How (and when) will the Government Shutdown end?

@neptuneblue,

Quote:

. In which case, I think they'd have to not allow the case to go forward.

Of course you don't want it going forward you know you will lose. Everything ends up in the court. The last administration saw to that.

2 Replies

@coldjoint,

WTF? Don't you understand what the Constitution meant when it separated the branches of government??

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Much will depend on whether there is a decent legal reason to oppose the wall.

nope

his team has to explain ( much better than they've done so far) how this is a sudden emergency

is it the decrease in illegal immigrants that is an emergency ? (I know some of his large donors think it's a problem - they need those low-cost illegal immigrants to keep their businesses operational)

3 Replies

@coldjoint,

coldjoint wrote:

Quote:
. In which case, I think they'd have to not allow the case to go forward.

Of course you don't want it going forward you know you will lose. Everything ends up in the court. The last administration saw to that.

You either a)don't understand how the legal process works or what "not allow the case to go forward" means or b) read his words too fast.

He's not saying HE wants anything. He's stating that he doesn't think the courts will allow the case to go forward based on law and the power of the congress to appropriate funds as THEY see fit (not the executive branch).

0 Replies

@neptuneblue,

Quote:

Don't you understand what the Constitution meant when it separated the branches of government??

What about the powers it gives the president. One of them is discretion.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

is it the decrease in illegal immigrants that is an emergency ?

If your mother,son, brother, cousin of yours died would it be?

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

is it the decrease in illegal immigrants that is an emergency ? (I know some of his large donors think it's a problem - they need those low-cost illegal immigrants to keep their businesses operational)

This is an interesting issue you raise: if loopholes in the law allow economic activities to take place that become crucial for other, legal economic activities to flourish, does the government have some responsibility to maintain the status quo that allows the loopholes that are being exploited economically?

E.g. if illegal migration facilitates labor-employment at rates below minimum wage and otherwise lower in cost, should the government be held accountable to maintain semi-open borders that simultaneously allow for migration as well as deportation, even though this combination technically amounts to exploitation and a lack of due process for workers?

Slavery is prohibited by the 13th amendment, which says slavery "shall not exist in the US or any place in their jurisdiction, except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

So if deportation is used as a punishment for disobeying a boss, and that occurs without due process, is that a violation of the 13th amendment?

If the executive branch, however, attempts to enforce the 13th amendment by stopping illegal migrant exploitation, and the enforcement is construed as discrimination against undocumented migrants, does the 13th amendment amount to a racist legal instrument that ultimately punishes non-citizen slaves for lacking full citizenship rights?

0 Replies

#45 has signed reopening docs

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

coldjoint wrote:

Given your experience with the court(or so I have heard) I agree.

I wouldn't characterize it as experience with the court.

I was "in the room" (in the Alexander Hamilton sense of the phrase) for Heller, which was a really amazing experience, but I was not dealing with legal strategy. There were Harvard and Yale law professors advising Mr. Gura on legal strategy. No one asked me my opinion on the law, and I knew better than to open my mouth.

The lawyers wanted to produce a glossary of firearms terms for the Supreme Court because they were afraid that some of the justices didn't know anything about guns, and each definition in the glossary needed to be based on a cite from an authoritative source. What I did was help them find reputable cites for the definitions in their glossary.

I just happened to be friends with a pro-gun lawyer who was helping out with the case, and got drafted in when they needed someone to help them find reputable cites for gun technology.

But wow! Given my passion for the Second Amendment, to find myself involved in the Heller case was mind blowing. I felt like I was watching the Founding Fathers hammer out the Constitution.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Much will depend on whether there is a decent legal reason to oppose the wall.
No.

If the left tries to get the Supreme Court to block the wall, without giving them a good legal reason to do so, there's probably going to be a wall.

maporsche wrote:

Much will depend on if the current state of things on the border is drastically different than the past 10-20 years in order to necessitate calling it "an emergency."

I'm betting that court will say there isn't evidence to support that. To make his case worse, it wasn't even an emergency for Trump for the first 2 YEARS of his presidency, it's not one now ("coincidentally" a few weeks after Democrats took the house). The judges are a lot of things, but idiots they are not.

So the idea is to convince the justices to substitute their views for the President's discretion?

Good luck with that.

maporsche wrote:

ETA: this isn't a case of the congress passing a law to build a wall...this is a case of Trump doing an end around an entire equal branch of government. Don't think the judges will like that. Their legal opinions won't even consider the policy of the wall, just the method used to back-door fund it.

The law allows the President to declare emergencies. I suspect that the Supreme Court will enforce the law.

0 Replies

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

It's not that the Supreme Court will or will not buy into a wall. It's whether or not it will allow a President to bypass an co-equal branch of government for allocated spending. There's no precedence so case law is ineffective. So they must rely on what the Constitution has offered as a checks and balances system. In which case, I think they'd have to not allow the case to go forward.

The law allows the President to declare emergencies and draw funding from available sources to deal with those emergencies.

I suspect that the Supreme Court will decide to uphold the law.

But.... We'll see.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Much will depend on whether there is a decent legal reason to oppose the wall.
nope

If no one provides them with a good legal reason why they should block the wall, the Supreme Court probably isn't going to block the wall.

ehBeth wrote:

his team has to explain (much better than they've done so far) how this is a sudden emergency

That's easy. They can just conclude that illegal immigration is a serious problem that is not being addressed.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Since the president has now signed a cr to open the government, it will be extremely hard to prove an emergency exists. He opened the government for the exact reason he shut it, with no emergency. Hence, now it will be twice as difficult to declare.

3 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

#45 has signed reopening docs

Really?

0 Replies

@neptuneblue,

Hadn't thought of that.

0 Replies

@neptuneblue,

Quote:

Hence, now it will be twice as difficult to declare.

Do you have to hear number of fact checked crimes again? That is an emergency.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

I don't see the problem. He just has to decide that illegal immigration is an emergency. I think he is capable of deciding that.

2 Replies

@coldjoint,

As in comparison with any other deaths around the country? Why isn't THAT declared an emergency?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Ok, if that's the case, then a wall needs built around the entire continental US, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and and all US territories to make the premise of illegal immigration as an emergency. Not just a southern border.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

He just has to decide that illegal immigration is an emergency.

he has to be able to explain why the emergency is now, not sometime over the past decades - when there were higher numbers of illegal immigrants

2 Replies

How (and when) will the Government Shutdown end?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know