept these first caravans and expect many, many, more to follow.  Expanding the fence, increasing the border patrol size and capabilities, and expanding ICE will all be needed not just to handle this crisis; but future crisis that will be sure to come down the road.

 
 
 
 
Split Personality
3.1.5  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.4    6 days ago

They need more CBP and they can't hire them faster than people are quitting.

Vast stretches are without towns or homes to support a CBP agent and his or her family.

Only a string of old fashioned Forts with base housing will fix certain issues.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1.6  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.3    6 days ago

But as long as it increases the left's voter base they can deal with it...

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.7  Ozzwald  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.3    6 days ago
If this was for a high speed rail, a solar panel or wind farm, or something else that was an equally useless waste of tax payer money the left would be cheering it on.

Showing that once again you have no concept of how the left thinks.

This is about securing the US border.

No, it's not.

Something the left is now against since Trump is in office

Trump has been given billions for border security, he hasn't spent that money yet.

Kids being separated from parents and put in cages, ignored while Obama was in charge

The few that were separated under Obama were done because of crimes being committed.  Trump has separated children from legal asylum seekers, then lost or deported the parents without their children.  Let us also not forget that only Trump is putting children in cages.

Continuing to ignore a growing problem at the southern border and allowing illegals into this country

You mean ignore a SHRINKING problem?

southwest-border-apprehensions-final.jpg

We also have a problem with people overstaying their work, education, travel, and other VISA's.

And a wall will help that how???

But a very loud and growing portion of Dems and their sheeple want to do away with ICE.

You mean a very small selection of Dems.  Claiming otherwise makes it a lie.

Ignoring the problem will not make it go away.

Correct, Republicans have been ignoring Trump for 2 years now, and he hasn't gone away.

Accept these first caravans and expect many, many, more to follow.

In order for you to claim this, you would have to ignore that they have been showing up (in decreasing amounts) for decades.  See above graph.

Expanding the fence, increasing the border patrol size and capabilities, and expanding ICE will all be needed not just to handle this crisis; but future crisis that will be sure to come down the road.

Now you're calling it a fence too?  Billions have already been allocated to increase border security, and billions more will be provided in the future.  This is not about border security, this is about Trump's stupid wall.  A wall that will not add any security to the southern border,   

You want to take action against immigrants illegally coming into the country?  Why is there no talk about penalizing the people and companies that hire them, thus encouraging them to enter?

 
 
 
WallyW
3.1.8  WallyW  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.5    5 days ago
They need more CBP and they can't hire them faster than people are quitting.
Vast stretches are without towns or homes to support a CBP agent and his or her family.
Only a string of old fashioned Forts with base housing will fix certain issues.

And the Democrats don't want to fund that either, forget about a wall.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.1.9  1stwarrior  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.7    5 days ago

And you have just shown just how little you know and understand about the REQUIREMENTS for spending allocated funding.

1st - yeah, the money has to be approved.

2nd - the projects for the funding then have to hit the streets in the "BID PROCESS" - which can take anywhere from 14 days to 365 days.  During that time, NO funding is expended.

3rd - the bids are reviewed and analyzed, top 3 selected and then a panel "usually" asks for a prototype for comparison to bids.

4th, 5th, 6th, etc. review and approval process.

While on active duty, I saw numerous projects/taskings that had been on the books for over 4 years - three or four of them for over 10 years - the funding, design and bids were still sitting on the shelves "waiting" for "higher authority" to say - go do it.

One issue here is - if Trump is actually going to use military construction money, it has to go through an entirely different process and, it involves Congressional Approval.  Why?  Because MilCon projects come from a different pot/source and there are many strings attached - Congressional strings.  So, I don't think he'll be going that route.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.1.10  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  WallyW @3.1.2    5 days ago
It's called eminent domain. Of course, if it's for the common good.

Aint it amazin' how you lot can flip your positions so fast when politically expedient?  I'm sure I'd win a good deal  money betting that you've ever defended "eminent domain" takings--at least when any Dem might have been involved.  BTW, if 60% of the country is against this wall, and higher than that for those who live right on the border, it's pretty hard to make the "common good" argument stick no matter how partisan you are. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.1.11  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3.1.10    5 days ago

So if more than half of that 60% say they are for border security then what are supporting?   Automatic gun turrets?

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.1.12  Split Personality  replied to  WallyW @3.1.8    5 days ago

Every bill passed by the Senate and House, including the most recent CRs that Trump signed has increased spending for agents and authorized 400 more agents

with a signing bonus of $10K and a starting salary of $52K, with expectations of making over $90,000 after 4 years.

And they still cannot attract enough people to pass the entry exams.......

