Jump to content

Trump vs Property Rights


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 273
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No, fuck both, and a whole lot of other big government stupidity too.

Actually, the article doesn't even mention Obama, even indirectly. That's just Dogballs imagination. (Sorry for actually reading the Koch-$pon$ored TeamR propaganda but then someone had to.)

I know what happened. I read it and advertently or inadvertently clicked on the first link. Because the link itself doesn’t look familiar and it’s first link does. My bad.

Posted Images

14 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 I see that you don't understand the difference between pedantic and myopic.   

I see that you don't understand the two are not mutually exclusive. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Naw -Tom's not a troll.  He's consistent and cares more about certain positions than most others do - that's a bit different from being a troll, IMHO. 

The guy admitted he acts the way he does to get a negative reaction. That's trolling, making him a troll. Consistently so, imho. ;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

The guy admitted he acts the way he does to get a negative reaction. That's trolling, making him a troll. Consistently so, imho. ;) 

Yep, that pretty well describes every post in this thread. To non-readers, anyway.

Consistently mischaracterizing people is bad. Sometimes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't stand to see Bent so consistently wrong, so here's a bit of trolling:

14 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Simple questions

  1. Does the mindless and endless resistance to Trump by the Democrats ultimately strengthen or weaken America?
  2. Are China, NK, Taliban, Palestinians, Turks, Russians, etc more or less willing to negotiate fair diplomatic solutions to foreign affairs problems?  
  3. Do America's enemies and strategic competitors benefit from turmoil and disunity in America?  
  4. Do Democrats ever consider this or is TDS completely blinding them 

Most here don't think of me as TeamD, but I'd say my endless resistance to Trump strengthens America, or at least has that intent.

1. People who ignore his attacks on property rights weaken America because our high regard for property rights is a main reason we are a rich country.

2. Less.

3. They certainly benefit from his raising taxes on us, but that's another thread.

4. I'm simultaneously blinded by my TeamD and my TeamR cheerleading. Just ask any partisan who doesn't really bother to read much.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

From the stupid wall thread:

On 5/5/2019 at 10:28 AM, Dog said:

 

"The debate over walls, indeed any border security measure, is now moot. Migrants understand they simply have to present themselves at a port of entry with a child, claim asylum and they will be released into the country with a hearing in the distant future they may or may not bother attending.

But now it seems we have a new twist, "recycled children" in which the same children are reused for the purpose."

https://kfoxtv.com/news/local/border-agents-find-recycled-migrant-child-in-el-paso


This is outstanding news for property owners all along the border. The emergency need to exercise the "military version" of eminent domain is moot! Hooray!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Military Version of Stupid Boondoggling
 

Quote

 

The Pentagon is redirecting $1.5 billion in funding that was meant to be spent on a nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile, reconnaissance plane, overseas war efforts, and other projects to build 80 miles of border wall along the U.S.-Mexico boundary, according to a new report.

...

The Associated Press reported last Friday that $604 million will be pulled from funding for the Afghan and coalition forces.

Shanahan said this is the final pool of money the Pentagon will make available for border fence construction. It pulled around $1 billion in Army personnel dollars in March on top of $3.6 billion in military construction money.

At the conclusion of the partial government shutdown in February, Trump announced plans to use $600 million from the Treasury Department's drug forfeiture fund; $2.5 billion from the Defense Department's drug interdiction program; and $3.5 billion from a military construction fund.

 

I'm sure an emergency need to restore the diverted funding for the endless Afghan nation building will soon arise.

We don't have a drug forfeiture fund. We have a slush fund of drug war loot that is often not even related to the drug war.

I'm glad to see money diverted away from the failed war on drugs, just as I am glad to see it diverted away from the Afghan nation building project. Both bad ideas that should go away. But just wait. There will be an emergency need to "support the troops" and "get tough on drugs" and then the diversion from the real source, taxpayers, will occur.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2019 at 12:01 PM, Olsonist said:

Tom will submit an amicus curious brief in DC v Man United, not that there's anything wrong with that.


Huh?

Hope you don't mind that I consolidate all of your odd and baseless projections about me in this thread. Had to pick one and this was it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Olsonist said:

Dogballs will be along shortly to remind us that at least we don't have Hillary. Dogballs will be concerned yet optimistic. Dogballs will cite the tail end of his closing argument in Dogballs v The World where he unsuccessfully represented himself against no one in particular.


Olsonist will continue to be an anonymous troll who fantasizes endlessly (but never correctly) about me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

From the stupid wall thread:

On 5/31/2019 at 5:31 PM, Dog said:

Do we have problem yet?

"After the new record numbers of family units coming to the border almost every month this fiscal year, some might have thought the crisis would have maxed out in April and the numbers would begin decreasing. But preliminary data from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) apprehensions so far in May show that numbers continue to skyrocket".

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/texas-pace-another-record-month-illegal-immigration-19-increase-april/


Well...

Quote

After the new record numbers of family units coming to the border almost every month this fiscal year, some might have thought the crisis would have maxed out in April and the numbers would begin decreasing. But preliminary data from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) apprehensions so far in May show that numbers continue to skyrocket.

southwest-border-apprehensions-final.jpg

Just how "new" is this alleged "record" anyway?

But I brought it to this thread because of this:

Quote

According to preliminary weekly data used internally by CBP and given to CR by a Border Patrol agent who must remain anonymous because he is not authorized to speak to the press, 71,834 illegal aliens were apprehended between points of entry in the state of Texas from May 1 to May 28. That works out to a daily pace of 2,565.5 per day or a flow of 936,408 annually – just in the state of Texas alone. One has to go back to fiscal year 2006 to find this level of annual apprehensions in all four border states combined.

Almost back up to the 2008 level is the new "record" I guess.

And it's happening in Texas, which has the most privately-owned border land.

So my answer to your question is the same as ever: yes, Trump's attacks on property rights are a yuge problem, even bigger than the early 2000 levels of border apprehensions, which far exceeded today's levels.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Rand Paul and Ron Wyden Want To Limit The POWER OF PANIC
 

Quote

 

The United States is currently in a state of emergency. Thirty-two of them, actually.

The two most recent ones have received most of the attention. President Donald Trump declared one earlier this year in order to justify building a wall at the southern border, and he declared the other to block Huawei, a Chinese telecom company, from doing business in the United States. But the longest-running national emergency dates back to 1979, declared by President Jimmy Carter in response to the Iranian hostage crisis. The hostages were released in 1981, but the "national emergency" continues.

These days, the National Emergency Act of 1976 mostly serves as a way to bulk up executive power in order to accomplish such goals as banning trade with Sudan—a national emergency declared under President Bill Clinton in 1997 that's still ongoing—or as a way to get around Congress when it won't approve billions of dollars in spending. It's a convenient tool for ticked off executives, in other words, not the last resort for addressing acute national crises.

 

I expect the effort to fail because no matter how bad TeamD says they think Trump is (or how bad TeamR said they thought Obama was), both teams want to be sure their guy has these powers and they want it bad enough to make sure the worst President they've ever seen retains them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
16 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Tom will say at least the Nazis aren't a part of the Duopoly.


You continue to have lots of thoughts about what I might say and they continue to be as baseless as your assertion that saying Obama was better on property rights than Trump is some kind of cheering for Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The border, which looks like this:

web18-100miborder-map-2400x1000px-v01.jp

is a fourth amendment-free zone.

Rand Paul and Ron Wyden want to change that a bit.
 

Quote

 

Journalist Seth Harp shared a troubling story of warrantless border patrol searches of Americans coming into the country in a lengthy piece at The Intercept over the weekend.

