RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: CNN's Jeffrey Toobin thinks Trump can fund the wall by declaring a - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin thinks Trump can fund the wall by declaring a Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Moderator T 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 36,803
  • Joined: 02-October 03

  Posted 11 January 2019 - 04:52 PM

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin thinks Trump can fund the wall by declaring a national emergency. Fox News' Andrew Napolitano is skeptical.

The Week
1/11/19

EXCERPT:

As President Trump looks set to declare a national emergency in an attempt to fund his proposed border wall, the question on everyone's mind is: Can he get away with that? Two legal experts from Fox News and CNN have some opinions on the matter — and they're the opposite of what you might expect from each network.

First up is Fox News' Andrew Napolitano, who argued both on-air and in an op-ed that Trump's attempt to get around Congress to fund the wall by diverting funds set aside for other purposes won't fly.

"The Supreme Court has made it very clear, even in times of emergency, the president of the United States of America cannot spend money unless it has been authorized by the Congress," Napolitano said. He compared the situation to President Harry Truman trying to seize steel mills without the authorization of Congress in 1952, which the Supreme Court ruled he lacked the authority to do. Napolitano suggested Trump won't even go through with this and that it's just a "bargaining technique," adding, "This 'declaring an emergency and spending money however I want' is not going to happen."

(Full Story)
0

#2 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 55,131
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 11 January 2019 - 05:42 PM

Dang, I hate when websites change the articles that have been linked. I wanted to read the rest of the article, to see what Toobin had to say. But the link now leads to a whole different article.

:hairpull:

So I can only comment on what Napolitano said in the posted excerpt: I'm not surprised at all. Napolitano has never openly declared himself a "Never-Trumper", but he shows all the signs. I can't remember the last time he supported anything Trump said or did. So I'm skeptical of his skepticism.

:coolshades:
0

#3 User is offline   Moderator T 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 36,803
  • Joined: 02-October 03

Posted 11 January 2019 - 05:59 PM

View PostMontyPython, on 11 January 2019 - 05:42 PM, said:

Dang, I hate when websites change the articles that have been linked. I wanted to read the rest of the article, to see what Toobin had to say. But the link now leads to a whole different article.

:hairpull:

So I can only comment on what Napolitano said in the posted excerpt: I'm not surprised at all. Napolitano has never openly declared himself a "Never-Trumper", but he shows all the signs. I can't remember the last time he supported anything Trump said or did. So I'm skeptical of his skepticism.

:coolshades:


Napolitano is a libertarian, so any instance where the President can just declare something and do it is something he'll oppose. He did something similar when Trump decided to illegally ban bump stocks.

While I agree with Trump on this, I do see a possible slippery slope. What happens when the next Dem president declares global warming a crisis and then does whatever he wants with a wave of his hand. Or when after a mass shooting they declare an emergency and put an end to civilian ammunition sales.
0

#4 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 55,131
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 11 January 2019 - 06:07 PM

View PostModerator T, on 11 January 2019 - 05:59 PM, said:

Napolitano is a libertarian, so any instance where the President can just declare something and do it is something he'll oppose. He did something similar when Trump decided to illegally ban bump stocks.

While I agree with Trump on this, I do see a possible slippery slope. What happens when the next Dem president declares global warming a crisis and then does whatever he wants with a wave of his hand. Or when after a mass shooting they declare an emergency and put an end to civilian ammunition sales.


Yeah, good point. :bang:

I just wish Democrats loved America even half as much as they hate Trump. The wall would already be built.

<_<
0

#5 User is offline   grimreefer 

  • U.S. Merchant Marine
  • View gallery
  • Group: Diamond Community Supporter
  • Posts: 5,093
  • Joined: 18-December 03

Posted 11 January 2019 - 06:29 PM

View PostModerator T, on 11 January 2019 - 05:59 PM, said:

Napolitano is a libertarian, so any instance where the President can just declare something and do it is something he'll oppose. He did something similar when Trump decided to illegally ban bump stocks.

While I agree with Trump on this, I do see a possible slippery slope. What happens when the next Dem president declares global warming a crisis and then does whatever he wants with a wave of his hand. Or when after a mass shooting they declare an emergency and put an end to civilian ammunition sales.

I get your point and can see where a democrat would try that, but it's apples and oranges. The crisis at the border does not involve a Constitutionally recognized natural right. That and your AGW example are more reasons why the appointments of Constitutionalists to replace the activists in the federal judiciary and the SCOTUS are so important.
0

#6 User is offline   Moderator T 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 36,803
  • Joined: 02-October 03

Posted 11 January 2019 - 06:34 PM

View Postgrimreefer, on 11 January 2019 - 06:29 PM, said:

I get your point and can see where a democrat would try that, but it's apples and oranges. The crisis at the border does not involve a Constitutionally recognized natural right. That and your AGW example are more reasons why the appointments of Constitutionalists to replace the activists in the federal judiciary and the SCOTUS are so important.

Agreed on the last point, and I'd be willing to sacrifice a lot in terms of congressional deal-making to ensure Ginsburg's replacement is a good one.
0

#7 User is offline   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 26,312
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 11 January 2019 - 08:22 PM

View PostModerator T, on 11 January 2019 - 05:59 PM, said:

Napolitano is a libertarian, so any instance where the President can just declare something and do it is something he'll oppose. He did something similar when Trump decided to illegally ban bump stocks.

While I agree with Trump on this, I do see a possible slippery slope. What happens when the next Dem president declares global warming a crisis and then does whatever he wants with a wave of his hand. Or when after a mass shooting they declare an emergency and put an end to civilian ammunition sales.


There are 31 active national emergencies going all the way back to Carter, Obama declared like 10 of them. There is no slippery slope, we have been slid down that slope already yo~.

https://welovetrump....n-is-published/


Quote

19. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia (Apr. 12, 2010)

20. Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya (Feb. 25, 2011)

21. Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations (Jul. 25, 2011)

22. Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen (May 16, 2012)

23. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine (Mar. 6, 2014)

24. Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan (Apr. 3, 2014)

25. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic (May 12, 2014)

26. Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela (Mar. 9, 2015)

27. Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities (Apr. 1, 2015)

28. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi (Nov. 23, 2015)


Trying to figure out why Burundi, South Sudan and Central African Republic represent emergencies to the US.



This post has been edited by Taggart Transcontinental: 11 January 2019 - 08:25 PM

0

#8 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 55,131
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 11 January 2019 - 09:14 PM

OK I found Toobin's comments at another site (Huffpo no less, LOL):

Excerpt:

Toobin told CNN’s “New Day” that “the president’s emergency powers are phrased in a very broad way and second, as a purely legal matter, it is hard for me to imagine the courts finding a plaintiff with standing, that is a plaintiff with the legal right to sue to stop this at any early point in the process.”

Presidential emergency powers are invoked more often than most people realize, Toobin pointed out, and usually involve “issues that are not terribly high profile.” And “at least in the short-term, I think that if President Trump wanted to do this, the courts would let him,” he added.

Leaders declaring emergencies to “go around the usual legal processes” is “what happens in authoritarian countries,” Toobin cautioned.

https://www.huffingt...4b0c469d76b7b26

Yes Jeffy, it also happens for proper reasons in constitutional republics.

B)
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users