Politics, Religion & Controversy Politics | Religion | Controversy (Non-Corvette)

6 RHINOS oppose securing borders

 
Old 03-15-2019, 10:19 AM
  #81  
vette6799
CF Senior Member
 
vette6799's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 1999
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 27,762
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17-'18-'19
Default

Originally Posted by Axelrod View Post
I think you're fairly distant in your understanding of the procedures in place. Constitutionally, yes, the definitions of the operation of the Federal government are in play right in front of our very eyes.

The country (not just the President) has a need to secure the border. Due to politics and rino'isms, politics is being played.

Congress, having the power of the purse, can assign/vote funding, or they cannot or will not. The President can take alternate action to fund the security issue via viable other budget means purely within his digression. There is quite a bit of material out there about the legality of this process.

The President's detour of emergency funding causes the Congress to create a bill which can block the President's initiative for declaring emergency funding appropriations for the national emergency.

The Senate approves the legislation to block the President's emergency funding initiative based off of a luke-warm "precedent" political rhetoric stance. The President threatens a Veto prior to the Senate vote.

Trump, with a high degree of "very likely", will Veto the Bill to protect the country.

These procedures are fully outlined in the Constitution. Diving in deeper, Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution defines the necessity of House and Senate 2/3 majority to override a veto. Will that happen? No. The original vote was not a strong majority to begin the scenario. The deck is now stacked against the House and the Senate. The real issue is border security and the government processes as defined Constitutionally are working as intended. Watching the MSM meltdown? That is a whole other story of miscreant agenda garbage.

The Veto and the power of the pen will win this issue as designed by the forefathers.
Congress has delegated certain spending powers to the president and these can be changed if the congress so wishes by amending/replacing existing legislation. I believe the emergency funding provision issue as it relates to border security goes deeper than that. Once congress assigns how money is to be spent, unless the power to redirect said monies is given to the president legislatively, the president cannot arbitrarily redirect those funds as this would seem to abrogate a check and balance on the power of the president via separation of powers. I suspect the answer to this question will be answered judicially.
vette6799 is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 10:21 AM
  #82  
vette6799
CF Senior Member
 
vette6799's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 1999
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 27,762
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17-'18-'19
Default

Originally Posted by DB Cooper View Post
So, based on your argument, if he did exactly the same thing and called it an EO instead of national emergency, you'd be fine with it?
As we saw with certain of Obama's EO's, when judicially challenged, the courts smacked Obama down, although final SCOTUS determination was somewhat neutered due to only have eight Justices at the time the SC acted. (4-4, leaving the circuit court of appeals decision as law).
vette6799 is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 10:29 AM
  #83  
30YR W8T
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
30YR W8T's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2006
Location: "Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." Calvin Coolidge
Posts: 33,629
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Gryphon_ View Post
And you are wrong again all all counts - nothing new there... but specifically:

(1) I am only a leftist in that everyone who disagrees with you must be, in your view
(2) The President's tweets tell us all we need to know about the President
(3) I have zero posts on Russia or Stormy
(4) I'ts the president's duty to defend the Constitution above all else
(5) the 'elected scum bags' under discussion are GOP
A swing and a miss, yet again.

1. You demonstrate who and what you are. Agreeing or disagreeing with, doesn't change what you demonstrate and have demonstrated.
2. The presidents actions are what define him, but you leftist want to ignore all the positive work he has done because it counters your agenda. This president is for the people and this nation, not open borders and socialism.
2. You have plenty of post attacking our president.
4. The presidents first duty is to defend the nation and its citizens, without them the Constitution doesn't really matter now does it?
5. The elected scumbags who have been pushing for open borders and who have tried for over two years to deny the will of the people because they were told No!, is your leftist party of anti-American rejects.