Harp was returning to Austin, Texas, from Mexico. He was singled out for "secondary screening" by Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) officials clearly trying to get more information about his work, with agents asking him about the story he was currently investigating, as well as about his reporting as a war correspondent and his discussions with his editors and colleagues. The end result was, according to Harp's telling, a pack of agents happy to wield their authority to demand unwarranted access to Harp's devices and property, as well as detailed information about his journalistic work, before they permitted him to reenter the country.

For those who have been paying attention to what has been happening on our borders since the 9/11 attacks, Harp's tale should have the ring of the familiar. For years now border agents have been demanding that Americans—including journalists—provide unfettered access to their devices and property without warrants or probable cause. Under President Barack Obama, for instance, there was a fivefold increase in warrantless border searches of tech devices. Back in 2016, Department of Homeland Security officials attempted to seize Wall Street Journal reporter Maria Abi-Habib's phone when she flew into Los Angeles International Airport.

Abi-Habib did not cooperate and was eventually released. Harp did cooperate and then watched as CBP agents pretty much accessed every single bit of data on his iPhone and laptop. This was a learning experience for Harp, but not for those who have long been warning about such unwarranted searches. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union, for example, are currently suing over the practice, representing 10 U.S. citizens and one permanent resident.

Among those in Congress who have been raising alarms about this behavior are Sens. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) and Ron Wyden (D*–Ore.), two men who regularly attempt to develop bipartisan coalitions to bolster Americans' Fourth Amendment rights.

Wyden is using Harp's story to highlight a bill that he and Paul have been trying to pass that would protect people like Harp, and the rest of us, too. The Protecting Data at the Border Act would require a warrant, based on probable cause, before a government official may access an American's tech device at a border entry point and would forbid officials from denying Americans reentry to the country if they refuse to provide passwords or online account information. The legislation would also prevent border officials from holding Americans for more than four hours to try to convince them to cooperate.

 

Four hours seems way too long to me. I'd give them 15 minutes, tops.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2019 at 7:00 AM, Importunate Tom said:

The "military version" of eminent domain is the declaration of a National Emergency.

We have lots of them, the oldest one on that list has been ongoing since the 70's and many date to the 90's.

Judge blocks Trump from using billions in military funds for border wall

Quote

Gilliam, an Obama appointee, made the ruling on the military funds in a lawsuit brought forward by several groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Sierra Club, challenging the diversion of the military funds under the scope of the national emergency order.

As always, I'm glad to see corporations like the ACLU and Sierra Club exercising their long-established first amendment right to expre$$ themselves by filing lawsuits.

Also glad that Gilliam made his temporary injunction permanent.

On 2/3/2019 at 3:41 AM, Importunate Tom said:

The article says that disapproval of emergency powers is rare. I've never heard of it at all. I'd kind of like to see it happen just because "it's an emergency" always seems to be the magic key to more power. I'd like to see the key not work just once.


Hooray for once.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Progressives Lost Big Time on the Border Emergency Aid Bill
 

Quote

 

The House voted 305–102 last week to pass a $4.6 billion border funding bill. In theory, the money will improve conditions in the government's detention camps for migrant kids. But Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) argued that the Trump administration doesn't need more money; it needs to release the kids it's holding. She was right, but she failed to stop the legislation.

...

In short, the administration created the migrant kids' sorry conditions, then used their plight to win billions of dollars for agencies with a record of abuse and neglect. It remains to be seen whether this will make a whit of difference in the conditions the kids have been living in.

 

Offered with the usual apology for more Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kamala Harris Can't Wait To Follow Trump's Lead

They want to attack different property rights, but

Quote

Regardless of how you feel about Trump's border wall or Harris' gun control agenda, the way they achieve their goals matters. Before Americans assent to the use of extraconstitutional presidential powers by politicians they like, they should imagine how those powers might be used by politicians they despise.

This is easier to accomplish for those of us who despise PANIC power grabs from either half of the Duopoly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/2/2019 at 6:31 AM, Importunate Tom said:

Judge blocks Trump from using billions in military funds for border wall

As always, I'm glad to see corporations like the ACLU and Sierra Club exercising their long-established first amendment right to expre$$ themselves by filing lawsuits.

Also glad that Gilliam made his temporary injunction permanent.

And the issue gets to SCOTUS
 

Quote

 

...

A federal district court in California barred the government from using the money for border-wall construction, and on July 3 a federal appeals court rejected the government’s request to put a hold on that decision pending appeal. Judges Richard Clifton and Michelle Friedland concluded that, under federal law, after Congress had denied the government’s request for funds for the wall, the Department of Defense could not reallocate funds to accomplish the same thing.

Today the government came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to put the district court’s order on hold while it appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (and, if necessary, while the government seeks Supreme Court review). The government also asked the justices to enter an “administrative stay”—a temporary hold while the Supreme Court considers its request.

In a filing by U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, the government told the justices that the ruling below was simply wrong: The “sole basis” for the order blocking it from using the $2.5 billion for border-wall construction “rests on a misreading” of the law that authorizes the Department of Defense to reallocate its funds in some circumstances. What’s more, the government added, the challengers’ “interests in hiking, bird watching, and fishing in designated drug-smuggling corridors do not outweigh the harm to the public from halting the government’s efforts to construct barriers to stanch the flow of illegal narcotics across the southern border.”...

 

I'd add that the government's interest in pursuing a stupid drug war does not outweigh Congress' power of the purse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The PANIC Continues
 

Quote

 

This week President Donald Trump summarily eliminated almost all asylum protections for Central Americans and other migrants seeking to enter the United States from the Southern border. The president's move is legally questionable for a host of reasons, the most important being that he is attempting an end run around Congress and doing by administrative fiat what he couldn't through normal legislative channels.

The rule, which will go into effect immediately, basically says that anyone—men, women, children, even unaccompanied minors—who pass through another country first will be ineligible for asylum at the U.S. southern border unless they first apply for and are denied asylum in the countries on the way. Migrants already in America will be exempted, even if they entered without authorization between ports of entry. But perversely, Central American migrants who listened to the administration and waited in Mexico to come in legally through an official port of entry will be out of luck.

...

this is not just a rule: It is an "interim final rule" jointly issued by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice. As such, it dispensed with normal rule-making niceties—minimum notice requirements, comment periods, etc. —that are typically required before a change of such magnitude.

The administration says it can do this because the country is facing a border emergency.

...

Trump thinks he can make America safe by turning it into a fortress. In fact, he is creating the conditions for major continental upheavals that will turn a fake emergency into a horrendously real one. If fleeing Central American migrants are "overwhelming" America's border to the point of a crisis, what will happen to Mexico and Guatemala, far less prosperous and stable countries, if they are forced to absorb all of them?

Courts are going to have a hard time keeping a straight face listening to some of the administration's tortuous legal rationales. So why is Trump doing this? He is grandstanding to stir up his base and keep alive the notion that America is under siege. He hopes to translate a legal loss into a political victory—asylum seekers, America, and the region be damned.

 

I guess it goes without saying that I'm as sorry as usual for posting more Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2019 at 5:41 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

And SCOTUS Says
 

Quote

 

Earlier today, the Supreme Court issued a stay against a lower-court injunction blocking President Donald Trump from diverting military funds to build his border wall. At least for the moment, Trump can therefore continue to divert the funds for wall construction until the lower courts (and possibly the Supreme Court) issue a final decision on the case.

...

