Nancy Pelosi: Trump ‘Has Decided to be in Defiance of the Constitution'

[jimnyc]

Interesting take that some of the kooky left have on this, with the law and precedent on Trump's side.

---

Nancy Pelosi: Trump ‘Has Decided to be in Defiance of the Constitution'

(CNSNews.com) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) said at a press conference in New York City on Wednesday that President Donald Trump is “in defiance of the Constitution” with his move to declare a national emergency in order to fund construction of a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Pelosi indicated that the House will vote on March 26 to try to override Trump’s veto of the resolution that Congress passed last week disapproving of the president’s national emergency declaration. Pelosi conceded that the House probably did not have the votes to override Trump’s veto but that the vote would demonstrate where Congress stands on the issue as it heads into the courts.

“We established March 26th as the date we would vote to override the president’s veto,” Pelosi said.

Rest - https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...e-constitution


The Supreme Court will likely approve Trump's wall

A constant refrain we now hear is that President Trump’s order to finance the wall is “unconstitutional” and “violates the separation of powers.” That is not the case. Richard H. Pildes, a professor of constitutional law at New York University, wrote on March 14 the clarifying article, “How the Supreme Court Weakened Congress on Emergency Declarations.”

Here are his salient points:

Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to build the wall derives from that singular authority in the National Emergencies Act (NEA), passed by Congress in l976. Since then, presidents have resorted to the NEA 58 times. In each case, the president — Democrat and Republican — spent funds not appropriated by Congress and the Supreme Court did not overturn the action. Pildes notes, “Courts are uncomfortable when asked to second-guess presidential judgments in areas such as national security, foreign affairs and emergencies.” The courts are not experts on these matters.

Pildes cites the key Supreme Court decision, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, which declared, he says, that “legislative vetoes are unconstitutional”— including vetoes of actions under the National Emergencies Act, the basis on which Trump acted.

Pildes adds, “Congress cannot act through a legislative veto but can act only by passing a new law.” But the horse was out of the barn for Trump: he acted on the authority of the NEA. Chadha, says Pildes, “must give Trump the chance to veto Congress’s disapproval” of his unilateral action. He issued a veto, for which, Pildes further explains, a “two-thirds majority in each chamber [is required] to override....” This override is not likely to happen: in the Senate, 59 members voted against Trump’s declaration of a national emergency; a two-thirds supermajority would require 67 votes. In the House, 242 voted against Trump’s action, a two-thirds supermajority requiring 290 votes.

Rest - https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...ve-trumps-wall

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Interesting take that some of the kooky left have on this, with the law and precedent on Trump's side.

---

Nancy Pelosi: Trump ‘Has Decided to be in Defiance of the Constitution'

(CNSNews.com) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) said at a press conference in New York City on Wednesday that President Donald Trump is “in defiance of the Constitution” with his move to declare a national emergency in order to fund construction of a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Pelosi indicated that the House will vote on March 26 to try to override Trump’s veto of the resolution that Congress passed last week disapproving of the president’s national emergency declaration. Pelosi conceded that the House probably did not have the votes to override Trump’s veto but that the vote would demonstrate where Congress stands on the issue as it heads into the courts.

“We established March 26th as the date we would vote to override the president’s veto,” Pelosi said.

Rest - https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...e-constitution


The Supreme Court will likely approve Trump's wall

A constant refrain we now hear is that President Trump’s order to finance the wall is “unconstitutional” and “violates the separation of powers.” That is not the case. Richard H. Pildes, a professor of constitutional law at New York University, wrote on March 14 the clarifying article, “How the Supreme Court Weakened Congress on Emergency Declarations.”

Here are his salient points:

Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to build the wall derives from that singular authority in the National Emergencies Act (NEA), passed by Congress in l976. Since then, presidents have resorted to the NEA 58 times. In each case, the president — Democrat and Republican — spent funds not appropriated by Congress and the Supreme Court did not overturn the action. Pildes notes, “Courts are uncomfortable when asked to second-guess presidential judgments in areas such as national security, foreign affairs and emergencies.” The courts are not experts on these matters.

Pildes cites the key Supreme Court decision, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, which declared, he says, that “legislative vetoes are unconstitutional”— including vetoes of actions under the National Emergencies Act, the basis on which Trump acted.

