Ted Cruz still unconvinced on Trump’s emergency declaration

[edpc]

Just looked up Levin and don't see any particular educational strength in Constitutional Law, maybe Cruz has the better knowledge here and hasn't outright come out against because he's waiting for Trump to give him a better reasoning?[/size]

Dershowitz also falls in and out of fashion, with ATs, depending on what he’s saying about the Mueller probe. He taught Cruz and has called him brilliant and one of his best students.


"Everything I said, he challenged me," Dershowitz said. "He was one of the best students I ever had, because a teacher loves to be challenged. I used the Socratic method. Everything I said, he disagreed with. I was against the death penalty, he's in favor of it. I was in favor of the exclusionary rules, he's against it. And he made such brilliant arguments that I never had to play devil's advocate."

https://www.dailywire.com/news/4912/dershowitz-yep-cruz-was-one-my-smartest-students-aaron-bandler


As an aside, I love your gif. Kansas is loaded to the brim with hawks. One morning, there was one on my deck and that’s the same look I got when I peeked through the blinds.

[XenaLee]

Just asking, for my elucidation, I don't listen to Levine, or Rush or anyone else for that matter(just ask my wife ) when has Levine argued a case before the Supreme Court, or taught Constitutional Law at a university? From just my experience reading 'experts' differing views on the same Constitutional question I don't see why anyone is surprised there are differing views on this one. I do find it amusing how one group hates Cruz until he agrees with them and then he has seen the light, until he disagrees with them and it's back on the hate train, and that's OK................just so long as no one has the same attitude about their chosen.

Just looked up Levin and don't see any particular educational strength in Constitutional Law, maybe Cruz has the better knowledge here and hasn't outright come out against because he's waiting for Trump to give him a better reasoning?

Lol!  Why ask your wife?  Is she not letting you listen to talk radio?  I'll have a chat with her, if so.  PM me her number.   

And yeah.... reasoning and reason are the key words here.  Something the Cruz haters are sadly lacking in.

[roamer_1]

The U.S. Constitution, Article II Section. 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

In case anyone has forgotten.  That means ALL of them whether he likes them or not!

That's right. And that is what bothers me.

[Bigun]

That's right. And that is what bothers me.

Except that you see to be conveniently forgetting the law which allows him to do what he is doing to protect our border to the South.

[roamer_1]

Except that you see to be conveniently forgetting the law which allows him to do what he is doing to protect our border to the South.

Nothing convenient about it. I want a wall as much as anyone here. This has been my thing since Duncan Hunter.

But I do not think what he is doing is lawful.

[Bigun]

Nothing convenient about it. I want a wall as much as anyone here. This has been my thing since Duncan Hunter.

But I do not think what he is doing is lawful.

Please read This and get back to me.

[Dexter]

I do not think what he is doing is lawful.

Sure it is. I think it'd be more accurate for you to say you think what he's doing should be unlawful.

[roamer_1]

Please read This and get back to me.

Instead, it would treat Congress’s silence as acquiescence to presidential initiative, especially in times of emergency. That is exactly the case here: Congress has authorized a wall and other security measures at the border, it has not passed any law forbidding such a wall, and the president has invoked delegated powers to continue the wall’s construction.

That is no longer true. And Trump is using his declaratory power specifically to end-run Congress, particularly the House which will not give him the funds he wants. It is specifically that purpose which is at odds with the Constitution. And if he continues, I think it will give him an impeachment, and that impeachment will stick.

[Bigun]

That is no longer true. And Trump is using his declaratory power specifically to end-run Congress, particularly the House which will not give him the funds he wants. It is specifically that purpose which is at odds with the Constitution. And if he continues, I think it will give him an impeachment, and that impeachment will stick.

Sorry! But I strongly disagree with you on that.

[roamer_1]

Sure it is. I think it'd be more accurate for you to say you think what he's doing should be unlawful.

No, I specifically mean it is not lawful... And Conservative lawmakers that I respect are saying it is shaky ground.
I believe them.

[roamer_1]

Sorry! But I strongly disagree with you on that.

 

S'alright.

So you think it is ok for him to bypass the House power of the purse? On its face, that is unconstitutional.
Different story if he went into it not knowing Congress' intent on the matter, but he knows full well, having signed a bill specifically outlining their strenuous objections mere hours before his declaration.

This is setting up a Constitutional crisis.

[XenaLee]

That is no longer true. And Trump is using his declaratory power specifically to end-run Congress, particularly the House which will not give him the funds he wants. It is specifically that purpose which is at odds with the Constitution. And if he continues, I think it will give him an impeachment, and that impeachment will stick.

How is it no longer true?   Just because 'this' Congress is obstructing everything Trump says, does and wants purely for political purposes.... how is it not true now?  The wall was authorized and some funds were approved.   An end-run on 'this' particular Congress (rabid, radical anti-American leftists) is more warranted than ever before in the history of this nation, IMO.

[XenaLee]

S'alright.