As is the usual practice with stay rulings, the majority issued very little in the way of an explanation. But it did indicate that "[a]mong the reasons is that the Government has made a sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to obtain review of the Acting Secretary's compliance with Section 8005 [of the the 2019 Department of Defense Appropriations Act]."

In other words, this seems to be a purely a procedural ruling suggesting that the majority justices think the plaintiffs in the case—the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Community Coalition an alliance of various liberal/progressive groups in the border area—lacked the procedural right to challenge the diversion of funds. The Court may be referring here to Judge N. Randy Smith's argument in his dissent in the Ninth Circuit ruling on this issue, where he argued that only plaintiffs with "economic interests" at stake are legally permitted to challenge the funding diversion. In my view, Judge Smith's distinction between "economic" and "recreational" interests in dubious. The Court should have simply denied the stay, or at least adopted Justice Breyer's approach.

But if Smith's analysis is indeed the basis for the majority justices' ruling, it is notable that it does not address the underlying merits of the legality of Trump's plan to divert the funds. And, if the Supreme Court ultimately reverses the Ninth Circuit on this basis, the legal battle over the wall will be far from over.

In my view, Judge Smith's distinction between "economic" and "recreational" interests in dubious. But, even if the Supreme Court ultimately endorses his reasoning or something like it, there are plenty of other cases challenging the wall funding that have been brought by parties who do have "economic" interests, even on Smith's narrow definition thereof. They include local governments and private individuals who own property in the areas where parts of the wall would be built.

 

Pesky property owners!

How many sailors think recreation doesn't affect their household economy, or the economy at large?

This ruling is only tangentially related to the thread topic, as the article notes:

Quote

The lower court rulings in this case—and therefore, also, today's Supreme Court ruling—also do not consider a range of other important issues raised in the wall litigation. They include whether the situation at the border qualifies as "national PANIC" under the National PANICS Act of 1976 (whose invocation was necessary to trigger the use of some of the funds Trumps wants to access, but not those at stake in this particular case), and whether the president has the authority to use eminent domain to seize property for border wall construction not specifically authorized by Congress. These questions are likely to be  considered at least some of the many other wall-related cases pending before various federal courts.

OK, so I might have edited that just a bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 1/10/2019 at 12:03 PM, Grrr... said:
On 1/10/2019 at 12:02 PM, dogballs Tom said:

He's been proven wrong twice. But thanks for posting without reading! It's funny!

Hrmm..  Confirmation bias strikes.  You're right, Obama is mentioned a number of times.

22 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

Do you understand how a forum works?  Or do you just think it's your own personal blog to keep replying to yourself?  Usually you want responses to your posts, but judging from this thread you seem to be missing half of how these places work.  You've been talking with yourself since June of '18.


Yes, but my understanding is that the idea is to read replies and then comment on them. Obviously, we differ on this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

What to do when property rights get in the way of political meddling?

Declare Another PANIC!

Quote

 

President Donald Trump is threatening to use the emergency authority granted by a powerful but obscure federal law to make good on his tweeted "order" to U.S. businesses to cut ties in China amid a spiraling trade war between the two nations.

...

Trump fired off on Twitter, declaring American companies "are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China." He later clarified that he was threatening to make use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in the trade war, raising questions about the wisdom and propriety of making the 1977 act used to target rogue regimes, terrorists and drug traffickers the newest weapon in the clash between the world's largest economies.

...

"If I want, I could declare a national emergency," Trump told reporters Sunday during a breakfast meeting with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. He cited China's theft of intellectual property and the large U.S. trade deficit with China, saying "in many ways that's an emergency." But he added, "I have no plans right now."

...

Presidents have often used the act to impose economic sanctions to further U.S. foreign policy and national security goals. Initially, the targets were foreign states or their governments, but over the years the act has been increasingly used to punish individuals, groups and non-state actors, such as terrorists.

Some of the sanctions have affected U.S. businesses by prohibiting Americans from doing business with those targeted. The act also was used to block new investment in Burma in 1997....

 

And that last bit is why Congress isn't acting to repeal or reform the International PANIC Economic Powergrab Act of 1977.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When Property Rights Get In The Way, Trump Promises Pardons
 

Quote

 

...

The Post's report paints a disturbing picture of a president not only condoning the use of eminent domain to seize private land from Americans, but also suggesting that government employees are free to violate laws in pursuit of that objective and will be shielded from prosecution if their actions lead to criminal charges. If this report is true, Trump has blatantly undermined the rule of law for political gain.

Despite what the president's anti-immigration supporters say, the border wall isn't an effective way to stop illegal immigration. Even Trump has admitted that scaling his proposed wall would be as easy as using a ladder and rope.

But Trump promised that he would build a border wall, and he's already shut down the federal government once in an attempt to get Congress to appropriate funds for the project. He's declared a "national emergency" when one doesn't really exist. He's re-routed funding from other Pentagon projects to pay for the border wall. He's yanked $270 million in disaster relief funding from Puerto Rico—which might take another direct hit from a hurricane later this week—to put towards the wall.

 

With apologies for more Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading, as usual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans Choose Trumpism Over Property Rights and the Rule of Law
 

Quote

 

In more placid times, news that the president of the United States was encouraging aides to break the law by seizing swaths of private property along the southwestern border to build a wall might have caused more than a day's ripple.

After all, legitimate controversy over the promiscuous threat of eminent domain (as well as illegitimate fears of a NAFTA Superhighway) dogged former Texas Gov. Rick Perry for a full decade, prompting him to eventually abandon his dreams of a Trans-Texas Corridor tollroad. And Perry wasn't out there dangling pardons and barking "take the land" to his staff.

As former Fox News and current CNN host Alisyn Camerota asserted Wednesday, "Any time there was any suggestion about President Obama using eminent domain for anything, Roger Ailes, and therefore Fox News, blew a gasket about the idea of seizing private land."

We are accustomed to some ideological shape-shifting when the White House changes teams. But what's so striking about this week's slate of immigration-related controversies — including the one that supplanted the land-grab pardon: the administration's new rules governing potential citizenship for the children of U.S. service people abroad — is that none of it should come as a surprise.

This is how Trump ran, this is how he won the GOP primary, this is how he beat Hillary Clinton, this is how he has governed. So the question for Republicans becomes, is this how your party will henceforth be known?

 

Some still think that's a question?
 

Quote

 

Trump is who he said he'd be, minus a surprise or two (including, happily, criminal justice reform). And, having faced not even token resistance from Republicans in the allegedly co-equal legislative branch, Trump is redefining the GOP in ways Ronald Reagan would not recognize: Anti-trade, anti-grace, anti-refugee.

As new GOP presidential primary contender Joe Walsh asked of his "fellow limited government conservatives" in a tweet this week, "You do have a problem with a President demanding the federal government go ahead and seize private land and then promising to pardon those who seized the land. Don't you?"

 

Well, OK, Joe Walsh apparently does.

Get it through your head, Joe. The answer is emphatically no.

(With the usual apology for more Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading, of course.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just catching up on Joe Walsh news.

On 8/25/2019 at 11:58 AM, Olsonist said:

Shitstain isn't going to lose the Republican primary. Republicans love them some Shitstain. He has an 88% approval rating among them. Jeff will be along shortly to blame that Republican approval rating of his boy Shitstain on the Democrats. Guy will be concerned yet optimistic. Tom will correct Jeff and say that it's really the Duopoly's fault.

It appears that a lot of Shitstain's non-supporting supporters do in fact approve of him.


No, as the post above demonstrates, I think TeamR is responsible for their support of Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

The usual partisan response from TeamD types to efforts to protect property rights is, "well you must like slavery!"

