It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: watchitburn
Ummm. . . .
As a comparison, Pelosi needs something else.
Trump isn't violating a Constitutional right.
He's securing the border.
Who would be against that?
Is Pelosi saying that a leftist president would violate a Constitutional right?
Lol
Nancy is funny
Like we would elect a dem president again after her threat
Immediately after the 2nd tho
It will make a swell campaign ad
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a due process clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the sanction of law.
originally posted by: Breakthestreak
The next president will not be a democrat.
Thanks to democrats.
The President after that will not be a democrat either.
So, who cares?
originally posted by: carewemust
originally posted by: Breakthestreak
The next president will not be a democrat.
Thanks to democrats.
The President after that will not be a democrat either.
So, who cares?
This is quite the headline for liberal newspaper, Los Angeles Times.
(Pelosi, Waters, Schiff, Feinstein country)
Trump's 'national emergency' just played the Democrats for suckers
Article Itself: www.latimes.com...
originally posted by: [post=24189300]Teikiatsu
As I understand it the argument is two-fold:
1) Trump would have to permanently claim large swaths of private property for the wall, and
2) Trump would have to temporarily claim control of private industries to produce and install the wall.
I can see the arguments against it. To this point, the majority of 'National Emergencies' have been to stop activities, not create activities. Stop this trade, stop that payment, stop that etc etc.
originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: watchitburn
One could argue if a precedent is set...it could be our homes, cars, banks accounts, assets next. Everything could be a "national emergency".
originally posted by: Muninn
originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: watchitburn
One could argue if a precedent is set...it could be our homes, cars, banks accounts, assets next. Everything could be a "national emergency".
So it's the 32nd national emergency that broke the camel's back?
It's only a big deal because the Orange man wants to declare one.
Lol
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: watchitburn
One could argue if a precedent is set...it could be our homes, cars, banks accounts, assets next. Everything could be a "national emergency".
Why do you think I referenced the Green New Deal. Nothing in that could be achieved without such seizures and control.
originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
With regards to, "seizing land," upon which to build the wall. It's already done in California, Arizona, and New Mexico; been done in fact since 1907:
In 1907, President Roosevelt reserved from entry and set apart as a public reservation all public lands within 60-feet of the international boundary between the United States and Mexico within the State of California and the Territories of Arizona and New Mexico.
Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International Border - Congressional Research Service March 16, 2009.
Texas is a slightly different matter, but not insurmountable.
originally posted by: Teikiatsu
originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Teikiatsu
1) Trump would have to permanently claim large swaths of private property for the wall, and
You mean like the government does every time they put in a new highway???
Yes, it's called imminent domain, and it's not a power the President has.