President Donald Trump

[baldgriff]

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?

Serious Question - what right is he infringing on should he get a wall built?

[revo]

We are not going back around the gun thing again. Suffice to say - currently we are allowed as citizens to own guns and that right has been deemed to be given based upon the 2nd Amendment. The right "shall not be infringed upon".

But Lets say for instance that the President bans ALL GUNS. What would then preclude him from Banning WOMEN from voting? What would preclude him from Banning Freedom of Speech? What would preclude him from saying certain types of people cant congregate together....... Once the precedent is set - there is no stopping where it could go.

For Fuck Sake - your argument is inane. Usually you are pretty well thought out - but this one is WAAAAAY WAAAAY out there. HOLY SHIT - Lets just get rid of our founding documents - the 3 branches of government and allow some dictator to take over. Nice!

There is a president who is currently attempting to circumvent Congress on nearly everything and recently wanted to overturn the 14th Amendment, and said he had "legal opinions" that would allow him to do so. Did you forget about that?

Also, there was already an assault rifle ban in this country from 1994-2004. So I have no idea why you're going into hysterics.

So let's clarify for the nitpickers:

As political retaliation for a GOP president declaring a National Emergency where there isn't one, if a Democratic president is elected, what would stop him or her from declaring a National Emergency to ban Assault Rifles after a major mass shooting?

[DMT]

Trump is merely following down the path of Unitary Executive Theory forged by Dick Cheney, David Addington, and John Yoo. In short, the POTUS is above the law. Hopefully it will be quickly struck down but given the current state of the Judiciary, nothing will surprise me.

[baldgriff]

There is a president who is currently attempting to circumvent Congress on nearly everything and recently wanted to overturn the 14th Amendment, and said he had "legal opinions" that would allow him to do so. Did you forget about that?

Also, there was already an assault rifle ban in this country during the Bush & Clinton administrations. So I have no idea why you're going into hysterics.

And yet currently our 14th Amendment is still in tact - there has been no challenge brought to the Supreme Court regarding any actual action he has made. Sure - he got "legal opinions" blah blah blah --- can we get a fact check on that one?? If in fact he attempted to override the 14th - there would certainly be a backlash and a significant SC proceeding.

Yes there was an "assault rifle ban" during the 90's when Congress passed a 10 year ban yadda yadda yadda.... It expired in 2004 - and the number of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that have been purchased since then makes it nigh impossible to getting rid of the weapons. The genie is out of the bottle and there is just not a way to put it back. As a reminder - I dont own a gun.

Its just this is such an inane arguement


Serious Question - what right is he infringing on should he get a wall built?

[revo]

And yet currently our 14th Amendment is still in tact - there has been no challenge brought to the Supreme Court regarding any actual action he has made. Sure - he got "legal opinions" blah blah blah --- can we get a fact check on that one?? If in fact he attempted to override the 14th - there would certainly be a backlash and a significant SC proceeding.

Yes there was an "assault rifle ban" during the 90's when Congress passed a 10 year ban yadda yadda yadda.... It expired in 2004 - and the number of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that have been purchased since then makes it nigh impossible to getting rid of the weapons. The genie is out of the bottle and there is just not a way to put it back. As a reminder - I dont own a gun.

Its just this is such an inane arguement


Serious Question - what right is he infringing on should he get a wall built?

I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but the 5th Amendment:
“No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Two-thirds of the land needed for the wall to be built is currently owned by private owners or the states, and when Bush wanted to build the wall by using Eminent Domain to steal the property, he faced years and years of lawsuits.

So I'll say property rights protected by The 5th Amendment.


So now that we're off this stupid back and forth, the point was -- Trump is opening up an enormous can of worms if he uses a National Emergency to circumvent Congress over a half-baked argument. But once he does it, what's to stop the opposing party from doing the same to push through their agenda if there's an unwilling Congress?

[DMT]

I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but the 5th Amendment:
“No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Two-thirds of the land needed for the wall to be built is currently owned by private owners or the states, and when Bush wanted to build the wall by using Eminent Domain to steal the property, he faced years and years of lawsuits.

So I'll say property rights protected by The 5th Amendment.


So now that we're off this stupid back and forth, the point was -- Trump is opening up an enormous can of worms if he uses a National Emergency to circumvent Congress over a half-baked argument. But once he does it, what's to stop the opposing party from doing the same to push through their agenda if there's an unwilling Congress?

The courts.

[heyelander]

I saw someone compare declaring a national emergency to build a wall that won't be done for 10 years to realizing your house is on fire and calling the city commissioner to begin discussions and zoning to have a new firehouse built.

[baldgriff]

Two-thirds of the land needed for the wall to be built is currently owned by private owners or the states, and when Bush wanted to build the wall by using Eminent Domain to steal the property, he faced years and years of lawsuits.

So I'll say property rights protected by The 5th Amendment.

So wouldnt part of the 5billion budget be part of the legal fees related to due process of law to either purchase or implement Eminent Domain by just compensation? That right says that you get due process or just compensation - you can still lose property rights to the government - its not an uncommon thing....

Now it would be remiss not to include in the budget process the actual obtaining of the land in which you plan on building. Assuming that each land owner gets due process, just compensation or both - what infringement is there?

So lets try again. By building the wall what right is he infringing on?