Trump seems to have overcome that knee jerk reaction.
 

Quote

 

The Government Accountability Office notified Democratic leadership in the Senate that it will review the Trump administration's attempts to take over private property near the southern border through eminent domain, a power the government has to expropriate land for public use as long as the landowners are compensated. Many landowners oppose these efforts and are taking the administration to court in a bid to keep their property.

...

Frustrated with the scant information from the administration on its use of eminent domain, Schumer and fellow Democratic Senators Dick Durbin, Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich had asked the Government Accountability Office last month to initiate an inquiry. They asked the office to look into the number of citizens who could potentially have their land seized, the cost the property acquisitions, the time it will take and the administration's work to compensate landowners.

Durbin applauded the investigation into what he called Mr. Trump's "land grab," saying in a statement that private lands along the border belong to local residents, not to the federal government. Udall, who represents the border state of New Mexico, went further, calling on the administration to stop invoking eminent domain until the Government Accountability Office concludes its probe.

"Under this administration's thoughtless and potentially lawless land grab, homes could be confiscated, farms and livelihoods ruined, neighbors cut off from one another, Tribal sovereignty upended, and endangered species and habitat lost forever," Udall said in a statement.

 

I welcome them aboard the Property Rights Express!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Federal Court Rules Trump Cannot Use "Emergency" Declaration to Divert Funds to Build his Border Wall
 

Quote

 

Earlier today, federal district judge Judge David Briones issued a decision holding that it is illegal for President Trump to use his declaration of a "national emergency" to divert funds to build his border wall. This is the first judicial ruling directly addressing the issue of whether it is legal to use the emergency declaration for that purpose. Previous wall decisions dealt with the administration's attempts to divert other funds to build the wall, from sources that did not depend on the use of the emergency declaration. Judge Briones' ruling comes in a case filed by El Paso County and the Border Network for Human Rights.

...

Resolving the national emergency question in this way allows the court to avoid virtually all of the big picture issues surrounding the emergency declaration, such as whether the situation at the border qualifies as "national emergency" under the National Emergencies Act of 1976, whether the relevant provision of the National Emergencies Act (if interpreted in the broad way the administration advocates) is unconstitutional, and even whether the text of Section 2808 actually allows the use of funds for border wall construction (in my view, the answer is an emphatic "no"). It also does not consider whether the president has the authority to use eminent domain to seize property for border wall construction not specifically authorized by Congress.

 

The ruling seems to boil down to "Congress appropriates money, not the President."

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

The ruling seems to boil down to "Congress appropriates money, not the President."

I went through the description in the article and my hearsay interpretation is a bit more nuanced but I think that's what the Judge is TRYING to get at without gutting emergency powers altogether.  We'll see if it holds up to appeal.  I think it's going to get shot down.  Personally, I'm OK with a little gutting of 'emergency' powers.  I hope it gets sustained and would like to see the SCOTUS take up the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, cmilliken said:

I went through the description in the article and my hearsay interpretation is a bit more nuanced but I think that's what the Judge is TRYING to get at without gutting emergency powers altogether.  We'll see if it holds up to appeal.  I think it's going to get shot down.  Personally, I'm OK with a little gutting of 'emergency' powers.  I hope it gets sustained and would like to see the SCOTUS take up the issue.

Declaring a PANIC has to come with a scary lack of limits on power and oversight/due process applied to that power.

I don't think we can change that, nor should we try.

But some "gutting" of those powers could be done by more stringently defining conditions that constitute a cause for PANIC.

As noted upthread, we've got lots of National PANICS, some of which have been ongoing for decades. I think the oldest one was declared by President Carter but I can't remember what it is. That's not a real PANIC.

But far from wanting to rein in Trump's abuse of the Power of PANIC, we see TeamD Presidential Contenders like Kamala Harris salivating over getting to use that power. Blessed bipartisan unity prevails.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 9/6/2019 at 1:45 AM, Shortforbob said:
On 9/5/2019 at 10:09 PM, Mid said:

Military Base Loses Funding for New School to Trump’s Border Wall

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/05/us/trump-border-wall-military-families.html

So the children of Service men and women will pay for the wall.

Quote

The Pentagon’s decision to divert $62.6 million from the construction of Fort Campbell’s middle school means that 552 students in sixth, seventh and eighth grades will continue to cram themselves in, 30 to a classroom in some cases, at the base’s aging Mahaffey Middle School. Teachers at Mahaffey will continue to use mobile carts to store their books, lesson plans and homework assignments because there is not enough classroom space. Students stuffed into makeshift classrooms-within-classrooms will continue to strain to figure out which lesson to listen to and which one to filter out.

Asked on the CBS program “Face the Nation” in February about the prospect that the Fort Campbell middle school could be sacrificed for the border wall, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said the border came before education. “It’s better for the middle school kids in Kentucky to have a secure border,” Mr. Graham said. “We’ll get them the school they need, but right now we’ve got a national emergency on our hands.”

Gotta love a Republican.

We have dozens of emergencies. Noted Republican Jimmy Carter declared the longest-running one in 1979, as noted in post 226 above.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Came across this 2015 article about a golf course that went out of business in part due to winding up on the Mexican side of a border wall built during the W administration.

Quote

 

In 2006, Congress passed the Secure Fence Act. The effect on the golf course was immediate. Although nothing happened right away construction-wise, business started to dry up. Some members, uncertain about the course’s future, stopped renewing their memberships.

“Without even the fence going up we were already affected by it, just by word of mouth,” Lucio said. “Our membership declined right of way.”

Nonetheless, the Lucios rolled up their sleeves and managed to do OK between 2007 and 2009, Robert Lucio said.

Homeland Security eventually built its border fence on the levee, leaving a gap at the entrance to the golf course, which was now entirely on the Mexican side of the fence.

 

Because the border in TX is a river, the wall winds up being some distance away from it, leaving private property owned by Americans on the "Mexican" side even though it's in the US.

The problem persists, as this article from early this year says.
 

Quote

 

...

In one of the ongoing legal fights, the Catholic Diocese of Brownsville has contested an attempt by the federal government to survey its property. The diocese argues the land survey — the first step in an eminent domain seizure — will impinge on religious freedom. The chapel on the property, called La Lomita, was first built in 1865 and still draws worshipers for religious holidays and special events.

In a declaration to the court, the diocese argued that a border wall would run counter to Catholic teachings of universality and openness. In addition, the diocese asserts that border militarization threatens human life.

The Homeland Security Department under Trump has waived dozens of environmental, endangered species and historic preservation laws to forge ahead with construction of barriers. In the case of the La Lomita construction, however, it hasn’t yet waived the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which states the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.” The diocese has made the law a central part of its argument.

The proposed border wall also would leave the chapel trapped between the wall and the U.S.-Mexico border in an enforcement zone, according to Mary McCord, a visiting law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who represents the diocese.

“So you would then have this chapel, which is supposed to be a place for prayer and contemplation and religions retreats, sitting there essentially under the spotlights, clear-cut of vegetation, heavily surveilled, right within this enforcement zone,” she said.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anybody out there?

Anybody?

Hello?

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
 
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 10/12/2019 at 5:57 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Federal Court Rules Trump Cannot Use "Emergency" Declaration to Divert Funds to Build his Border Wall
 

The ruling seems to boil down to "Congress appropriates money, not the President."

And Judge Briones made his temporary injunction permanent.

