59-41, trump crushed

[RedZone]

feelings hurt......

[zulu1128]

Gonna need 7-8 more to override the veto. 

Congrats, though...big day in Chipmunk Land! ✌️

[HSFBfan]

Veto!!!! And they cant override it 

[RedZone]

20 minutes ago, zulu1128 said:

 

Congrats, though...big day in Chipmunk Land! ✌️

Thanks.

Thought it would be a little worse, but nice to see some reps still respect the Constitution.

[zulu1128]

1 minute ago, RedZone said:

Thanks.

Thought it would be a little worse, but nice to see some reps still respect the Constitution.

Indeed. Hey, while we’re on the subject, which part of the constitution are they respecting? 

Article 2 seems pretty clear, and has been validated by SCOTUS...is there a different part that we’re supposed to be respecting instead?

[DBP66]

4 minutes ago, zulu1128 said:

Indeed. Hey, while we’re on the subject, which part of the constitution are they respecting? 

Article 2 seems pretty clear, and has been validated by SCOTUS...is there a different part that we’re supposed to be respecting instead?

the appropriations process...Congress controls the purse strings...

[zulu1128]

6 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

the appropriations process...Congress controls the purse strings...

Swing and a miss.

He’s proposing to use money already appropriated by Congress...which has already been done before in “national emergencies.”

He can take money out of the already appropriated defense budget as he sees fit. 

[RedZone]

Mitt summed it up. It's really not that complicated.

 

The dam seemed to break mid-morning when Sen. Mitt Romney(R-UT), declared he would vote for the resolution of disapproval on grounds that it broke with the spirit of the Constitution and the balance of powers.

[zulu1128]

LMAO

Gun control breaks with the “spirit of the Constitution” too, for that matter. Lots of stuff does. It’s a meaningless argument. The president has the Constitutional power to do exactly what he’s doing. Either find 67 votes, or keep crying about it...it’s really that simple.

That said, watching Chip hump Mitt Romney’s leg is pretty funny. 

[RedZone]

1 minute ago, zulu1128 said:

LMAO

Gun control breaks with the “spirit of the Constitution” too, for that matter. Lots of stuff does. It’s a meaningless argument. The president has the Constitutional power to do exactly what he’s doing. Either find 67 votes, or keep crying about it...it’s really that simple.

That said, watching Chip hump Mitt Romney’s leg is pretty funny. 

NO, the president cannot use whatever money on campaign promises...

The balance of powers is meaningless?

Ok, got it.

Who said trump could not veto? You seem agitated.

You mad, bro?

 

[playballintxandmi]

42 minutes ago, zulu1128 said:

LMAO

Gun control breaks with the “spirit of the Constitution” too, for that matter. Lots of stuff does. It’s a meaningless argument. The president has the Constitutional power to do exactly what he’s doing. Either find 67 votes, or keep crying about it...it’s really that simple.

That said, watching Chip hump Mitt Romney’s leg is pretty funny. 

I have some time between court hearings so why not . . . 

The president has the Constitutional power to do exactly what he’s doing. Actually, the president would normally have had the power to do what he is doing (using National Emergencies Act (NEA) to secure border wall funding) except for one small procedural-shortcoming: Trump signed into law,  The Consolidated Appropriations Act, which capped border wall funding at $1.4 billion.

If the president would have used the NEA as his rationale on day 1 of his presidency to obtain wall funding he would have faced challenges on the merits that he likely would have won at the SCOTUS level (due to Article 2 reasons). (1) History of the statute suggests presidents have wide discretion to determine what is an emergency (2) the source of the funds is a Constitutional red herring; funds have been diverted before for National Emergencies.

However, by signing The Consolidated Appropriations Act the President accepted that Congress capped border wall funding at $1.4 billion. Any change to that amount would be considered the executive legislating which brings into play the Presentment Clause.  In the Supreme Court Case,  Bill Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), The Supreme Court held that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was unconstitutional; the act gave President Clinton the line-item veto which was the ability to veto certain portions of certain appropriations bills. The Court's Holding was that the Act was unconstitutional, "because the Act allowed the President to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of duly enacted statutes by using line-item cancellations, it violated the Presentment Clause of the Constitution,which outlines a specific practice for enacting a statute. The Court construed the silence of the Constitution on the subject of such unilateral Presidential action as equivalent to "an express prohibition", agreeing with historical material that supported the conclusion that statutes may only be enacted "in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure", and that a bill must be approved or rejected by the President in its entirety." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York.

