Devil in Details – Democrats Insert Language Allowing States and Municipalities to Veto Border Wall…

[mystery-ak]

Devil in Details – Democrats Insert Language Allowing States and Municipalities to Veto Border Wall…
Posted on February 13, 2019   by sundance

The language of the bipartisan border security funding legislation is still being written. Unfortunately, reports indicate Democrat language will be inserted into the DHS funding bill that will allow any town, city, municipality, mayor, city manager or local council within any border state to veto the construction of any structural border security wall or fence.

This definitely sounds like an approach the Lawfare group would be assisting with.  Despite overwhelming support from the majority of Americans, the DC Uniparty seems to consistently find a way to usurp national sovereignty.  Very frustrating.

more w/ video
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/02/13/devil-in-details-democrats-insert-language-allowing-states-and-municipalities-to-veto-border-wall/

[skeeter]

I won’t bother asking how it was the GOP let this abortion pass through Congress, but they’ve made it near impossible for Trump to sign.

[Cyber Liberty]

I won’t bother asking how it was the GOP let this abortion pass through Congress, but they’ve made it near impossible for Trump to sign.

Yet he probably will...right after declaring an emergency.

As far as this "detail,"  I think it's fine.  In a couple years when the border jumping pattern changes to their town, they can suck it.

[Frank Cannon]

Yet he probably will...right after declaring an emergency.

As far as this "detail,"  I think it's fine.  In a couple years when the border jumping pattern changes to their town, they can suck it.

Interesting.

[Cyber Liberty]

Interesting.

Really? 

[Sanguine]

 

[TomSea]

Let New Mexico and California go without.

Let Texas and Arizona have the wall, this is what it is boiling down to for me.

[XenaLee]

Let New Mexico and California go without.

Let Texas and Arizona have the wall, this is what it is boiling down to for me.

So you'd be ok with thousands (millions?) of migrants streaming into California and New Mexico....

and then streaming into the rest of the nation?  Cause that is exactly what will happen ... and has already happened.

[TomSea]

So you'd be ok with thousands (millions?) of migrants streaming into California and New Mexico....

and then streaming into the rest of the nation?  Cause that is exactly what will happen ... and has already happened.

Not so much as that, governors of those states both have called the National Guard off the border. They are not being cooperative in that sense.  It's almost like they don't want the wall so if they don't and parts do want it?

[Hoodat]

It is not likely that Arizona or Nevada would veto building a wall on the California border.

[Chosen Daughter]

Not so much as that, governors of those states both have called the National Guard off the border. They are not being cooperative in that sense.  It's almost like they don't want the wall so if they don't and parts do want it?

I call foul.  These governors are probably being paid off by Drug Cartel.  Trump said he was going to check this bill for land mines.  That is a land mine.

[Cyber Liberty]

So you'd be ok with thousands (millions?) of migrants streaming into California and New Mexico....

and then streaming into the rest of the nation?  Cause that is exactly what will happen ... and has already happened.

They'll stream straight though these communities with smart-ass Mayors.  As a bonus, those Mayors will be telling the CBP exactly where to watch.  They aren't exactly helping themselves by denying the problem.

[libertybele]

I call foul.  These governors are probably being paid off by Drug Cartel.  Trump said he was going to check this bill for land mines.  That is a land mine.

Line item veto and keep enough of the bill intact to avoid a shut down.

[Bill Cipher]

Line item veto and keep enough of the bill intact to avoid a shut down.

No such thing as a line item veto.  That was ruled unconstitutional decades ago. 

[Fishrrman]

TomSea wrote:
"Let New Mexico and California go without.
Let Texas and Arizona have the wall, this is what it is boiling down to for me."

Won't work.
Not unless we can build a wall around New Mexico and California, as well.

Nope.
The wall has to "go all the way", or it will be no part o' nuthin' (as the great Bill Monroe used to say).

[libertybele]

No such thing as a line item veto.  That was ruled unconstitutional decades ago.

Not so fast... President Bush sent a request to Congress to use a line item veto in 2006. President Obama proposed it in 2010, but said he would have "a limited time after a bill is passed to submit a package of rescissions that must be considered by Congress in straight up or down votes,".....

https://www.axios.com/what-is-line-item-veto-3084eb35-0dfe-411e-8baa-3d1c968653fb.html

[Cyber Liberty]

Not so fast... President Bush sent a request to Congress to use a line item veto in 2006. President Obama proposed it in 2010, but said he would have "a limited time after a bill is passed to submit a package of rescissions that must be considered by Congress in straight up or down votes,".....

https://www.axios.com/what-is-line-item-veto-3084eb35-0dfe-411e-8baa-3d1c968653fb.html

It was found unconstitutional for a tough to beat reason:  A bill passed by both houses can't be altered by the President.  The bill has to be the same for all three actions, and it's clearly stated in the Constitution.