Quote

 

This week, a federal judge issued a nationwide injunction blocking the Trump administration from using $3.6 billion in federal military construction money that Congress made off-limits to construct a border wall. The injunction follows a ruling in which the court invalidated President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration at the southern border. The judge recognized that the “emergency” was just a pretext for the administration to spend money that Congress had denied, and that doing so violated congressional appropriations law. 

...

 

Glad to see the Power of PANIC reined in a bit, but, from the link in that quote,

Quote

 

The injunction blocks the administration from using up to $3.6 billion it planned to reallocate from military construction projects.

However, the judge's order doesn't prohibit the administration from using up to $2.5 billion in Department of Defense funding originally earmarked to support counter-drug activities.

 

It looks like the Power of Drug War PANIC remains unrestrained.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
6 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Appeals Court Allows Trump To Divert $3.6 Billion In Military Funds For Border Wall

 
Source: NPR

A federal appeals court has handed the Trump administration a victory by allowing the president to tap military construction funds to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

A divided 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the decision late Wednesday reversing a lower court order that stopped Trump from using $3.6 billion in U.S Defense Department money to construct the long-promised border wall.

The court noted that in July, the U.S. Supreme Court lifted a similar freeze on a separate source of military funding that Trump would like to use to pay for border barriers.

"The Government is entitled to the same relief here," wrote the three-judge panel in the opinion.

-snip-

January 9, 2020 4:42 PM ET
BOBBY ALLYN

Updated at 5:51 p.m. ET


Read more: https://www.npr.org/2020/01/09/794969121/appeals-court-allows-trump-to-divert-3-6-billion-in-military-funds-for-border-wa
 


The Plenary Power of PANIC at work again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
On 1/10/2020 at 1:39 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

The Plenary Power of PANIC at work again.

The word "grabber", on our threads, is a tireless mechanism to induce daily panic. It comes from a guy who seems panicked to me. The panic is about the de facto failure of Heller, and the panic set it after Kolbe, cuz Peruta II.

From opposite coastlines, the latter mocked the idea of outdoor gun rights, as such. The former dramaticallky detatched AW's from the protectiuon of the Second Amendment, and dictated intermediate scrutiny in future gun rights discussions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
18 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Tom isn't a libertarian. Tom is a Fakebertarian which is to say he's a Republican who likes to troll liberals with libertarian arguments but then doesn't apply those same arguments to Republicans.


This seems to me the more appropriate thread to complain about my endless Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading.

But the thread where you posted it has complaints from me about two different guys named Sessions, Trump, Rand Paul, and other TeamR players.

I guess we could take it to a tariff thread. Or the Kelo thread, where Trump and Gary Johnson have both been slammed by me.

Not that it matters. Non-readers like yourself will continue to be unaware of what I have actually posted.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Slush Fund Paying For The Stupid Wall
 

Quote

 

...

Foreign Policy's Lara Seligman reports that the White House sent a memo to Congress on Thursday outlining plans to redirect military spending for the border wall. The administration plans to move $2.2 billion originally earmarked for purchasing vehicles, ships, and aircraft into an anti-drug trafficking program that has already been tapped to provide for wall construction costs. The other $1.6 billion in border wall funding will come from the budget used to pay for America's foreign wars, Foreign Policy reported.

That budget, officially known as the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account, started as an innocuous supplemental appropriation to fund the military response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But, as Reason contributor Veronique de Rugy put it in 2015, the account "quickly became a slush fund that allows policymakers to spend gobs of money with little oversight and fatten the Pentagon's base budget when the spending caps are put into place, seeing as OCO funding is exempt."

Since 2001, Congress has funneled more than $2 trillion through the OCO budget, according to the Congressional Research Service. That includes $77 billion in 2019, equal to about 5.6 percent of all federal discretionary spending last year—and larger than the State Department's entire budget. All that spending is above-and-beyond the Pentagon's own $700 billion budget last year.

None other than Mick Mulvaney, the former congressional budget hawk turned director of the Trump White House's Office of Management and Budget, has called the OCO budget a "slush fund." During the Obama administration, Mulvaney said the White House's use of the OCO budget to avoid congressionally imposed budget caps was "disingenuous" and "deceptive," and he co-sponsored a bipartisan bill to limit how OCO funding could be used.

Now, however, Mulvaney is presiding over a similar abuse of the OCO budget, using it as a back door to provide funding for a border wall that Congress seems unwilling to provide via the normal budgetary process.

Even so, cutting funding for the Pentagon's literal war chest may a worthwhile move. But spending that money on an ineffective vanity project along the Mexican border is questionable at best. Trump's budget calls for spending more than $7 billion on the border wall this year, enough to build about 885 miles of new fencing by 2022, according to The Washington Post.

The border wall might be Trump's most visible campaign promise, but it won't do much to address the supposed threat of illegal immigration. Most illegal immigrants to the United States don't hop the border; they land at airports and then overstay their visas. It also wouldn't do much to stop the flow of drugs into the United States, because they're mostly smuggled in through checkpoints.

...

 

It's too bad that Mulvaney, like his fellow Democrats, can't be consistent on this issue. Or something. Just trying to live up to Olsonist's view of the world.

I'd prefer not to see this money spent on the stupid wall NOR on stupid foreign meddling. But of the two, I guess spending it on the stupid wall is probably the less harmful option. A useless structure spanning our open desert seems to me less likely to inspire people around the world to hate and attack us than killing people in faraway lands. But it is kind of like a choice between a shit sandwich and just plain shit without the bread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Congress to Trump: No Coronavirus Money for the Border Wall

Quote

...The section of the bill outlining new military spending stipulates that coronavirus relief funds for the Pentagon can be merged with other applicable programs, except for “Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities”—the very program that the White House most recently used to direct money from Department of Defense accounts towards the border wall. Trump has made building the wall a key domestic priority even as Congress has repeatedly denied his full requests for construction. At times, during the coronavirus crisis, he has appeared to be looking into building a border wall as a measure to stop the spread of the disease—even though the United States has been hit far worse than Mexico. On Mar. 10, Trump tweeted “we need the Wall more than ever!” in response to concerns about the spread of COVID.

But maybe Mexico will want to pay for it after all...

Quote

 

TUCSON, Ariz. — Protesters on the Mexican side of the border blocked the Mexico-bound lanes in the twin border cities of Ambos Nogales for several hours Wednesday to express their displeasure with the Mexican government's response to the coronavirus pandemic.

The protesters demanded greater controls and screenings on southbound traffic at the U.S.-Mexico border out of concern that travelers from the U.S. could import new cases of the coronavirus into Mexico.

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:
2 hours ago, Mid said:

That needs a thread of it's own Mid.


I tend to agree, but since we already have this thread about Trump using the Power of PANIC to enable his stupid wall, it's a pretty short leap to using the Power of PANICdemic, so...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump Has Secret PANIC Powers?
 

Quote

 

...

In a chilling op-ed in The New York Times, Brennan Center legal scholars Elizabeth Goitein and Andrew Boyle suggest that Trump's statement could be referring to the secret powers that previous presidents have granted themselves in "presidential emergency action documents." As Goitein and Boyle explain:

These documents consist of draft proclamations, executive orders and proposals for legislation that can be quickly deployed to assert broad presidential authority in a range of worst-case scenarios….These include suspension of habeas corpus by the president (not by Congress, as assigned in the Constitution), detention of United States citizens who are suspected of being "subversives," warrantless searches and seizures and the imposition of martial law.