The president is doing exactly what president Clinton tried to do. He is attempting to add/subtract language from a bill he already approved by using properly delegated powers by Congress--in this case Trump is attempting to increase spending whereas Clinton was trying to reduce spending. But the crux of the constitutional question is: if the NEA allows for the president to unilaterally alter the text of the Consolidated Appropriations Act's textual wall cap limit of $1.4 billion then the NEA would be unconstitutional on its face the same way the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was. Again, if the President would not have signed The Consolidated Appropriations Act then his actions would be constitutional--people often forget that much like due process the Constitution provides both procedural and substantive limits on America's branches of government. 

I wrote the above here in the courthouse so I imagine there is alot I may not have touched on and this is just my take on the constitutionality of the border wall funding. Note: I never clerked for the SCOTUS after law school--I went to work for a big firm--and most of what I know about American Constitutional Law I owe to Professors Daniel Halberstam, Hon. Antonin Scalia (deceased, SCOTUS justice), Hon. Joan Larsen (6th Circuit CofA), Yale Kamisar (truly a Crim Pro Giant), and Nina Mendelson (sp?)

 

 

[RedZone]

28 minutes ago, playballintxandmi said:

.Again, if the President would not have signed The Consolidated Appropriations Act then his actions would be constitutional

 

 

....even if trump said he did not have to declare a national emergency?

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

Can a president speed up the process of keeping a campaign promise using the Constitution by declaring a national emergency to accompish just that?

Thanks.

[Hardcore Troubador]

50 minutes ago, playballintxandmi said:

I have some time between court hearings so why not . . . 

The president has the Constitutional power to do exactly what he’s doing. Actually, the president would normally have had the power to do what he is doing (using National Emergencies Act (NEA) to secure border wall funding) except for one small procedural-shortcoming: Trump signed into law,  The Consolidated Appropriations Act, which capped border wall funding at $1.4 billion.

If the president would have used the NEA as his rationale on day 1 of his presidency to obtain wall funding he would have faced challenges on the merits that he likely would have won at the SCOTUS level (due to Article 2 reasons). (1) History of the statute suggests presidents have wide discretion to determine what is an emergency (2) the source of the funds is a Constitutional red herring; funds have been diverted before for National Emergencies.

However, by signing The Consolidated Appropriations Act the President accepted that Congress capped border wall funding at $1.4 billion. Any change to that amount would be considered the executive legislating which brings into play the Presentment Clause.  In the Supreme Court Case,  Bill Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), The Supreme Court held that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was unconstitutional; the act gave President Clinton the line-item veto which was the ability to veto certain portions of certain appropriations bills. The Court's Holding was that the Act was unconstitutional, "because the Act allowed the President to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of duly enacted statutes by using line-item cancellations, it violated the Presentment Clause of the Constitution,which outlines a specific practice for enacting a statute. The Court construed the silence of the Constitution on the subject of such unilateral Presidential action as equivalent to "an express prohibition", agreeing with historical material that supported the conclusion that statutes may only be enacted "in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure", and that a bill must be approved or rejected by the President in its entirety." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York.

The president is doing exactly what president Clinton tried to do. He is attempting to add/subtract language from a bill he already approved by using properly delegated powers by Congress--in this case Trump is attempting to increase spending whereas Clinton was trying to reduce spending. But the crux of the constitutional question is: if the NEA allows for the president to unilaterally alter the text of the Consolidated Appropriations Act's textual wall cap limit of $1.4 billion then the NEA would be unconstitutional on its face the same way the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was. Again, if the President would not have signed The Consolidated Appropriations Act then his actions would be constitutional--people often forget that much like due process the Constitution provides both procedural and substantive limits on America's branches of government. 

