Different time....different act....different court.
We shall see.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump Spits on the Constitution.
- Thread starter youknowme
- Start date
We shall see.
"Ant-Trump"? That sounds like it might be a giant ant's body with the head of Trump.
That would be horrid. The Ant-Trumps are coming to your town.
That would be a real emergency.
A new Marvel movie...."Ant Trump".
Yes, but there is president. Whether or not the Court will ignore it and set another is a dangerous move for future political parties and for the country.
"Precedent"?
I don't see danger...just controversy.
~~~~~~~~Trump’s Republican Party~~~~~~~~
Let this be a warning in spades, Trump is dragging your party through the pig farm slug pit. Please hold your nose, don’t breathe or open your eyes because you be in the disgusted land of ooze.
If you don’t save your party from this pathological liar you will not only lose what integrity you have but every seat in Congress.
Trump is single handily destroying the republican Party
-
Let this be a warning in spades, Trump is dragging your party through the pig farm slug pit. Please hold your nose, don’t breathe or open your eyes because you be in the disgusted land of ooze.
If you don’t save your party from this pathological liar you will not only lose what integrity you have but every seat in Congress.
Trump is single handily destroying the republican Party
-
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Well, "what about it?" I really dislike hypocrisy...and those who did not complain about declared national emergencies from "their side," but who object to those declared by the 'other side,' when they use terms like 'lie,' and 'unconstitutional,' and such, are hypocrites.
I do NOT appreciate, either, that the Democrats who are blocking anything Trump does now are blocking measures that they supported (and sometimes even proposed) when 'their guy' was in office. In fact, 'hypocrisy' seems to be a part of the congressional oath of office.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
You understand it's not the declaration of an emergency per se that's the problem, right?
such as?
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Right, it's the reason that Trump called one.
Such as the funding for 'the wall.' Just fine when Obama was in office. It's only now that Trump is that they are refusing any funding at all.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
But they're not refusing any funding at all.
youknowme
Whatever you want me to be.
I see you are still pushing that whataboutism. Here is a nutty idea, look at the current evidence relative to the current fakery being promoted by Trump.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Are you forgetting the "Do Nothing Congress" and McConnell's promise that his #1 plan was to make certain that Obama wouldn't get reelected? And they definitely did do that as they even voted against some programs that they were previously for.
Contrary to the lies of Coulter and Limbaugh, the Dems at least are not at all opposed to real border security-- just against the utter stupidity of spending many billions on a wall that could be far better spent on hiring more personnel, upgrading the CBP technology, and better securing multiple ports of entry through more inspections.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
There is some funding for it with what was passed and signed, but not for some cement wall that makes not one iota of sense because the BP needs to see through a wall.
esmith
Veteran Member
Does a "wall" have to be made of cement without means of seeing through it?
Answer: according to the dictionary, Yes.
I agree that the President has gotten stuck on the term "wall".
However, all of the examples that have been displayed, none of them are "walls" as the definition of a "wall" is.
Setting aside the pros and cons, do you support the idea of taking funds from drug enforcement and military projects in order to pay for the wall-?
-
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Have you READ that bill?
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Setting aside the pros and cons, do you support the idea of taking funds from drug enforcement and military projects in order to pay for the wall-?
Given that the wall will make both drug enforcement (preventing the vast majority of imported illicit drugs coming up from the south) and military easier (same reason, basically)
You betcha.
preventing the importation of the nastiness (drugs, gangs, etc., ) is a whole lot more cost effective than spending the money it costs to chase it all down later.
It would effectively change the balance of power sense Congress would have little say.
The drugs come across through borders of entry, not across the "border wall" areas.
the truth will set you free
-
They can take it to court.
Congressional power preserved....albeit with a delay.