Page 647 of 701 FirstFirst ... 147547597637645646647648649657697 ... LastLast
Results 6,461 to 6,470 of 7005

Thread: President Donald Trump

  1. #6461
    Big Leaguer Redbirds Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Crazytown
    Posts
    1,272
    Quote Originally Posted by baldgriff View Post
    I dont disagree that the President is not allowed to just take and spend the money how he sees fit. Thats a function of separation of powers.

    So let me rephrase to be more exact - what Constitutional power granted to the citizenry would he be infringing on if he got the wall built? He cant just take the land without providing some just compensation - so no 5th Amendment Infringement - because the government can do it (and has multiple times throughout history).
    You're missing a couple of points.

    First, the infringement would be upon the right of citizens to have their elected Congress carry out its Constitutional duties with respect to appropriations from the national budget...the power of the purse, and upon the rights of the elected Congressmen to do their jobs.

    Second, eminent domain is not legal just because there is compensation. It must be undertaken for a lawful purpose. That would be the initial challenge in the lawsuits brought by the landowners...not whether they were being offered enough money, but whether the emiment domain was permitted to take their land without the approval of Congress. The landowners would have a pretty good argument, despite Trump saying he has the "absolute right", which sounds like something he got from Steven Miller.
    If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. - Karl Popper

  2. #6462
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbirds Fan View Post
    You're missing a couple of points.

    First, the infringement would be upon the right of citizens to have their elected Congress carry out its Constitutional duties with respect to appropriations from the national budget...the power of the purse, and upon the rights of the elected Congressmen to do their jobs.

    Second, eminent domain is not legal just because there is compensation. It must be undertaken for a lawful purpose. That would be the initial challenge in the lawsuits brought by the landowners...not whether they were being offered enough money, but whether the emiment domain was permitted to take their land without the approval of Congress. The landowners would have a pretty good argument, despite Trump saying he has the "absolute right", which sounds like something he got from Steven Miller.
    RB - Your first infringement is not a Constitutional Right granted right. It is part of the separation of powers relative to what each branch is responsible for.

    As to Eminent Domain - The only right we have is that there is due process or just compensation with regards to losing the land. I agree that there would be legal cases that would be occur, but that would be part of the right we the citizens get - due process.

    Personally - I would prefer that R's and D's sit down and start actually working together to figure out a compromise to this whole mess. This win at all costs mentality is bullshit and is ultimately causing the problems before us. How is it that in less than a decade a party goes from "We need to strengthen our borders" to the "Open Border, Sanctuary Cities, if you want a wall your a racist" mantras that they are selling?

    I want my government to work for all of us - not just the people that are spending on their side.

    There is so much truth in this movie scene - we have to figure out how to come together.

    It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years and we must stop it.
    Bill Clinton 1995, State of the Union Address


    "When they go low - we go High" great motto - too bad it was a sack of bullshit. DNC election mantra

  3. #6463
    Big Leaguer Redbirds Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Crazytown
    Posts
    1,272
    Quote Originally Posted by baldgriff View Post
    RB - Your first infringement is not a Constitutional Right granted right. It is part of the separation of powers relative to what each branch is responsible for.

    As to Eminent Domain - The only right we have is that there is due process or just compensation with regards to losing the land. I agree that there would be legal cases that would be occur, but that would be part of the right we the citizens get - due process.

    Personally - I would prefer that R's and D's sit down and start actually working together to figure out a compromise to this whole mess. This win at all costs mentality is bullshit and is ultimately causing the problems before us. How is it that in less than a decade a party goes from "We need to strengthen our borders" to the "Open Border, Sanctuary Cities, if you want a wall your a racist" mantras that they are selling?

    I want my government to work for all of us - not just the people that are spending on their side.

    There is so much truth in this movie scene - we have to figure out how to come together.

    Of course it is a constitutionally protected right. Just because it is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights doesn't mean it isn't a right. Who do you think the separation of powers is there to protect?

    As for eminent domain, you are just wrong here. It is a totally separate question whether the governmental entity has the legal right to take in a particular case. I have litigated this (for both sides) several times over the past 37 years.
    Last edited by Redbirds Fan; 01-11-2019 at 06:00 PM.
    If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. - Karl Popper

  4. #6464
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbirds Fan View Post
    Of course it is a constitutionally protected right. Just because it is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights doesn't mean it isn't a right. Who do you think the separation of powers is there to protect?

    As for eminent domain, you are just wrong here. It is a totally separate question whether the governmental entity has the legal right to take in a particular case. I have litigated this (for both sides) several times over the past 37 years.
    You're the lawyer, so I will defer.

    Im not the one that named the 5th amendment as something being trampled. Im just looking at what was written and going from there. It seems pretty clear that we cant have our property taken without due process or just compensation. All Im saying that as long as due process or just compensation are in fact followed, then the 5th isnt being circumvented. Now if there is no due process or just comp - then yes it would be trampled.
    It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years and we must stop it.
    Bill Clinton 1995, State of the Union Address


    "When they go low - we go High" great motto - too bad it was a sack of bullshit. DNC election mantra

  5. #6465
    Administrator revo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    fuggedabboutit
    Posts
    18,213
    Quote Originally Posted by baldgriff View Post
    You're the lawyer, so I will defer.