I agree that he is opening a large can of worms and the continued attempts to work outside the political/governmental red tape is problematic for him from both an optics perspective and from an actual accomplishing anything perspective.

[Fresno Bob]

Maybe they can put their 9B surplus towards their 67B unfunded pension liability.

looks like a $21B surplus this year, of which the new governor has committed 14B towards building reserves and paying down pension liability

https://www.sfgate.com/news/education/article/California-Gov-Newsom-to-release-his-1st-state-13522640.php

[revo]

What if you don’t want to sell? What if the property has been in your family for hundreds of years? What if it’s an Indian Reservation that would need to be uprooted entirely? Doesn’t sound like “due process” to me if you’re getting evicted from your own land that you have zero interest in leaving. There’s a reason why it’s been tied up in courts for over a decade, and infringement of Fifth Amendment rights is the primary reason why. And being how large the territory is, there’s going to be literally THOUSANDS of lawsuits surrounding Fifth Amendment rights, especially considering how partisan this cause is.

There’s no way to discount that, not sure why you are.

[nots]

looks like a $21B surplus this year, of which the new governor has committed 14B towards building reserves and paying down pension liability

https://www.sfgate.com/news/educatio...e-13522640.php

Predicted surplus is very different than actual surplus. Let’s see where we are at the end of the year with this.

[baldgriff]

What if you don’t want to sell? What if the property has been in your family for hundreds of years? What if it’s an Indian Reservation that would need to be uprooted entirely? Doesn’t sound like “due process” to me if you’re getting evicted from your own land that you have zero interest in leaving. There’s a reason why it’s been tied up in courts for over a decade, and infringement of Fifth Amendment rights is the primary reason why. And being how large the territory is, there’s going to be literally THOUSANDS of lawsuits surrounding Fifth Amendment rights, especially considering how partisan this cause is.

There’s no way to discount that, not sure why you are.

Im not discounting it. I am stating that if the Government follows due process and/or provides just compensation for the land in question - the there is no infringement on the Fifth Amendment. We are not guaranteed property cant be taken - we are guaranteed that we get due process or just compensation.

Again, if those processes are followed then the government can take any property it wants and they would be enforcing the 5th Amendment - not infringing on it.

So lets try again. By building the wall what right is he infringing on?

[nots]

If he declares it’s an emergency, the courts will decide the legality of that. Presidents have always been afforded a lot of latitude when defining an emergency, however, he would really be pushing the envelope wi5h this one. Be very interesting to see what happens if he goes that route. I personally think he’s bluffing, but he is such a wildcard, who really knows.
The government takes a lot of land thru eminent domain. There may be thousands of lawsuits and it may drag on for awhile, but I don’t believe that the courts would deny the wall based on a property rights issue. Governments rarely lose eminent domain cases, though they are frequently litigated by upset property owners. I think the a judicial denial would come by denying its an emergency.
My town (and several other shore towns) just fought a few owners for the right to build dunes on their properties to protect other home owners from potential storms (as a reaction to Hurricane Sandy). Lot of angst and court battles, but ultimately the State won and the dunes were built. I don’t even believe the owners received financial compensation, but I would have to double check that.

[OaklandA's]

So lets try again. By building the wall what right is he infringing on?

Aside from the property rights issue, the constitutional problem for Trump is that the President is not allowed to just take money from the government and spend it on whatever he wants. Imagine if Congress had not passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, and Obama had first shut down the government, then declared a health emergency and said he was going to take the money anyway and implement the ACA.

In a National Emergency, the President could be allowed to divert unobligated funds from the military budget to "order military construction projects deemed necessary to support armed forces deployed in a national emergency." It's a stretch to claim that there is a national emergency, and it's a stretch to say that the Wall is necessary to support our armed forces. Maybe that's why Trump is reportedly now looking at disaster relief funds instead of military funds.

By the way, it's unlikely the proposed $5B includes enough to cover all of the property costs. This administration has never shown a detailed budget for the wall - sometimes it's $5B and sometimes it's $25B. And sometimes it's concrete, sometimes it's steel, sometimes it's some fancy transparent material, sometimes it's a wall with solar panels on top, sometimes it's 8 feet high, sometimes it's 30 feet high and 8 feet below the ground. But apparently the price is the same for all of these variations.

[baldgriff]

Aside from the property rights issue, the constitutional problem for Trump is that the President is not allowed to just take money from the government and spend it on whatever he wants. Imagine if Congress had not passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, and Obama had first shut down the government, then declared a health emergency and said he was going to take the money anyway and implement the ACA.

In a National Emergency, the President could be allowed to divert unobligated funds from the military budget to "order military construction projects deemed necessary to support armed forces deployed in a national emergency." It's a stretch to claim that there is a national emergency, and it's a stretch to say that the Wall is necessary to support our armed forces. Maybe that's why Trump is reportedly now looking at disaster relief funds instead of military funds.

By the way, it's unlikely the proposed $5B includes enough to cover all of the property costs. This administration has never shown a detailed budget for the wall - sometimes it's $5B and sometimes it's $25B. And sometimes it's concrete, sometimes it's steel, sometimes it's some fancy transparent material, sometimes it's a wall with solar panels on top, sometimes it's 8 feet high, sometimes it's 30 feet high and 8 feet below the ground. But apparently the price is the same for all of these variations.

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).