As the coronavirus pandemic worsens, it is not far-fetched to think that President Trump might seek to exercise the heretofore secret emergency powers delineated in the documents. "Even in the most dire of emergencies, the president of the United States should not be able to operate free from constitutional checks and balances," they argue. "Presidential emergency action documents have managed to escape democratic oversight for nearly 70 years. Congress should move quickly to remedy that omission and assert its authority to review these documents, before we all learn just how far this administration believes the president's powers reach."

It is way past time for Congress to rein in unconstitutional assertions of executive power by exposing and incinerating these secret presidential emergency action documents. ...

 

As noted in this thread, we have dozens of national PANICS ongoing at the moment, the oldest one declared by President Jimmy Carter.

I agree with the last sentence quoted above, but instead of showing an inclination to rein in Trump's use of his national PANIC powers, we've seen people like Kamala Harris salivating over using those same powers against gun owners. It seems the hunger for power outweighs the fear of what Trump might do with those powers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

SCOTUS says stupid wall construction can continue
 

Quote

 

The Supreme Court on Friday turned down a plea from opponents of President Donald Trump’s border wall to order a temporary stop to construction. By a vote of 5-4, the justices declined to lift a stay, entered just over a year ago, that allowed the federal government to continue to spend federal funds on construction while a legal challenge to the wall continues. The challengers had urged the Supreme Court to intervene last week, telling the justices that if the stay were not lifted, the Trump administration could finish the wall before the court even decides whether to take up the case on the merits.

The brief one-sentence order was the latest in the dispute over the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. The clash came to the court for the first time last year, after a federal district judge in California agreed with the challengers, the Sierra Club and the Southern Borders Communities Coalition, that government officials did not have the power to spend more than Congress had already allocated for border security. U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam barred the government from using $2.5 billion in funds originally earmarked for military-personnel funds to build the border wall, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit declined to stay that ruling while the government appealed. The Trump administration then went to the Supreme Court, which – by a vote of 5-4 last July — put Gilliam’s order on hold and allowed the government to use the Pentagon funds on the wall.

After the 9th Circuit upheld Gilliam’s decision last month, the challengers asked the Supreme Court to step in and lift the stay. Otherwise, they contended, the government would be able to finish the parts of the wall that are the subject of their challenge before the litigation concludes.

...

In a statement issued shortly after Friday’s order, an attorney representing the challengers emphasized that the justices’ “temporary order does not decide the case.” Dror Ladin, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, stressed that the Trump administration “has admitted that the wall can be taken down if we ultimately prevail, and we will hold them to their word and seek the removal of every mile of unlawful wall built.”

 

As noted elsewhere,

7 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

The link Hewitt provided says that there are only a few miles of new wall and almost all of the 200+ miles are replacement work on existing barriers that were built back when there was blessed bipartisan unity in Congress to fund such things.


So this makes me wonder if they're saving the pieces of old wall to put back in place if forced to remove the new pieces?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

SCOTUS says stupid wall construction can continue
 

As noted elsewhere,


So this makes me wonder if they're saving the pieces of old wall to put back in place if forced to remove the new pieces?

Has Mexico started paying for it yet?

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Has Mexico started paying for it yet?

FKT

Hmm... This thread was intended to be about the property rights issues associated with the stupid wall. Trump never seems to mention Mexicans conducting (buybacks, takings) of privately owned US property.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Focus on actual Trump property rights comments? That’d be topical, interesting. Let’s shit post from reason!

This thread has several examples of them. The most recent ones sourced from Reason were in my post of April 16, so I assume that's what you're complaining about?
 

Quote

 

President Donald Trump has an expansive view of how much unchecked power the U.S. chief executive can wield. For example, in a speech back in July 2019, he asserted, "I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president." The Article II to which Trump was referring is the section of the U.S. constitution that outlines the powers given to the president. Among other things, that article requires that the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." An ordinary language reading of that section does not prima facie suggest that it gives a president the right to whatever he or she wants to do.

More recently, during a March 12 White House press availability, Trump was asked if he was going to declare a national emergency in response to the coronavirus pandemic. "We have very strong emergency powers under the Stafford Act," responded the president. He then added, "I have the right to do a lot of things that people don't even know about."

 

Admittedly not specifically about property rights, but he does have an authoritarian view of executive power and has used the Power of PANIC to justify land grabs and funding grabs for the stupid wall so an article about his view of emergency powers seemed relevant in this thread. I guess I should have started a new one?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

The hustle has moved on to tiktok paying the us or else. For some reason Trumps arbitrary and capricious comments about corporations just don’t matter.....

Sorry to be late in providing some Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading on that subject.

Quote

"Both parts of this are incredibly disturbing: The casual assertion that Trump can unilaterally 'shut down' a media platform, and the implication that the government would somehow extort a payment as a condition on a business acquisition," commented Julian Sanchez, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who focuses on tech policy and privacy issues. "This is a laughably thin 'national security' pretext being invoked to abuse executive emergency authorities in order to expropriate a foreign company. If China was pulling this, we'd recognize it easily for what it was."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Trump administration wants floating border wall to seal off waterways along Mexico boundary

 

Quote

 

The Trump administration wants to install floating border barriers that could be used to wall off river crossings and reservoirs along the international boundary with Mexico or extend U.S. fencing deeper into the sea, according to a new market solicitation posted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The “Buoy Barrier System” described in a new federal contracting bulletin seeks information from private companies capable of installing a system that could meet U.S. Customs and Border Protection requirements. Such a barrier would need to prevent swimmers from climbing onto it, “and must include a component (such as an anti-dive mesh) that would impede incursions and/or breaching via underwater diving while minimizing debris buildup,” the solicitation states.

...

Such floating barriers or river-based deterrents could allow the U.S. government to block migrants from fording waters along stretches of the Rio Grande where it is difficult or impossible to build steel barriers on the shoreline. It also could provide the U.S. government a way to install some form of a barrier in areas of Texas where private owners have resisted efforts at eminent domain seizures or proposals to build structures and roadways on their properties.

John Mennell, a CBP spokesman, said the purpose of the solicitation is to gather information from private industry about the feasibility of the project. ...

 

That's one way around pesky property owners.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

DC Circuit Rules House of Representatives has Standing to Challenge Trump's Diversion of Funds to Build his Stupid Wall
 

Quote

 

It may not get much media coverage, due to the furor over the Supreme Court nomination. But yesterday the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued an important decision holding that the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives has standing to challenge Donald Trump's attempted diversion of military and other funds to build his border wall.

The ruling was written by senior Judge David Sentelle, a prominent conservative judge appointed by Ronald Reagan. Judge Sentelle is a highly distinguished jurist, and generally thought of as one of the two or three most conservative members of the DC Circuit. It's hard to dismiss Sentelle as either a jurisprudential lightweight, or a liberal with an axe to grind against the right.

Perhaps more importantly, Judge Sentelle's originalist and structural analysis of the issue at stake is very compelling, and might well carry the day in the Supreme Court, should they take up the case. As Sentelle emphasizes, the key reason why the House suffered a sufficient "injury" to qualify for standing is that the original meaning of the Constitution embodies the idea that it is essential that the power of the purse remain under the control of Congress, not the executive branch

...

Yesterday's ruling is not a decision on the merits. It does not resolve the issue of whether Trump administration had the authority to divert the funds. The trial court and—eventually—the DC Circuit have yet to consider that issue. But the administration's position on the merits is weak for a variety of reasons discussed in lower court rulings on the subject (see here, here, and here). I discussed some additional flaws in the administration's position here.

 

OK so maybe I edited the title of the article just a bit.

