Robert Richardson
Master
- Jan 28, 2009
- 3,697
- 113
Yes, you are correct, it was unacceptable but, with democrats , it was acceptable.
That sounds more like an imminent issue... which can be responded to with a different sort of force. He sent people to guard the border once, he can do it again. Spending $8 billion to build something isn't a response to those 30k people.
So how many times do we send troops to the border and how much do we spend for that?
So what is the correct response?
Spoken like a true Anti-Trumper.
I agree this may be a bad idea but I gotta admire the determination to get the job done.
Internet Leftist Anti-gunner said:I agree this may be a bad idea but I gotta admire the determination to get the job done.
The situation on our southern border IS a threat to our society and national security, and everyone in gov't has a Constitutional obligation to protect national security. Securing the border is part of that. Trump declaring an emergency is a direct result of decades of ongoing inaction and obstruction.
The National Emergencies Act of 1976 says the president "has available certain powers that may be exercised in the event that the nation is threatened by crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances (other than natural disasters, war, or near-war situations)," the Congressional Research Service says.
A senior White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity said such emergencies have been declared 58 times, and 31 are still in effect. The money for the border barrier is simply being "reprogrammed to other uses."
If that is true - that it is a national emergency - Trump has other (arguably better) tools to address it. He could send troops there to defend it. Nothing wrong with that at all. When the money runs out for national defense, he can request more. If the Dems don't want to give it, then he can argue that they hate the military. Then Trump wins the next election.
That's just one example.
He doesn't NEED to declare a national emergency to secure our border. He just wants to build the wall right now, by any means necessary.
The country elected DJT, and DJT alone gets to make this decision. The country elected BHO, and he also made decisions, most I did not like.
I've said he should do that time and again, and I wasn't the only one.If that is true - that it is a national emergency - Trump has other (arguably better) tools to address it. He could send troops there to defend it. Nothing wrong with that at all. When the money runs out for national defense, he can request more. If the Dems don't want to give it, then he can argue that they hate the military. Then Trump wins the next election.
That's just one example.
He doesn't NEED to declare a national emergency to secure our border. He just wants to build the wall right now, by any means necessary.
How does border wall equate to unconstitutional gun confiscation? One is lawful, the other isn'tReplace "wall" references with confiscation terms.
Yes, he can. The question is "should he?" The justification to make this an "emergency" is weak.
I'd hate to have to point back to this thread in 10 years and say... "huh. That's how it happened."
I understand that trump is planning to relocate funds to pay for the wall. If the funds were originally intended for law enforcement or defense, how it a Constitutional crisis for the executive to shuffle the money around? If they take el-chapo's seized assets to replace the moved money and pay for the rest of "the wall" the issue is moot.
Pelosi thinking that entitles them to destroy the 2A is asinine