Pildes adds, “Congress cannot act through a legislative veto but can act only by passing a new law.” But the horse was out of the barn for Trump: he acted on the authority of the NEA. Chadha, says Pildes, “must give Trump the chance to veto Congress’s disapproval” of his unilateral action. He issued a veto, for which, Pildes further explains, a “two-thirds majority in each chamber [is required] to override....” This override is not likely to happen: in the Senate, 59 members voted against Trump’s declaration of a national emergency; a two-thirds supermajority would require 67 votes. In the House, 242 voted against Trump’s action, a two-thirds supermajority requiring 290 votes.

Rest - https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...ve-trumps-wall

It would seem that the founders, the framers of our Constitution foresaw the type of totally worthless fuuuuuuking vermin as is Pelosi and her democratic ilk attempting to undermine this nation in the future and put in place certain safeguards against that type of useless, lying fukkkkkkkking maggots.
Most of the damn lousy self-serving, powermad, traitorous, dem politicians should be in jail , imho..-Tyr

[Gunny]

Interesting take that some of the kooky left have on this, with the law and precedent on Trump's side.

---

Nancy Pelosi: Trump ‘Has Decided to be in Defiance of the Constitution'

(CNSNews.com) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) said at a press conference in New York City on Wednesday that President Donald Trump is “in defiance of the Constitution” with his move to declare a national emergency in order to fund construction of a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Pelosi indicated that the House will vote on March 26 to try to override Trump’s veto of the resolution that Congress passed last week disapproving of the president’s national emergency declaration. Pelosi conceded that the House probably did not have the votes to override Trump’s veto but that the vote would demonstrate where Congress stands on the issue as it heads into the courts.

“We established March 26th as the date we would vote to override the president’s veto,” Pelosi said.

Rest - https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...e-constitution


The Supreme Court will likely approve Trump's wall

A constant refrain we now hear is that President Trump’s order to finance the wall is “unconstitutional” and “violates the separation of powers.” That is not the case. Richard H. Pildes, a professor of constitutional law at New York University, wrote on March 14 the clarifying article, “How the Supreme Court Weakened Congress on Emergency Declarations.”

Here are his salient points:

Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to build the wall derives from that singular authority in the National Emergencies Act (NEA), passed by Congress in l976. Since then, presidents have resorted to the NEA 58 times. In each case, the president — Democrat and Republican — spent funds not appropriated by Congress and the Supreme Court did not overturn the action. Pildes notes, “Courts are uncomfortable when asked to second-guess presidential judgments in areas such as national security, foreign affairs and emergencies.” The courts are not experts on these matters.

Pildes cites the key Supreme Court decision, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, which declared, he says, that “legislative vetoes are unconstitutional”— including vetoes of actions under the National Emergencies Act, the basis on which Trump acted.

Pildes adds, “Congress cannot act through a legislative veto but can act only by passing a new law.” But the horse was out of the barn for Trump: he acted on the authority of the NEA. Chadha, says Pildes, “must give Trump the chance to veto Congress’s disapproval” of his unilateral action. He issued a veto, for which, Pildes further explains, a “two-thirds majority in each chamber [is required] to override....” This override is not likely to happen: in the Senate, 59 members voted against Trump’s declaration of a national emergency; a two-thirds supermajority would require 67 votes. In the House, 242 voted against Trump’s action, a two-thirds supermajority requiring 290 votes.

Rest - https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...ve-trumps-wall

"Highly unlikely". I've about given up thinking the actual law matters to any of them.

DACA is unconstitutional, and a DIRECT violation of existing law

Obamacare is unconstitutional. Yet John Roberts stated that it is; which, set the legal precedent of a Right to government-mandated medical care.

It was also a John Roberts decision that the President can be tied up in court by countless, leftwingnut lawsuits rather than arguably the most powerful man on the planet get a straight shot the SC since his position is equivalent to the other 2 branches of government, not some cheesedick lower court's.

So don't call me surprised if he gets shot down.

[icansayit]

I'd first....like to see her Constitutional Law Degree. And second....Dare her to READ the Constitution.....FOR...THE FIRST TIME!