    Im not the one that named the 5th amendment as something being trampled. Im just looking at what was written and going from there. It seems pretty clear that we cant have our property taken without due process or just compensation. All Im saying that as long as due process or just compensation are in fact followed, then the 5th isnt being circumvented. Now if there is no due process or just comp - then yes it would be trampled.
    Wait a second. YOU were the one who asked about a specific "right" and that's the right I brought up, and the Takings Clause of this Right usually gets held up in court, sometimes for years, so it's clearly a slippery slope of government overreach. I never said it was being "trampled," just that if there was a Constitutional Right that building the wall would impose upon, that answered your question, it's this one.


    What I did say was that isn't it possible for a future Democratic president to retaliate with their own "National Emergency" and the article I posted also agrees with that.

  6. #6466
    Please forgive - we were using the term "infringed" rather than trampled. Your actual question was:

    Quote Originally Posted by revo View Post
    Serious question -- if Trump calls a "national emergency" and circumvents Congress to build his wall, is there a reason why, say in political retaliation, a Democratic president in the future couldn't declare a National Emergency after a mass shooting and take everyone's guns away?
    I stated that the difference is that one of these is a protected right for citizens and asked what right he was infringing on. You went with the 5th, and I stated over the course of the discussion that as long as due process or just compensation are provided - then the amendment isnt being infringed.

    My "deferring" to the lawyer is about Eminent Domain. He's argued cases - so I will defer about his experience. The amendment itself states that citizens get due process or just compensation - so as long as those are provided (no matter how long it takes) I dont see an infringement on the 5th.

    I think the original scenario that you put forth about some future President making a retaliatory action banning guns is inane. I also think that it would likely lead to a new civil war, which would be uglier than the 1st one we had.
    It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years and we must stop it.
    Bill Clinton 1995, State of the Union Address


    "When they go low - we go High" great motto - too bad it was a sack of bullshit. DNC election mantra

  7. #6467
    Big Leaguer OaklandA's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    1,491
    Quote Originally Posted by baldgriff View Post
    How is it that in less than a decade a party goes from "We need to strengthen our borders" to the "Open Border, Sanctuary Cities, if you want a wall your a racist" mantras that they are selling?
    These are just GOP talking points. The Democrats are not advocating for "Open Borders". In fact, they are willing to spend (and have already spent) plenty of money on border security, which includes more border agents, more immigration officers to process asylum claims, better technology on the border and at check points, and even adding or repairing border fencing where needed. What the Democrats oppose is taking all of that money for agents, officers, technology, and fencing, and wasting it on a 2,000 mile long, 8 foot concrete (or steel) wall.

  8. #6468
    Administrator revo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    fuggedabboutit
    Posts
    18,213
    Quote Originally Posted by baldgriff View Post
    I think the original scenario that you put forth about some future President making a retaliatory action banning guns is inane. I also think that it would likely lead to a new civil war, which would be uglier than the 1st one we had.
    And I just posted an article that shows the GOP fear after a Trump contrived national emergency is that a Democratic president retaliates by declaring other "national emergencies" such as income disparity, or climate change, or whatever, so a "national emergency" banning assault rifles again certainly doesn't seem like a stretch, considering they already were banned for a decade not so long ago. Of course, the same legalities would apply and this would get nowhere. But my point, about Trump severely overreaching, is very accurate.

  9. #6469
    Quote Originally Posted by revo View Post
    And I just posted an article that shows the GOP fear after a Trump contrived national emergency is that a Democratic president retaliates by declaring other "national emergencies" such as income disparity, or climate change, or whatever, so a "national emergency" banning assault rifles again certainly doesn't seem like a stretch, considering they already were banned for a decade not so long ago. Of course, the same legalities would apply and this would get nowhere. But my point, about Trump severely overreaching, is very accurate.
    We agree on Trump's "national emergency" as an over reach. I guess I have enough trust in the separation of duties and our courts that we would never get to the place your describing. Seriously, the "retaliatory action" you reference would be a direct attack on the rights of citizens - I dont see Trump's over reach as a direct attack against the rights of citizens. Additionally, your scenario would very likely lead to blood shed at a minimum and civil war at the worst.
    It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years and we must stop it.
    Bill Clinton 1995, State of the Union Address


    "When they go low - we go High" great motto - too bad it was a sack of bullshit. DNC election mantra

  10. #6470
    Big Leaguer
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,316
    Quote Originally Posted by OaklandA's View Post
    These are just GOP talking points. The Democrats are not advocating for "Open Borders". In fact, they are willing to spend (and have already spent) plenty of money on border security, which includes more border agents, more immigration officers to process asylum claims, better technology on the border and at check points, and even adding or repairing border fencing where needed. What the Democrats oppose is taking all of that money for agents, officers, technology, and fencing, and wasting it on a 2,000 mile long, 8 foot concrete (or steel) wall.
    Trump has asked for $800M for care for families at the border.
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...h-wall-funding

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •