Trump isn't hard enough, that's just the truth. He's trying too hard to compromise

[jimnyc]

I'm gonna try to post thoughts of judges and others I can find, thoughts defending either side.

---

Constitutional Lawyer Jonathan Turley: Trump Will Prevail, Wall Will Get Built

President Donald Trump knew his emergency declaration on the southern border would be challenged in court, and already 16 states, a number of leftwing organizations, and even landowners on the border are following suit. But one constitutional lawyer believes Trump will get his wall built.

This assessment came in an interview on taxpayer-funded and leftist National Public Radio’s (NPR) Weekend Edition Sunday, where the host questioned Jonathan Turley, a liberal law professor at George Washington University, about the legal challenges Trump will face.

“We just heard about one lawsuit being brought against the president by landowners and other stakeholders along the southern border. Do they have a case?” Lulu Garcia-Navarro asked Turley.

“Well, they have a case, but I’m afraid I don’t believe they have a particularly strong case,” Turley responded.

Turley explained that the National Emergencies Act enacted in 1976 “gave a president virtually unfettered authority.”

“In fact, it really doesn’t even define what an emergency is,” Turley said.

Turley also explained that Congress could look at two things if they want to stop the president: the act itself or the source of funding Trump is using.

But, Turley said, even challenging the funding might be “a long row to hoe because [Congress] gave the president over a billion dollars and he’s now identified at least three sources of largely undedicated funds that he can use.”

“Even if you knock out half of those, he’s still over $5 billion,” Turley said.

Garia-Navarro pressed Turley, saying — as many leftist media are highlighting — that Trump said he didn’t have to go with this plan but wanted to speed up the process and get the wall built.

Turley pointed out that many have lobbied Congress to change the act, but that has not happened.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ill-get-built/

[STTAB]

It's almost as if you guys want a dictator. We have checks and balances for a reason. The majority of us don't want a president that can do whatever he wants.

If I could find even a SINGLE example of you bitching when Obama did whatever the fuck he wanted I could at least take you seriously and engage you in a debate on whether THIS is simply Trump doing what Congress has empowered the POTUS to do, but I can not, so STFU you worthless little dipshit. I can't even believe that that cock sucker Jimmy banned Gabby but let's the likes you stick around.

Sorry Jimmy, we're cool, but you suck cock.

[jimnyc]

If I could find even a SINGLE example of you bitching when Obama did whatever the fuck he wanted I could at least take you seriously and engage you in a debate on whether THIS is simply Trump doing what Congress has empowered the POTUS to do, but I can not, so STFU you worthless little dipshit. I can't even believe that that cock sucker Jimmy banned Gabby but let's the likes you stick around.

Sorry Jimmy, we're cool, but you suck cock.

Won't happen. Pete had/has little to not interest about anything within his own party, anything of wrongdoing or anything like that. That stuff never mattered to him in the slightest bit. Whether that be literally law breaking type stuff, or horrible agenda and spending and anything else that is bitched about now that Trump is in office.

Ummmm, I think we're cool too. But uh.... you couldn't find a better way to mess with my head?

I don't care if folks get offended in the way I say it or not - I'm NO WAY in the world any type of fag or queer or any type of the cuckoos that are suddenly accepted today.

[STTAB]

Won't happen. Pete had/has little to not interest about anything within his own party, anything of wrongdoing or anything like that. That stuff never mattered to him in the slightest bit. Whether that be literally law breaking type stuff, or horrible agenda and spending and anything else that is bitched about now that Trump is in office.

Ummmm, I think we're cool too. But uh.... you couldn't find a better way to mess with my head?

I don't care if folks get offended in the way I say it or not - I'm NO WAY in the world any type of fag or queer or any type of the cuckoos that are suddenly accepted today.

LOL You banned Gabby = cock sucker. I know she was a PITA liberal dumb shit, but she was fun to look at and could at least joke around, this dipshit Pete is well a dipshit

Speaking of getting shit canned, the cowards over at USMB banned another poster who they thought mmight be me. I don't know why they are so frightened of little old me.

Also, as you well know, I was kidding bout the cock sucker thing, but speaking of cock suckers, is Gunny alright? Havent seen him post in some time, hopefully I just have missed it.

[jimnyc]

LOL You banned Gabby = cock sucker. I know she was a PITA liberal dumb shit, but she was fun to look at and could at least joke around, this dipshit Pete is well a dipshit

Speaking of getting shit canned, the cowards over at USMB banned another poster who they thought mmight be me. I don't know why they are so frightened of little old me.

Also, as you well know, I was kidding bout the cock sucker thing, but speaking of cock suckers, is Gunny alright? Havent seen him post in some time, hopefully I just have missed it.

Because it's ran by liberals from what I understand? I don't even really peek in over there anymore.

As for Gabby, she was given like 2,324 chances and continued on. Even now, no remorse. But if, if she showed a little remorse, sent me an email with an apology, she's welcome back. But you and I both know she'll never do so.

Gunny has popped in a few times in the past month and shot out a message. I think he's quite busy on the home and family level. Hopefully he'll have more time and come back to post with us before long!!

[The Sage of Main Street]

It's almost as if you guys want a dictator. We have checks and balances for a reason. The majority of us don't want a president who can do whatever he wants.

"Our" system of government is the problem. It has been guilty of the late, slow, and defenseless development of the West, the Civil War, the Robber Baron era, the Depression, savage riots and gangs, the $20 trillion debt, and all other anti-populist tyranny. But its few beneficiaries are made so suffocatingly strong by it that they are able to create a mental block against blaming their elitist Constitution as the enemy of self-determination. So we are tricked into blaming ourselves.