CBP Losing Agents

But despite these efforts, CBP is losing agents faster than it can hire and train them. Field positions for the typical agent are a unique mix of both law enforcement and military-type duties. Many agents—especially those in the Border Patrol—are working in remote and austere environments. In past years, CBP established forward operating bases, or FOBs, where agents would camp out for one or two weeks at a time so they could respond more quickly to border incursions. However, this was akin to a short-term military deployment (without the military benefits), and tended to have a negative impact on morale.

These difficult assignments were addressed by the GAO report: “Officials cited employees’ inability to relocate to more desirable locations as a key retention challenge. CBP has offered some relocation opportunities to law enforcement personnel and has recently pursued the use of financial incentives and other payments to supplement salaries, especially for those staffed to remote or hard-to-fill locations.” The additional pay might be good incentive for some agents, but budget cuts within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) make this retention tool difficult to sustain.

https://inhomelandsecurity.com/border-patrol-losing-agents-can-hire/
 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.13  MUVA  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3.1.10    5 days ago

You are amazing at it for sure kodos.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.1.14  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.1.11    5 days ago
So if more than half of that 60% say they are for border security then what are supporting?  

Why is it we have to tell you people these things?  Why don't you ever find them out for yourselves?  Nevermind.  In fact, the bill passed and signed on Feb.15 contained over $60B in new funding for HSA (most of which will be squander on big toys, but that's another story).  Here's a general breakdown of the appropriations:

HOMELAND SECURITY, 2019

$61.6 Billion in Total Discretionary Spending

o $22.54 billion for border security, including unprecedented investments in physical barriers, law enforcement personnel, custody enhancements, humanitarian needs, and counter-narcotics and counter-weapons technology.

o $1.375 billion for construction of 55 new miles physical barriers along the southwest border in U.S. Border Patrol’s highest priority areas

o Includes support for 200 border patrol agents above the FY2018 level

o Supports record ICE detention capacity with no limitations on interior enforcement operations

o Provides $615 million for new equipment at ports of entry and the hiring of 600 new customs officers

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.1.15  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3.1.10    5 days ago

https://www.npr.org/2018/01/23/580037717/what-the-latest-immigration-polls-do-and-dont-say

It would seem that large portion of those 60% are incredibly ignorant.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.1.16  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  MUVA @3.1.13    5 days ago

"kodos?" 

Ya just can't make this up.  The comedy literally writes itself.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.1.17  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.1.15    5 days ago
It would seem that large portion of those 60% are incredibly ignorant.

And yet you're the one who had no idea where  the border security spending was going and how much.  Ever heard of the "look to thine own house" adage? 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.1.18  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3.1.17    5 days ago

Wrong again. Clearly you just made that up. It doesn't really matter though since there is no end game for you.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.1.19  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3.1.14    10 hours ago

So where is there any mention of automated gun turrets at remote border locations.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.2  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Ender @3    one week ago
Not enough to over turn a veto. Bring on the lawsuits.

But much closer than most people thought.  These clearly bi-partisan and overwhelming votes in both houses will certainly be taken into account in the courts.  

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.2.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3.2    one week ago
will certainly be taken into account in the courts.

that is so very not how the law works... trump is well within his rights to secure the border.

the supreme court  (the only court that matters on this issue) will not give one iota about a bi-partisan attempt to stop trump.

 

cheers :)

 
 
 
WallyW
3.2.2  WallyW  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.2.1    one week ago

Agreed. We have a fairer court now.

 
 
 
Rmando
4  Rmando    one week ago

It's sad that it's come to this to simply make our country secure. 20 million illegals prove the case for a wall by sheer numbers.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5  Vic Eldred    one week ago

The 1976 National Emergencies Act gives presidents sweeping authority as well as allowance in federal regulations to declare an “immigration emergency” to deal with an “influx of aliens which either is of such magnitude or exhibits such other characteristics that effective administration of the immigration laws of the United States is beyond the existing capabilities” of immigration authorities “in the affected area or areas.” The basis for such an invocation generally includes the “likelihood of continued growth in the magnitude of the influx,” rising criminal activity, as well as high “demands on law enforcement agencies” and “other circumstances.”

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/424314-yes-trump-has-authority-to-declare-national-emergency-for-border-wall

So the two questions are:

Why did congress grant the President such authority?

and

Why are they suddenly objecting to it now?

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.1  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @5    one week ago
On Dec. 16, 1950, President Harry S. Truman declared a state of emergency in response to Korean hostilities. But the emergency didn't end with the war. By 1972, it was still in effect (and being used to wage war in Vietnam), so the U.S. Senate convened a special committee to investigate. The committee discovered three other active emergencies, each of which independently gave the president access to the entire set of emergency powers. According to the committee’s 1973 report, the crisis provisions together “confer[red] enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional process.”