I wrote the above here in the courthouse so I imagine there is alot I may not have touched on and this is just my take on the constitutionality of the border wall funding. Note: I never clerked for the SCOTUS after law school--I went to work for a big firm--and most of what I know about American Constitutional Law I owe to Professors Daniel Halberstam, Hon. Antonin Scalia (deceased, SCOTUS justice), Hon. Joan Larsen (6th Circuit CofA), Yale Kamisar (truly a Crim Pro Giant), and Nina Mendelson (sp?)

 

 

Very comprehensive!  Thanks!  I am no expert on con law or appropriations, but the Presentment arguments do seem pretty dispositive on the emergency declaration issue as you’ve presented them.

I admit I haven’t followed this much in the news.  So just so I’m clear: the issue is that he’s spending money already appropriated for other purposes and using this National Emergency™️®️©️ as the legal justification for diverting the money?  And since he signed the bill only authorizing $1.4B in Wall money therein lies the executive overreach?

I imagine if he goes ahead and issues a veto and tries to spend the money on the wall anyway there will be a lawsuit (who would have standing to challenge though?) and the courts will have to determine which statute trumps which (pun intended).

National Emergency aside - do you know if these departmental budgets usually include a “pot” of money that is not earmarked and can be spent at the Executive’s discretion? 

 

 

[DBP66]

2 hours ago, zulu1128 said:

Swing and a miss.

He’s proposing to use money already appropriated by Congress...which has already been done before in “national emergencies.”

He can take money out of the already appropriated defense budget as he sees fit. 

swing and a miss?..LOL.."He’s proposing to use money already appropriated by Congress."...so he's not respecting the appropriations process is he?...No...like I said...😉

[RedZone]

45 minutes ago, Hardcore Troubador said:

Very comprehensive!  Thanks!  I am no expert on con law or appropriations, but the Presentment arguments do seem pretty dispositive on the emergency declaration issue as you’ve presented them.

I admit I haven’t followed this much in the news.  So just so I’m clear: the issue is that he’s spending money already appropriated for other purposes and using this National Emergency™️®️©️ as the legal justification for diverting the money?  And since he signed the bill only authorizing $1.4B in Wall money therein lies the executive overreach?

I imagine if he goes ahead and issues a veto and tries to spend the money on the wall anyway there will be a lawsuit (who would have standing to challenge though?) and the courts will have to determine which statute trumps which (pun intended).

National Emergency aside - do you know if these departmental budgets usually include a “pot” of money that is not earmarked and can be spent at the Executive’s discretion? 

 

 

That's about it....there are lawsuits pending already from 16 or 17 states.

 

It ALL started with MEXICO was going to pay for this 10 or 11 billion dollar border wall......it was a bogus promise that was never ever going to be kept......and we have this today.

Total embarrassing disaster NO matter how you look it.

My legal opinion which is much like yours is trump cannot use a NEA to fulfill that goofy promise...a NEA even trump says he did NOT have to declare.

 

 

[zulu1128]

1 hour ago, playballintxandmi said:

I have some time between court hearings so why not . . . 

The president has the Constitutional power to do exactly what he’s doing. Actually, the president would normally have had the power to do what he is doing (using National Emergencies Act (NEA) to secure border wall funding) except for one small procedural-shortcoming: Trump signed into law,  The Consolidated Appropriations Act, which capped border wall funding at $1.4 billion.

If the president would have used the NEA as his rationale on day 1 of his presidency to obtain wall funding he would have faced challenges on the merits that he likely would have won at the SCOTUS level (due to Article 2 reasons). (1) History of the statute suggests presidents have wide discretion to determine what is an emergency (2) the source of the funds is a Constitutional red herring; funds have been diverted before for National Emergencies.

However, by signing The Consolidated Appropriations Act the President accepted that Congress capped border wall funding at $1.4 billion. Any change to that amount would be considered the executive legislating which brings into play the Presentment Clause.  In the Supreme Court Case,  Bill Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), The Supreme Court held that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was unconstitutional; the act gave President Clinton the line-item veto which was the ability to veto certain portions of certain appropriations bills. The Court's Holding was that the Act was unconstitutional, "because the Act allowed the President to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of duly enacted statutes by using line-item cancellations, it violated the Presentment Clause of the Constitution,which outlines a specific practice for enacting a statute. The Court construed the silence of the Constitution on the subject of such unilateral Presidential action as equivalent to "an express prohibition", agreeing with historical material that supported the conclusion that statutes may only be enacted "in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure", and that a bill must be approved or rejected by the President in its entirety." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York.