[Drummond]

"Our" system of government is the problem. It has been guilty of the late, slow, and defenseless development of the West, the Civil War, the Robber Baron era, the Depression, savage riots and gangs, the $20 trillion debt, and all other anti-populist tyranny. But its few beneficiaries are made so suffocatingly strong by it that they are able to create a mental block against blaming their elitist Constitution as the enemy of self-determination. So we are tricked into blaming ourselves.

I continue to find it difficult to follow your postings with any real clarity of mind.

But, simply: what solution to all that you apparently hate, would you like to see meaningfully employed ... that wouldn't be so drastic in its deployment, that IN FACT, it'd be so disruptive as to be destructive in the extreme ?

Bear in mind the realities of human nature, should you decide to answer me. No system can ultimately thrive and do good things if it doesn't interlock with the reality of human nature.

[aboutime]

It's almost as if you guys want a dictator. We have checks and balances for a reason. The majority of us don't want a president that can do whatever he wants.

If you were smarter petey, and not so full of dumb hatred. You might recognize (if you educate yourself), how President Trump IS NOT doing whatever he wants. But then, since you and the other liberals despise the Constitution (the real version...not just the parts you like). You'd see, President Trump makes certain..Everything he does, or wants to do...Is Constitutional.

Dems, and the rest of you haters can't take Trump because all of you ONLY THINK you are smarter than everyone else....Until an Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Jalipenio, Juarez, Mexically, like you arrives...

[STTAB]

This is a perfect illlustration of liberal "logic" as one could get

Obama as President " I dont' really have the authority to create DACA, that is something Congress should do, but since they don't want to, I'll do it anyway"

Liberals "Yay Obama you the man, if Congress doesn't act, you must"

Trump as President "WHat Obama did was illegal, and so I'm cancelling DACA and challenging Congress to do it the legal way"

Same Liberals "Trump you motherfucker, you have overstepped your authority, you are a traitor to this country you orange bastard"

Idiots.

[The Sage of Main Street]

But, simply: what solution to all that you apparently hate, would you like to see meaningfully employed ... , it'd be so disruptive as to be destructive in the extreme ?

No system can ultimately thrive and do good things if it doesn't interlock with the reality of human nature.

Conformists to the status quo always justify themselves by pretending that change will bring chaos. Your view of human nature is illogically backed up by how much it has been dumbed-down, demoralized, and defeated by the present hereditary oligarchy.

In order to uplift the people, we need to allow self-determination through referendums on all important issues, taking away the present power of pre-owned politicians. Absolute rule of the majority, with no Constitutional overlord to humiliate our will.

[Drummond]

Conformists to the status quo always justify themselves by pretending that change will bring chaos. Your view of human nature is illogically backed up by how much it has been dumbed-down, demoralized, and defeated by the present hereditary oligarchy.

In order to uplift the people, we need to allow self-determination through referendums on all important issues, taking away the present power of pre-owned politicians. Absolute rule of the majority, with no Constitutional overlord to humiliate our will.

--- Really ? ---

OK, then. Let's examine this in some useful detail.

How - in purely practical, realistic terms, would you set about achieving what you say you want ?

What actual ACTIONS would be involved in bringing any of that about ?

While you're at it ... what proof do you have to offer which suggests that coherent support for all you advocate exists, in any meaningfully large numbers of people ? Could it be that you're far more alone in dreaming up your 'wish-list' than you'd like to admit ?

[The Sage of Main Street]

How - would you set about achieving what you want ?

What actual ACTIONS would be involved in bringing any of that about ?

While you're at it ... what proof do you have to offer which suggests that coherent support for all you advocate exists, in any meaningfully large numbers of people ?

If the majority don't have the guts to overthrow the hereditary elitists, they won't have the guts to stop patriots who do. As for the Chickenhawk rulers hiring people to protect them, they're so conceited that they believe everybody is naturally on their side, so it will be easy for free men to fake them out and get rid of them up close and personal.

[Drummond]

If the majority don't have the guts to overthrow the hereditary elitists, they won't have the guts to stop patriots who do. As for the Chickenhawk rulers hiring people to protect them, they're so conceited that they believe everybody is naturally on their side, so it will be easy for free men to fake them out and get rid of them up close and personal.

@The Sage of Main Street .....

Words. That's all I see here. At best, this is categorised as a tirade, one I strongly suspect to be an impotent one. I see little (if anything) of substance in your reply.

So, I'll ask you this again, in the 'hope' that - this time - you see fit to give me a proper answer.

How - in purely practical, realistic terms, would you set about achieving what you say you want ?

What actual ACTIONS would be involved in bringing any of that about ?

Would you care to answer, this time, or will you offer evasion instead ?

Maybe you'll not answer at all.

Subject to correction, of course ... I'm guessing that no response might be your wisest course. Let's see, shall we ?

[Gunny]

It's almost as if you guys want a dictator. We have checks and balances for a reason. The majority of us don't want a president that can do whatever he wants.

I'd pretty-much just as soon have a dictator before a Dem. We'd still have more freedom.

[Drummond]

@The Sage of Main Street .....

Words. That's all I see here. At best, this is categorised as a tirade, one I strongly suspect to be an impotent one. I see little (if anything) of substance in your reply.

So, I'll ask you this again, in the 'hope' that - this time - you see fit to give me a proper answer.

How - in purely practical, realistic terms, would you set about achieving what you say you want ?

What actual ACTIONS would be involved in bringing any of that about ?

Would you care to answer, this time, or will you offer evasion instead ?

Maybe you'll not answer at all.

Subject to correction, of course ... I'm guessing that no response might be your wisest course. Let's see, shall we ?

No reply, then, 'Sage'.

Well, quite.

QED.