In 1976, Congress attempted to pull back the president’s emergency powers by enacting the National Emergencies Act. First, the act revoked (two years after its enactment) any powers granted to the president under the four states of emergency still active at the time. Next, it prescribed procedures for invoking these powers in the future. No longer can a president give force to the hundreds of emergency provisions by mere proclamation. Instead, he must specifically declare a national emergency in accordance with the act and identify the statutory basis for each emergency power he intends to use. Each state of emergency is to end automatically one year after its declaration, unless the president publishes a notice of renewal in the Federal Register within 90 days of the termination date and notifies Congress of the renewal. Finally, the act requires that each house of Congress meet every six months to consider a vote to end the state of emergency.

Not once has Congress met to consider such a vote. It is not exactly clear why. But the provision would have lost much of its intended force even had Congress complied: It originally allowed Congress to end an emergency by concurrent resolution (that is, if majorities in both houses voted to end it). But in 1983, the Supreme Court declared this sort of legislative veto over presidential action unconstitutional. A 1985 amendment to the act now requires a joint resolution to end the emergency, meaning that any Congressional vote to end the emergency is subject to the president’s veto, which may be overridden only by two-thirds majorities of both houses.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/emergencies-without-end-primer-federal-states-emergency

that's the why of 1976.

the why of 2019 appears to be the appearance of the Executive Branch attempting to override the spending responsibilities of the Legislative Branch's power of the purse.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @5.1    6 days ago
the why of 2019 appears to be the appearance of the Executive Branch attempting to override the spending responsibilities of the Legislative Branch's power of the purse.

You mean like a President making payments to insurance companies, which had been specifically denied by congress? Got it!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.1    5 days ago

BTW congress could have reclaimed the emergency powers they gave the executive branch in 1976, but democrats refused

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.2    5 days ago

Pelosi refuses to hold a vote on limiting the emergency powers they gave the president to 30 or 60 days..

 
 
 
1stwarrior
5.1.4  1stwarrior  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.3    5 days ago

But the law sez he has up to 2 years and if not completed, must ask Congress for an extension.

Pelosi really needs to get her hair loosened - it's restricting the blood flow to her brain.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.3    5 days ago

That indicates that they want the next democrat President to have such powers

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
5.1.6  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.2    5 days ago
BTW congress could have reclaimed the emergency powers they gave the executive branch in 1976, but democrats refused

Ah, some reheated BS for the tasting.  Care to elaborate?  Exactly which powers did they refuse to reclaim? Sources would be necessary, of course, but also of course, we'll all understand if you do the usual bunk and disappear from this sub-thread. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
5.1.7  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.5    5 days ago
That indicates that they want the next democrat President to have such powers

Well, that's what would happen isn't it?  Once any president, even one like Scumbag, gets overreach the next ones never want to give it up.  Does the name George W. Bush ring any bells or have you had your memory erased for that massive clusterfuck of a presidency (and only in second place as we have Scumbag now) 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @5.1.6    5 days ago
Care to elaborate?

On an obvious fact?

 Exactly which powers did they refuse to reclaim?

Try reading post # 5.1.3. It's been in all the news, even CNN. In other words an emergency requiring funds (like Obama funding insurance companies)

Sources would be necessary

Why would something all over the news require a source?  Never mind, I'll go through the tedious process.

Here (from CNBC):

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she will not take up Senate GOP legislation to curtail the emergency powers of future presidents."

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/13/pelosi-will-block-senate-plan-on-trump-national-emergency-declaration.html

And today is March 16th 2019 and we are both alive. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
5.1.9  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.8    2 days ago

You don't even seem to be aware that your claim in 5.1.3 and the reference really don't have anything to do with a serious attempt to curtail emergency powers of future presidents.  Again, maybe you lot should actually read past the headlines for articles that you think give you ammunition (which turns out to blow up in your faces):

The House will not take up a Senate GOP bill that could give Republicans political cover as they vote on whether to block President Donald Trump's national emergency declaration, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday. By promising not to bring the legislation to the floor, Pelosi hopes to put pressure on Republican lawmakers who are trying to balance their desire to support Trump's immigration policy and their professed concerns about presidential power. Later Wednesday, Trump himself dashed hopes for one alternative that would give lawmakers more power to check future emergency declarations — but not the current one.

This ploy was dead on arrival.  BTW, Lee voted with Dems after all that.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @5.1.9    2 days ago

So it was only a ploy?  Congress could have taken back the power it gave the executive in 1976, but Nancy seems to think a democrat President may be in our future. So the goal is to deny this one any power. It depends on ones point of view, dosen't it?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
5.1.11  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.10    15 hours ago
So it was only a ploy? 

Why do I even bother pointing out facts, much less back them up with references? 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

bbl-1
cms5
r.t..b...
CB "The Member Formerly Known as Calbab."
Gordy327
mocowgirl
Snuffy
Sparty On
cjcold
Freefaller

Wishful_thinkin
Studiusbagus
Freedom Warrior
Trout Giggles
Ed-NavDoc
evilgenius
KDMichigan


95 visitors