President Donald Trump

[revo]

Now he wants to use money for Puerto Rico and California for the wall:

"President Trump has been briefed about using disaster-relief money meant to help storm-soaked Puerto Rico and fire-ravaged California to build his border wall, according to a report.

If Trump declares a national emergency, he could dip into a $13.9 billion Army Corps of Engineers fund intended for public works, NBC reported.

Of that money, $2.5 billion is allocated for ongoing recovery from Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, and $2.4 billion is set aside to improve infrastructure along the the Yuba River Basin in California.

Siphoning off money for disaster relief and mitigation will put American lives at risk, a Congressional staffer told the outlet.

“Hundreds of thousands of people will be at risk if there is a strong or wet winter in these flood areas and the protection projects haven’t been completed,” the staffer said."

https://nypost.com/2019/01/10/trump-may-use-puerto-rico-california-disaster-funds-to-build-border-wall/

[OaklandA's]

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).

The wall itself is not unconstitutional. It is the process that Trump is proposing to get authorization and funding for the wall that is probably unconstitutional (unless Congress passes a bill authorizing it).

[onejayhawk]

The wall itself is not unconstitutional. It is the process that Trump is proposing to get authorization and funding for the wall that is probably unconstitutional (unless Congress passes a bill authorizing it).

They may have. That is part of the argument.

Certainly, he can order the Corps of Engineers to construct a barrier on any federally owned land. It falls under public works for which $Billions are set aside. Emergency powers acts go back to the 1920s. Calling the impass in negotiations an emergency is not a stretch.

J

[OaklandA's]

Calling the impasse in negotiations an emergency is not a stretch.

No, an impasse in negotiations between Congress and the President is not a national emergency. That happens all the time. He would have to show that there is an emergency at the border than requires the immediate building of a wall. Republicans might go along with it, but everyone knows it's not really an emergency.

[Judge Jude]

the idea that a need to build a wall is an "emergency" that means Trump can use other funds to build it is ridiculous.
then again, so is the entire debate.

as for eminent domain, Kelo v New London is a fascinating ruling.
basically a CT town could or could not seize land for mere 'economic development' - not for the usual hospital, highway, etc.
Kelo is the 'little guy' who tried to stop it.

the eventual ruling - and who voted which way - well, I won't spoiler alert. worth a read.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Now he wants to use money for Puerto Rico and California for the wall:

"President Trump has been briefed about using disaster-relief money meant to help storm-soaked Puerto Rico and fire-ravaged California to build his border wall, according to a report.

If Trump declares a national emergency, he could dip into a $13.9 billion Army Corps of Engineers fund intended for public works, NBC reported.

Of that money, $2.5 billion is allocated for ongoing recovery from Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, and $2.4 billion is set aside to improve infrastructure along the the Yuba River Basin in California.

Siphoning off money for disaster relief and mitigation will put American lives at risk, a Congressional staffer told the outlet.

“Hundreds of thousands of people will be at risk if there is a strong or wet winter in these flood areas and the protection projects haven’t been completed,” the staffer said."


https://nypost.com/2019/01/10/trump-...d-border-wall/

I'm not happy about that idea at all. We are currently trying to get ACE approval for a flood remediation project here in my community related to Hurricane Harvey damage.

[umjewman]

I'm not happy about that idea at all. We are currently trying to get ACE approval for a flood remediation project here in my community related to Hurricane Harvey damage.

Texas voted Republican, he won't raid that disaster money. Only disaster money from Democrat states, obviously.

[revo]

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?

They must have read my post on RJ!


"As President Donald Trump publicly weighs declaring a national emergency as a way to get his border wall, some Republicans are expressing concern about the precedent such a move could set for future — and Democratic — presidents.

While declaring a national emergency is within his powers as president, some on the right are sounding alarms that Trump doing so in this circumstance would set the stage for future presidents to do the same. And not over immigration, but instead over issues like climate change, health care, or other Democratic Party priorities if and when a member of that party lands in the White House.

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board issued a warning on Thursday, arguing that while the courts could potentially step in on Trump’s emergency declaration, there’s no guarantee that would happen.

“If Mr. Trump did win in court, a President Elizabeth Warren might take the precedent as a license to circumvent Congress whenever it is political expedient,” the editorial board wrote. “Rising carbon emissions or even income inequality could be declared national emergencies.”

Even Fox News has cautioned against a national emergency declaration. Fox & Friends host Brian Kilmeade on Thursday said it would “be a disaster in the big picture, and it would show us at being inept and unable to govern around the world.” He added that it would set a “terrible precedent.”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/11/18178438/national-emergency-marco-rubio-precedent-democrats-climate

[Redbirds Fan]

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.

[baldgriff]

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.

[Redbirds Fan]

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.

[baldgriff]

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.

[revo]

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.

[baldgriff]

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

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.

[OaklandA's]

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.