The issue of a President's inability to grab the power of the purse from Congress goes well beyond the stupid wall, so this is a good decision for reasons that haven't even been dreamed up yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/4/2020 at 6:29 AM, Quotidian Tom said:

Ninth Circuit Rules Against Trump's Diversion of Military Construction Funds to Build his Stupid Wall

Quote

Yesterday, in Sierra Club v. Trump, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that President Trump's effort to divert military construction funds is illegal. This is the first appellate decision addressing the issue of whether Trump could use a national PANIC declaration to divert funds to the border wall by using 10 USC Section 2808, which, says that "In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national PANIC in accordance with the National PANICs Act... that requires use of the armed forces," the Department of Defense will have the power  to divert military construction funds "undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces." A previous Ninth Circuit decision ruled it is illegal for Trump to divert funds by using Section 8005 of the the 2019 Department of Defense Appropriations Act.

...

The key point here is that, far from being a "military installation" or even one "necessary" to support the use of the armed forces, the purpose of the border wall is in fact to aid in civilian law enforcement (in this case with respect to drug and immigration laws).

In his dissenting opinion, Judge Daniel Collins argues that Section 2808 authorizes diversion of funds for pretty much any activity done within an area placed under military jurisdiction. He emphasizes that "military construction" under Section 2808 is understood to mean construction "with respect to a military installation," under 10 USC Section 2801(a). "Military installation," in turn, is defined as "a base, camp, post, station, yard,
center, or other activity under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of a military
department" (emphasis added by Collins). The Trump administration and Collins argue that "other activity" means any activity the Department of Defense might want to engage in that could, in its view, help address the "national emergency" declared by the President.

As Judge Thomas points out, this theory has the absurd consequence that it "would grant [the Department of Defense] essentially boundless authority to reallocate military construction funds to build anything they want, anywhere they want, provided they first obtain jurisdiction over the land where the construction will occur."

...

I think those are more "intended consequences" than "absurd consequences." Both, I guess.

Sorry as always for posting more Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The above article links to this one.
 

Quote

 

...

“There will not be another foot of wall constructed in my administration,” the former vice president said in an interview during the virtual annual conference of the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.  

“I’m gonna make sure that we have border protection, but it’s going to be based on making sure that we use high-tech capacity to deal with it and at the ports of entry — that's where all the bad stuff is at,” Biden added.

NPR’s Lulu Garcia-Navarro asked the candidate what he would do about the “land confiscations,” in which the federal government seizes land to build border protection, to which Biden responded, “End it.”

“End. Stop. Done. Over. Not going to do it. Withdraw the lawsuits. We’re out. We’re not going to confiscate the land,” he said.

...

 

I think he meant to say "we're not going to buyback the land" but the meaning is more or less the same so close enough.

Quote

As of February, the U.S. had about 650 miles of barrier along the southern border, leaving 1,300 miles without a barrier, The Washington Post reported. In May, the administration reported building 194 miles of wall, but only 16 of those miles did not replace previous fencing.

The biggest, most beautiful 16 miles ever, I'm sure. Glad to see that despite Trump's determined efforts not much of the stupid wall is really being built.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
On 7/3/2019 at 5:39 AM, Quotidian Tom said:

Kamala Harris Can't Wait To Follow Trump's Lead

They want to attack different property rights, but

 

8 hours ago, Olsonist said:
10 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

Still, the fact that she shares Trump's view of executive power is the most disturbing thing about her to me.

Tom, I have to congratulate you for the consistent criticism of your boy Shitstain's use of executive power. Now I'm heartened to see that as the Fakebertarian you are, that you are already criticizing a Vice President-elect, two months before she's even sworn in, for what you say is her view of executive power.


Well, no, it's what she says is her view of executive power. Instead of denouncing Trump's use of "emergency" powers, she can't wait to follow suit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Tom say that Harris' view on executive power as a VP-elect is as bad as his boy Shitstain's four years of misusing executive power.


I've been saying that ever since she said it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Biden order to halt border wall project would save U.S. $2.6 billion, Pentagon estimates show

Quote

 

...

The Trump administration obtained about $15 billion for the barrier project, enough to complete 738 miles of new fencing, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Just about one-third of the $15 billion was provided by Congress through the standard appropriations process; Trump took the rest from Department of Defense counternarcotics programs and military construction accounts.

...

Of the $1.6 billion remaining in Department of Homeland Security money for the project — just one of the funding sources — the government would be able to save $1.1 billion by completing these ancillary features, estimates show, compared with $1.46 billion by freezing the project entirely. The Biden administration has not said whether it would consider completing those elements of the project, or bring everything to a screeching halt.

The president-elect’s agenda calls for an immediate end to the national PANIC declaration that allowed Trump to “siphon federal dollars” from defense budgets, according to the transition team’s website.

...

CBP officials say crews are on pace to finish 450 miles of new fencing by the end of the year. Much of that has been built across national forests, wildlife preserves and other public lands in western states where the government already controls the property. Progress has been much slower along the banks of the Rio Grande in Texas, where nearly all the land is in private hands and landowners have battled Trump administration efforts to buyback it through eminent domain.

A Biden decision to halt construction would deal the biggest blow to CBP’s efforts in South Texas, the busiest span for illegal crossings, which border officials identified as their top priority for new barriers. Crews are projected to complete about 30 miles of new barriers along the river levees in South Texas, far short of the agency’s goals.

...

 

Assuming Biden calls off the national PANIC and thereby denies funding for the stupid wall project, I guess the efforts to buyback private property along the border will go away for lack of funding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2019 at 6:29 AM, Quotidian Tom said:

Rand Paul and Ron Wyden Want To Limit The POWER OF PANIC
 

Quote

 

The United States is currently in a state of emergency. Thirty-two of them, actually.

The two most recent ones have received most of the attention. President Donald Trump declared one earlier this year in order to justify building a wall at the southern border, and he declared the other to block Huawei, a Chinese telecom company, from doing business in the United States. But the longest-running national emergency dates back to 1979, declared by President Jimmy Carter in response to the Iranian hostage crisis. The hostages were released in 1981, but the "national emergency" continues.

These days, the National Emergency Act of 1976 mostly serves as a way to bulk up executive power in order to accomplish such goals as banning trade with Sudan—a national emergency declared under President Bill Clinton in 1997 that's still ongoing—or as a way to get around Congress when it won't approve billions of dollars in spending. It's a convenient tool for ticked off executives, in other words, not the last resort for addressing acute national crises.

 

I expect the effort to fail because no matter how bad TeamD says they think Trump is (or how bad TeamR said they thought Obama was), both teams want to be sure their guy has these powers and they want it bad enough to make sure the worst President they've ever seen retains them. 

Another (probably futile) effort to rein in the Power of PANIC
 

Quote

 

Today Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.) unveiled the National Emergencies Reform Act, a bill to rein in presidential statutory control over emergency powers.

Under current law, the executive office can invoke a national emergency to enact a policy that lawmakers might otherwise reject. Such a declaration can go on without an end in sight: The National Emergencies Act (NEA) currently holds that an "emergency" is only over when the president says it is, or when Congress passes a veto-proof resolution.

Of the 69 national emergencies declared since the NEA's inception in 1976, 35 are still ongoing. Seven originated with President Donald Trump, 10 with President Barack Obama, 11 with President George W. Bush, and six with President Bill Clinton. The remaining one dates back to the reign of Jimmy Carter.

Amash's legislation would automatically sunset an emergency declaration after 60 days unless a simple majority of Congress votes to keep it alive. If Congress is unable to meet during that timeframe, it would have 48 hours to approve its continuation once it reconvenes.