So you think it is ok for him to bypass the House power of the purse? On its face, that is unconstitutional.
Different story if he went into it not knowing Congress' intent on the matter, but he knows full well, having signed a bill specifically outlining their strenuous objections mere hours before his declaration.

This is setting up a Constitutional crisis.

Hell yeah, considering the Soros/leftist- orchestrated invasion on our southern border.... and considering the illegal attempted ONGOING coup to oust a duly elected president.  I think he is justified in using any and all legal means at his disposal to protect this nation from the DemocRats (America's enemy within) and from their cohorts, the enemy without.

[XenaLee]

No, I specifically mean it is not lawful... And Conservative lawmakers that I respect are saying it is shaky ground.
I believe them.

Shaky ground does not, however, equate to unconstitutional and/or illegal.

[Bigun]

S'alright.

So you think it is ok for him to bypass the House power of the purse? On its face, that is unconstitutional.
Different story if he went into it not knowing Congress' intent on the matter, but he knows full well, having signed a bill specifically outlining their strenuous objections mere hours before his declaration.

This is setting up a Constitutional crisis.

The law is quite clear on what he is allowed to do and that is exactly what he is doing IMHO. 

Congress has not passed a law denying the President the authority to take measures to protect the border; in fact, in 2006 Congress passed a law by bipartisan majorities authorizing the construction of a wall. In Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981), the Court found that when Congress broadly delegates a general power to the executive branch in the area of foreign affairs, such as the power to impose economic sanctions, it would not read Congress’s neglect to grant a more specific, related authority as foreclosing the president from exercising that authority. Instead, it would treat Congress’s silence as acquiescence to presidential initiative, especially in times of emergency. That is exactly the case here: Congress has authorized a wall and other security measures at the border, it has not passed any law forbidding such a wall, and the president has invoked delegated powers to continue the wall’s construction.

[roamer_1]

How is it no longer true?   Just because 'this' Congress is obstructing everything Trump says, does and wants purely for political purposes.... how is it not true now?  The wall was authorized and some funds were approved.   An end-run on 'this' particular Congress (rabid, radical anti-American leftists) is more warranted than ever before in the history of this nation, IMO.

What he can do wrt the southern border was strictly laid out in the bill he signed into law hours before his declaration. Whether they are obstructing him or not is beside the question. They have the right to the purse, and he does not.

[roamer_1]

The law is quite clear on what he is allowed to do and that is exactly what he is doing IMHO.

Yes, in fact, Congress DID make a law specifically limiting what he can do on the border and HE SIGNED it!

[edpc]

An end-run on 'this' particular Congress (rabid, radical anti-American leftists) is more warranted than ever before in the history of this nation, IMO.

For two years, the previous congress did nothing. Why wasn’t an end run warranted or done then, if it’s such a <bleep> emergency?

[XenaLee]

What he can do wrt the southern border was strictly laid out in the bill he signed into law hours before his declaration. Whether they are obstructing him or not is beside the question. They have the right to the purse, and he does not.

So... are you positing that NO president can ever re-allocate funds from one area to another, without congressional approval?  Then...

how did Obama manage to gift Iran with all that cash?

[roamer_1]

For two years, the previous congress did nothing. Why wasn’t an end run warranted or done then, if it’s such a <bleep> emergency?

I don't care about the emergency. That is within his power. He can make a ham sandwich an emergency.
I care about the misappropriation of funds.

[XenaLee]

For two years, the previous congress did nothing. Why wasn’t an end run warranted or done then, if it’s such a <bleep> emergency?

Perhaps because back then... it wasn't crystal clear that this is, indeed, an orchestrated crisis (orchestrated by America's enemies, like Soros).... and perhaps because, much like the wheels of justice and anything done by ""G"" government.... 

it takes forfrickinever for them to act on something/anything, emergency/crisis/whatever or not.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

For two years, the previous congress did nothing. Why wasn’t an end run warranted or done then, if it’s such a <bleep> emergency?

Trump too. With all branches of government.

I'm still unconvinced.

[roamer_1]

So... are you positing that NO president can ever re-allocate funds from one area to another, without congressional approval?  Then...

how did Obama manage to gift Iran with all that cash?

Technically YES. And I mean that Obama should not have done so either.
But this is different in that Congress has very specifically limited him, and he is very specifically using his emergency powers to defy congress.

That they let Obama slide on it is incidental. This congress will not let Tump slide, I can guarantee it. And he is in the wrong. It is misappropriation of funds.

[Bill Cipher]

Donald Trump is very clearly a different kind of animal. He is a nationalist. That's exactly why the establishment on both sides was horrified by his victory.

Historically he’s also been a large employer of illegals.  Apparently, his “nationalism” is a housecoat easily donned or doffed as the public occasion requires.

[bigheadfred]

I don't care about the emergency. That is within his power. He can make a ham sandwich an emergency.
I care about the misappropriation of funds.

When he orders ham sammich they just give him one of those Lunchables.