Last edited by 30YR W8T; 03-15-2019 at 04:19 PM.
30YR W8T is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 11:20 AM
  #84  
Axelrod
CF Senior Member
 
Axelrod's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2005
Location: North East
Posts: 7,695
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by vette6799 View Post
Congress has delegated certain spending powers to the president and these can be changed if the congress so wishes by amending/replacing existing legislation. I believe the emergency funding provision issue as it relates to border security goes deeper than that. Once congress assigns how money is to be spent, unless the power to redirect said monies is given to the president legislatively, the president cannot arbitrarily redirect those funds as this would seem to abrogate a check and balance on the power of the president via separation of powers. I suspect the answer to this question will be answered judicially.
As I had mentioned, the budget redirect issue is above board and there is quite a bit of documentation in conservative channels regarding the issue.

The liberal side of the issue is "the courts". Who does not want to protect the borders? Who will file the suit? I suspect the same Senators that voted "no" on the recent legislative change are already signing those papers. They know the Veto is coming...
Axelrod is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 01:44 PM
  #85  
Jon Hekking
CF Senior Member
 
Jon Hekking's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2007
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 9,888
Thanked 52 Times in 36 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Axelrod View Post
Let me know if your girl, Stormy, will be visiting any time soon. I might think on visiting to see what all the excitement is about since politics in your state is so verry bass ackwards.
Again, you bring up Stormy. What is your obsession with her?
Jon Hekking is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 02:01 PM
  #86  
Axelrod
CF Senior Member
 
Axelrod's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2005
Location: North East
Posts: 7,695
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Hello? 32 threads with 86 mentions. You have an issue.

Axelrod is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 02:15 PM
  #87  
Axelrod
CF Senior Member
 
Axelrod's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2005
Location: North East
Posts: 7,695
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by vette6799 View Post
Congress has delegated certain spending powers to the president and these can be changed if the congress so wishes by amending/replacing existing legislation. I believe the emergency funding provision issue as it relates to border security goes deeper than that. Once congress assigns how money is to be spent, unless the power to redirect said monies is given to the president legislatively, the president cannot arbitrarily redirect those funds as this would seem to abrogate a check and balance on the power of the president via separation of powers. I suspect the answer to this question will be answered judicially.
Let's not forget that the 3 branches of government are co-equal. Budget spending is NOT a judicial oversight issue.
Axelrod is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 02:39 PM
  #88  
vette6799
CF Senior Member
 
vette6799's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 1999
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 27,762
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17-'18-'19
Default

Originally Posted by Axelrod View Post
Let's not forget that the 3 branches of government are co-equal. Budget spending is NOT a judicial oversight issue.
I'm not sure why it couldn't be the subject of judicial review. Funds that have been allocated by congress need to be used for the purpose that congress intended and can't ***** nilly be directed to other items that the president thinks are more important regardless of the reasoning behind his wishes. Legislation can always be enacted should congress feel the need for emergency funding.
vette6799 is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 02:47 PM
  #89  
Jon Hekking
CF Senior Member
 
Jon Hekking's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2007
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 9,888
Thanked 52 Times in 36 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Axelrod View Post
Hello? 32 threads with 86 mentions. You have an issue.

Yet you keep bringing her up, interesting.

Good to see I'm so in your head that you track my posts, excellent.
Jon Hekking is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 02:50 PM
  #90  
Axelrod
CF Senior Member
 
Axelrod's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2005
Location: North East
Posts: 7,695
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Jon Hekking View Post
Yet you keep bringing her up, interesting.

Good to see I'm so in your head that you track my posts, excellent.
It takes 2 seconds to prove your fascination.

No sweat at all...
Axelrod is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 02:54 PM
  #91  
Jon Hekking
CF Senior Member
 
Jon Hekking's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2007
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 9,888
Thanked 52 Times in 36 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Axelrod View Post
It takes 2 seconds to prove your fascination.

No sweat at all...
FYI, look up your own, 59 threads that you mention her in compared to my 32. Again, what is your obsession with her?

Last edited by Jon Hekking; 03-15-2019 at 02:55 PM.
Jon Hekking is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 02:58 PM
  #92  
gs568
CF Senior Member
 
gs568's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2001
Location: 24 Willie Mays Plaza S.F. California
Posts: 44,289
Thanked 35 Times in 20 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Axelrod View Post
Hello? 32 threads with 86 mentions. You have an issue.