The president is doing exactly what president Clinton tried to do. He is attempting to add/subtract language from a bill he already approved by using properly delegated powers by Congress--in this case Trump is attempting to increase spending whereas Clinton was trying to reduce spending. But the crux of the constitutional question is: if the NEA allows for the president to unilaterally alter the text of the Consolidated Appropriations Act's textual wall cap limit of $1.4 billion then the NEA would be unconstitutional on its face the same way the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was. Again, if the President would not have signed The Consolidated Appropriations Act then his actions would be constitutional--people often forget that much like due process the Constitution provides both procedural and substantive limits on America's branches of government. 

I wrote the above here in the courthouse so I imagine there is alot I may not have touched on and this is just my take on the constitutionality of the border wall funding. Note: I never clerked for the SCOTUS after law school--I went to work for a big firm--and most of what I know about American Constitutional Law I owe to Professors Daniel Halberstam, Hon. Antonin Scalia (deceased, SCOTUS justice), Hon. Joan Larsen (6th Circuit CofA), Yale Kamisar (truly a Crim Pro Giant), and Nina Mendelson (sp?)

 

 

The CAA caps wall funding as a separate line item. He’s proposing to fold it into the defense budget...which isn’t that long of a reach from a legal perspective. Is it a bad loophole, and a douche move? Yes to both. 

That said, the CAA won’t apply. Assuming he’s goofy enough to push this silly idea through to its conclusion, SCOTUS will most certainly rule in his favor. 

As I said earlier...67 votes. Clock’s ticking. 

[zulu1128]

22 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

swing and a miss?..LOL.."He’s proposing to use money already appropriated by Congress."...so he's not respecting the appropriations process is he?...No...like I said...😉

Congress appropriates money for the defense budget. The administration runs the defense department, and has a wide berth how that money is spent. 

It’s not that hard, dude. 

[zulu1128]

2 hours ago, RedZone said:

NO, the president cannot use whatever money on campaign promises...

The balance of powers is meaningless?

Ok, got it.

Who said trump could not veto? You seem agitated.

You mad, bro?

 

Nope. Just telling you what is going to happen. 

As usual. 

[RedZone]

 zulu has NO idea how inferior he looks right now.

He's like a dog chasing a parked car.

[zulu1128]

It'll be fun  to bump this thread in a month or two. 

Have a great evening, Chipster. ✌️

[DBP66]

18 minutes ago, zulu1128 said:

Congress appropriates money for the defense budget. The administration runs the defense department, and has a wide berth how that money is spent. 

It’s not that hard, dude. 

...talk about a swing and a miss!...the administration doesn't dictate how the money congress appropriates is spent.....it's not that hard

[zulu1128]

3 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

...talk about a swing and a miss!...the administration doesn't dictate how the money congress appropriates is spent.....it's not that hard

Okay. 

[DBP66]

1 minute ago, Sportsnut said:

You are so wrong.

Listen and learn.

he's another dopey Trumper...if what he said was true we wouldn't need a "national emergency"...he doesn't have a clue.

[zulu1128]

1 minute ago, DBP66 said:

he's another dopey Trumper...if what he said was true we wouldn't need a "national emergency"...he doesn't have a clue.

Pretty sure I'm on record as repeatedly stating that it's a dumb idea. Unfortunately, he's within his powers to do it. 

Hope this helps. 

[Horsefly]

33 minutes ago, zulu1128 said:

Congress appropriates money for the defense budget. The administration runs the defense department, and has a wide berth how that money is spent. 

It’s not that hard, dude. 

That’s not how it works, there is a thing called the anti deficiency act that restricts funds for what they are appropriated for.  The service has limited ability to reprogram dollars, but if a requirement has not been authorized in the defense budget it can’t be spent for that purpose.  I don’t know if the defense budget has a provision for a wall construction.  If not, that will be a problem they’d need congress approval to reprogram.