...

 

Seems reasonable to me. If it's a real PANIC situation, then the President should be able to convince Congress of that fact within a couple of months easilly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Trump will have to deal with the Sierra Club twice in his second term.

Quote

In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear oral argument in Trump v. Sierra Club, a dispute over the funding for portions of President Donald Trump’s border wall. That case involves the administration’s transfer of funds between Department of Defense appropriations accounts under Section 8005 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. In November, the administration filed a separate cert petition, also called Trump v. Sierra Club, on a slightly different border-wall issue. The new petition concerns whether a president’s declaration of a national emergency authorizes the secretary of defense to “undertake military construction projects … not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces” under 10 U.S.C. § 2808. In both cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled against the administration.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
On 6/13/2019 at 6:29 AM, Pedagogical Tom said:

Rand Paul and Ron Wyden Want To Limit The POWER OF PANIC
 

I expect the effort to fail because no matter how bad TeamD says they think Trump is (or how bad TeamR said they thought Obama was), both teams want to be sure their guy has these powers and they want it bad enough to make sure the worst President they've ever seen retains them.

The dynamic duo is at it again.

Rand Paul, Ron Wyden Want To End Endless National Emergencies
 

Quote

 

Have you heard about the newest national emergency?

No, not the COVID-19 pandemic. The most recent national emergency was declared just two weeks ago—when President Joe Biden granted himself emergency powers to freeze the property and assets of individuals and businesses connected to Myanmar's military, following an attempted coup in the southeast Asian country.

It didn't make national news. But why would it? It's just one of 34 currently active national emergencies—each coming with its own special powers that the president can use until he decides to stop. The longest-running was invoked by President Jimmy Carter in response to the Iran hostage crisis (which ended in 1981, though the "emergency" never did). Other emergencies authorized by Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump are still humming along too, many with no obvious end in sight.

Congress can respond to presidential emergency declarations by disapproving of them after the fact, which it occasionally does. For example, Trump's declaration of a national emergency along America's southern border as a way to redirect funds to the building of a border wall was blocked by Congress in 2019.

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Meet the new boss...

After Promising To Stop Land Buybacks, the Biden Administration Just Boughtback This Family's Property for a Border Wall
 

Quote

 

A federal judge confirmed yesterday that a Texas family will have their land immediately boughtback by eminent domain for a U.S.-Mexico border wall—the very type of confiscation that President Joe Biden expressly promised he would put a stop to.

"We are utterly devastated," said Baudilia Cavazos, whose family owns land in Hidalgo County, Texas. "We thought President Joe Biden would protect us. Now we've lost our land. We don't even know what comes next."

...

The Biden administration could well have stopped yesterday's ruling, handed down by Alvarez in McAllen, Texas. On his first day in office, Biden issued a proclamation pausing border wall construction for 60 days to determine if any land needed to be boughtback. That 60 days came and went without a decision.

Yet he was insistent the decision was already made on the campaign trail. "There will not be another foot of wall constructed in my administration," he told NPR's Lulu Garcia-Navarro in August of last year. And the land buybacks? "End, end, end, stop, done, over. Not gonna do it. Withdraw the lawsuits. We're out."

He did not, in fact, withdraw the lawsuits. "Yesterday, we witnessed a betrayal of the Biden Administration's commitment to end construction of the border wall," said Ricky Garza, an attorney for the Texas Civil Rights Project, in a statement. "In federal court, the President's pause on border wall construction is meaningless without immediate action from the DOJ to dismiss these cases."

 

The Biden administration has dropped some of the land buyback cases

So that's nice, unless you're the Cavasos family.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

This article suggests that failing to build at least some of the stupid wall might be impeachable.
 

Quote

 

...

Senate Republicans have called on the Government Accountability Office to assess whether the Biden administration violated the Impoundment Control Act - a 1974 law at the heart of the first impeachment case against Trump, that limits a president's power to withhold funds.

While Democrats and Republicans agree Biden can redirect billions Trump diverted from the Pentagon to fund the project, Republicans argue that unspent wall funds approved by Congress can only be used for their original purpose.

A spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget said Biden's actions were consistent with appropriations law.

...

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Governor Abbott's idiotic effort to pick up where Trump left off
 

Quote

 

...

Despite his plan's dubious legal, moral, and financial grounds, he's pushing forward in the name of securing the border.

Abbott has so far provided little information about how he will finance the project, which will undoubtedly carry a hefty price tag. In Texas, one section of Trump's border wall came out to be $27 million a mile. Abbott intends to provide $250 million in state revenues as a "down payment." Those funds will come from a disaster account, a transfer made possible because he issued a PANIC declaration in order to take a number of executive actions against migration. Abbott also expects that crowdfunding will help supplement state funds. So far, that effort has collected roughly $450,000.

David Donatti, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas who specializes in border issues, has concerns about Abbott's financial approach.

"He has declared a disaster, and by that authority, he's moving $250 million into an account that allows him to" build a border wall, says Donatti. "For a state like Texas," $250 million "is a lot of money…that could be used for hurricane recovery, toward recovery from something like the freeze that we experienced." Donatti calls it "an absurd abuse of power if nothing else," even though the result of that abuse would provide "an ineffective solution to people coming to the United States."

According to the governor, construction would also hinge on voluntary land concessions from borderlands residents. In Texas, most land along the border with Mexico is privately owned. That gives Abbott two options: either entice landowners to donate their property or buyback it from the unwilling. To build his wall, Trump chose to initiate land grabs in the borderlands through eminent domain, which is a legal doctrine that allows the government to buyback private property for public use. Affected landowners nominally must receive just compensation, though practically the process is rife with abuse.

Abbott has not yet sought the approval of Texas lawmakers to begin eminent domain proceedings, according to Donatti and Ilya Somin, an eminent domain expert who teaches law at George Mason University. "[Abbott] would need to get the Texas state legislature to pass a law authorizing the use of eminent domain and appropriating money for it," says Somin. "Until that happens, he couldn't even start trying to condemn the property. And so far, he hasn't even indicated that he wants to try to use eminent domain." Donatti says "that doesn't mean he won't try," in which case he's bound to enter a quagmire. "I do think the governor will confront the reality that trying to take private property from Texans is a bad political idea."

That means Abbott may be left with a piecemeal wall, built on a donated parcel here and a donated parcel there. "It may well be that this is more an exercise in public relations than an exercise in actually building an extensive wall," explains Somin. "If he makes noises about building a wall, and builds a little bit of something somewhere, then that may be good enough to get him the favorable boost of publicity in right-wing circles that he wants."

Even if he does invoke eminent domain authority, Abbott will be unable to build a wall at the border itself. A treaty governing the boundary between Texas and Mexico dictates that no fortification can disrupt the Rio Grande border or the flood plains along its shores. Donatti explains that the Trump administration had to build "a mile or more inland" to avoid this. "So effectively actually creating American territory south of the border wall." It's a "catch-22—either [Abbott] risks violating an international treaty, which is just a non-starter, or he has to build substantially inland, thereby ceding Texas to an area south of the border wall," Donatti says. Texas communities extend all the way to the border, making this an inevitable thorn in Abbott's side.

...

 

Well, he's got enough money for almost 10 miles after declaring a PANIC to grab disaster relief money. So that's a start.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 5 weeks later...

  

30 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

BTW, I thought your boy was going to build a wall on the southern border, a big beautiful wall, Mexico was going to pay for it, ....


Not to worry. At least some of the land buybacks for the big, stupid wall are moving ahead, as the Cavasos family can attest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...