POLITICS Border Wall / Gub-mint Shutdown

Congress being able to stop any declared state of emergency.

 

Still Congress. Unless you missed it earlier.

 

From those conservative hacks at USA Today:

First, on the 4K terrorists part, the Admin clearly admits, owns and corrected the error:

As to the terrorist / Southern Border bit:

“Special Interest” Targets

We can niggle over the numbers - 1, 41, 3k - but nobody knows, as it’s not publicly known / confirmed (DHS wouldn’t deny a number reported in the media as the cited article assumes - they just wouldn’t speak to it at all, and which is exactly what they did, there) and there’s absolutely a discussion to be had on the risk v reward v ROI as to the cost of wall and the safety / security it provides.

But Trump’s repeated assertions that suspected terrorists and thousands on DHS’ “special interest aliens” list are actively, recently and illegally attempting and/or are successfully gaining access to the United States via our unsecured Southern border appears to not only be quite true, but so obvious as to be beyond both any continued question or reasonable debate.

Or does anyone still wish to dispute that Trump is and has been right, all along, in claiming that both known and suspected terrorists are using our unsecured Southern border to gain access into the US.

We can argue about who wants to do what, if anything, how much it costs, will it be effective, etc. You’re welcome to ask me how many terrorists I believe to be acceptable to illegally cross our border, but you probably already know my answer.

How many are you ok with? What’s an acceptable thing / amount to stop them, if any?

Link: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ing-tie-terrorism-southern-border/2512115002/

 

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, and about a 3-5 sentence brief to SCOTUS.

 

This is dumb. And fear mongering.

How many known/suspected/believed/hidden whatever, terrorists, have come over the southern border AND committed an act of terrorism?

Vs... other ways of entry?

 

Past SCOTUS has ruled that certain weapons are allowed to be banned, and that holds true today.

A ban of certain types via emergency act would be possible, and potentially survivable, depending on just what was banned, and for how long.

 

And what if he follows that with another declared state of emergency?

 

Congress. Can pass a resolution. Stopping the state of emergency. And initiate impeachment procedures for abuse of power.

 

You don’t need a full gun ban to take action. Emergency powers are broad.

 

I still dispute it. He said terrorists, now you are talking about whatever "special interest aliens" are, and admitting more are coming other ways than the southern border while not even putting a number on whatever amount is coming across. Also, no number on how many are being found sneaking through the desert vs coming through an official crossing. And again, we are talking about "special interest aliens," which are not clearly defined as being criminal, terrorist, or directly threatening in and of themselves.

I find zero terrorist attack attempts coming from folks crossing the southern border acceptable. I think spending billions to keep that number at zero is a poor use of resources and smacks of ulterior motives.

Hey Tenny, where is the steel going to come from? Any foreign connections to the ownership? We went from concrete to steel pretty abruptly. Wonder who is going to benefit.

 

Ah yes, the senate will get right on that.

Nothing stops him from running that loop short of impeachment and removal. It won't happen.

 

Are you following the hypothetical you posed, with actual events... or are you simply unable to carry on two isolated trains of thought?

 

Hey, when congress actually does something regarding this President I will pretend like a House impeachment might actually amount to [uck fay]-all. I am positing that there is nothing stopping Trump from moving in circles on this, as long as he is in office. Whatever snarky nonsense you are up to with me today is sure to be super great. I'll let it play out, and be sure to give it all the consideration and weight it merits.

 

Are you saying that Congress has the capability of ending an emergency, that they would in this case, or both?

Even if passed, Trump certainly vetoes it, and now you need 2/3 of each house override him.

Even if the Dems / Ind’s stay in line (likely, but far from a certainty), overriding that veto will then require their being enjoined by:

55 GOP Reps in the House, AND
14 GOP Senators

Is it possible they’d get there? Sure, I guess.
Is it likely? Hardly.

Worse, in actually voting but failing to override the POTUS’ veto....whatever claim that Dems would then make to SCOTUS would then be easily and inarguably rebutted by the Trump Admin, who simply say that Congress tried to rescind his veto of the rescission of the declared emergency, but failed to do so, and that as such, it stands.

The Dems only chance to win that argument a that point would be for SCOTUS to then rule to override BOTH Trump (in his veto) and Congress’ vote (in their failure to override it).

That ruling will not happen now, or ever.

It would never, ever happen, even if presented to the Warren Court.

 

Nonsense? Go read the trail of comments.

You and he both said [a] president. NOT this president.

To which I responded to the PROCEDURES that President (the hypothetical one) from doing your and he’s hypothetical action.

To which you responded, again, to the same series of posts, asking about doing ANOTHER. And ANOTHER means it has to have happened the FIRST time, which means you are still ONLY talking about a hypothetical.

And then you bring up reality. Which is not a hypothetical. Which is a different thing entirely, but responding to the hypotheticals.

So the only “nonsense” I’m responding to you today is your inability to follow a single train of thought.

 

Yet another person who cannot understand a train of thought.

 

See the bolded a. Everyone see that?

It means NOT THIS ONE.

 

THE President means this one.

It’s like you all were educated at the same school...

 

The easiest and most certain means of stopping President Trump, were a person so inclined, is to be laser-focused and serious about beating him in 2020.

I’m not sure that any of this does that, and in fact, may be just making that already difficult climb even that much harder and less likely.

But, such is the Dems right, and I’m no standard by which to measure the effectiveness of their aim. Sometimes the pursuit of moral victories are enough, for some.

 

Trump is not President in Jan. 2021.