Not surprised in the least that he misses the point once again. You presented clear evidence with his obsession of Stormy Daniels in the past. And just like clockwork, he makes another poor attempt at turning the tables by stating that he occupies some portion of one's head. And lastly, he stands alone here in the forum when he professes his irrational undying love of Romney.
gs568 is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 03:08 PM
  #93  
Axelrod
CF Senior Member
 
Axelrod's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2005
Location: North East
Posts: 7,695
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by gs568 View Post
Not surprised in the least that he misses the point once again. You presented clear evidence with his obsession of Stormy Daniels in the past. And just like clockwork, he makes another poor attempt at turning the tables by stating that he occupies some portion of one's head. And lastly, he stands alone here in the forum when he professes his irrational undying love of Romney.
Utah. Enough said. A place that once people visit they understand the calamity of the social order.
Axelrod is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 03:26 PM
  #94  
TCracingCA
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Sep 2002
Location: Hacienda Heights CA
Posts: 20,053
Thanked 296 Times in 263 Posts
Default

What do you guys think, the value of the Stormy Daniels box CD set will be worth?
TCracingCA is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 03:38 PM
  #95  
TBIRD57
CF Senior Member
 
TBIRD57's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,400
Thanked 52 Times in 46 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Grumpy View Post
then they should VOTE to revoke the authority.
sounds good to me...
TBIRD57 is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 04:23 PM
  #96  
Axelrod
CF Senior Member
 
Axelrod's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2005
Location: North East
Posts: 7,695
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by vette6799 View Post
I'm not sure why it couldn't be the subject of judicial review. Funds that have been allocated by congress need to be used for the purpose that congress intended and can't ***** nilly be directed to other items that the president thinks are more important regardless of the reasoning behind his wishes. Legislation can always be enacted should congress feel the need for emergency funding.
The budget processes, once funding is approved, is at the digression of the President.

Contingency funds, discretionary spending, national emergencies, international emergencies, moving funds between "class" spending and so forth -- once the power of the purse has approved the funding, the checkbook is fairly open.

Here is a link which is good reading, but long. It supports the power of the President in all things spending. This very topic was used, published and cited all over the place:

Presidential Budget Spending Thesis
Axelrod is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 04:24 PM
  #97  
blaforce
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
blaforce's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2011
Location: Bayou Country LA
Posts: 6,736
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
St. Jude Donor '11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17
Default

I would like to personally thank the RINO's for making this an issue. Trump is signing the Veto with press coverage showing support by boarder officials. I see it's not being covered by the MSM. Hopefully Americans will see it though other sources.

Edit: CNN cut over to the veto signing late. Supporting comments by Boarder Officials not shown.

Last edited by blaforce; 03-15-2019 at 04:31 PM.
blaforce is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 04:32 PM
  #98  
Tri-Tip
CF Senior Member
 
Tri-Tip's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 1999
Location: PR&C - The Safe Space for today's Conservative.
Posts: 24,278
Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Maybe these 6 believe that there is a better way to solve the immigration crisis than with a wall...such as by using TECHNOLOGY.

Last edited by Tri-Tip; 03-15-2019 at 04:33 PM.
Tri-Tip is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 04:36 PM
  #99  
gs568
CF Senior Member
 
gs568's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2001
Location: 24 Willie Mays Plaza S.F. California
Posts: 44,289
Thanked 35 Times in 20 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Tri-Tip View Post
Maybe these 6 believe that there is a better way to solve the immigration crisis than with a wall...such as by using TECHNOLOGY.
Idiots.
gs568 is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 04:36 PM
  #100  
Axelrod
CF Senior Member
 
Axelrod's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2005
Location: North East
Posts: 7,695
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Tri-Tip View Post
Maybe these 6 believe that there is a better way to solve the immigration crisis than with a wall...such as by using TECHNOLOGY.
Shutup stupid. And, I say that nicely.

Re-hashing old widely refuted garbage happened a month ago.

Log-off. The adults are having a conversation.
Axelrod is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: 6 RHINOS oppose securing borders


Sponsored Ads
Vendor Directory

Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: